Friday, May 25, 2007
Gone to the beach...
...and will return on Tuesday. Email and blogging will NOT be a priority! {smile}
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
High Point Road (Jamestown Bypass) public hearing
One item I inadvertently overlooked when reporting my weekly schedule was tonight's NCDOT public hearing on the design of the proposed improvements to Greensboro-High Point Road (Jamestown Bypass), TIP Project U-2412, at Ragsdale High School this evening. I attended and listened to the speakers who filled the cafeteria at the school and voiced their concerns about the project, or perhaps more accurately stated -- expressed outright opposition to it.
Most in attendance did not seem to realize or accept that the decision to widen the existing road in some places and construct new highway in other places has officially been made with a "Record of Decision" that was filed on December 30, 2006. Tonight's hearing was to gather input on where the actual design of the road itself might need to be tweaked or shifted slightly in one direction or the other to lessen impacts on residents and businesses, not on whether or not the project should be done at all. This project has been proposed since the late 1980s but has been delayed time after time due to historic properties concerns, environmental issues, and most recently, lack of funding. Funding is now in place, and the cost of the entire project is estimated at $144,127,000 for the 7.9 miles of roadway with federal funding of 80% and state funding of 20%. Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in 2009 with construction starting in 2011.
Detailed maps were available depicting the preferred alignment of the road, placement of noise barriers, and where right-of-way would have to be purchased from nearby residences and businesses. It is projected that 91 homes and 44 businesses will be impacted. Cross-section drawings (showing how many lanes, how wide, median, shoulder width, etc.) were also provided in a handout.
Most speakers questioned the need for the improvements as well as pointing out impacts to their own personal or business property, dissatisfaction with how much they would receive for their property, timing of acquisition of their property and beefs with NCDOT on other nearby projects, namely the urban loop (so-called "Painter Boulevard").
I want to highlight one point that was stressed in the handout as well as orally noted -- NCDOT's traffic noise abatement policy since that has been a constant sore point with many residents near the urban loop. All potential developers of property in this road corridor and/or persons considering purchase of a home in this area should be fully aware of the policy. Here it is as quoted directly from the handout:
In plain English, that means that any development along this roadway that occurs after December 30, 2006 will NOT be shielded with noise walls. Potential developers/owners should be fully aware of this and make informed decisions to avoid any unpleasant surprises!
Most in attendance did not seem to realize or accept that the decision to widen the existing road in some places and construct new highway in other places has officially been made with a "Record of Decision" that was filed on December 30, 2006. Tonight's hearing was to gather input on where the actual design of the road itself might need to be tweaked or shifted slightly in one direction or the other to lessen impacts on residents and businesses, not on whether or not the project should be done at all. This project has been proposed since the late 1980s but has been delayed time after time due to historic properties concerns, environmental issues, and most recently, lack of funding. Funding is now in place, and the cost of the entire project is estimated at $144,127,000 for the 7.9 miles of roadway with federal funding of 80% and state funding of 20%. Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in 2009 with construction starting in 2011.
Detailed maps were available depicting the preferred alignment of the road, placement of noise barriers, and where right-of-way would have to be purchased from nearby residences and businesses. It is projected that 91 homes and 44 businesses will be impacted. Cross-section drawings (showing how many lanes, how wide, median, shoulder width, etc.) were also provided in a handout.
Most speakers questioned the need for the improvements as well as pointing out impacts to their own personal or business property, dissatisfaction with how much they would receive for their property, timing of acquisition of their property and beefs with NCDOT on other nearby projects, namely the urban loop (so-called "Painter Boulevard").
I want to highlight one point that was stressed in the handout as well as orally noted -- NCDOT's traffic noise abatement policy since that has been a constant sore point with many residents near the urban loop. All potential developers of property in this road corridor and/or persons considering purchase of a home in this area should be fully aware of the policy. Here it is as quoted directly from the handout:
The NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement policy (effective September 2004) states that Federal and State governments are no longer responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development for which building permits are issued within the noise impact areas of the proposed highway project after the "Date of Knowledge." The Date of Knowledge for the Greensboro-High Point Road Project is the date of the Final Environmental Document which is the Record of Decision (ROD), December 30, 2006. Local governing bodies have the responsibility of insuring that developments occurring after the "Date of Knowledge" utilize noise compatible designs.
In plain English, that means that any development along this roadway that occurs after December 30, 2006 will NOT be shielded with noise walls. Potential developers/owners should be fully aware of this and make informed decisions to avoid any unpleasant surprises!
Monday, May 21, 2007
City Connections
The latest edition of City Connections contains a link to the proposed 2007-08 city budget.
Weekly schedule
My official calendar is clear after Thursday afternoon with only the council briefing session/budget work session scheduled for Tuesday morning, May 22 and a couple of meetings with constituents scattered here and there.
Oak Island, here I come!
Oak Island, here I come!
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Cruising on a Saturday morning
My husband and I took the Parks and Recreation Department up on their invitation to jump on a pontoon boat and get an "on the water" view of the BassMaster's competion on Lake Townsend Saturday morning (described to us as the equivalent of the play-off level headed towards the national championship). We could actually view two sports at the same time -- fishing by the guys on the water and golfers on the Bryan Park course (although I think one of them ended up "in the water" at one point).
We were in excellent company with The Hoggards (David is a Parks & Recreation Commission member),
Parks & Recreation Commissioner Rose Marie Ponton (chatting with one of Parks & Recreation's lake wardens),
and Mark Bush of the Greensboro Sports Commission (that's my husband Bob in the foreground).
While I have been out to the lake on a number of occasions to view the dam and the city's water pumping station there and walked on the fishing pier there, I have to admit it's the first time I've actually been out on the lake itself.
The Greensboro Police Department's Underwater Recovery Team was out on the lake serving dual purposes -- providing safety back-up for the fisherman and the ESPN reporters covering them while logging some mandated training hours to maintain their certification.
This fishing competition is serious business with fancy boats and lots of sponsorships and advertising
(even on their towing vehicles and trailers),
This fishing competition is serious business with fancy boats and lots of sponsorships and advertising
(even on their towing vehicles and trailers), and plenty of reporters and cameramen trying to keep up with them.
It was a gorgeous morning to be out on the water, and the competing fisherman had a wonderful venue to try to catch those elusive bass. Plus one of them is going to go home this afternoon a whole lot richer -- what a way to earn a living!
Isn't wonderful to have such a beautiful city asset that provides drinking water, recreational opportunities, and a venue for fishing tournaments that provide significant economic benefits!
Friday, May 18, 2007
Independent legal opinion on Willow Oaks payments
The following is an excerpt from City Manager Mitchell Johnson's "Items for Your Information" that was sent to councilmembers late this afternoon:
Response to Potential Legal Action by Owners of the Rhinoceros Times:
Several Council members received a copy of a letter to Linda Miles from the attorney representing the Rhinoceros Times (see attached). In this letter, Mr. Cohen argues that actions I took with regard to the Willow Oaks demolition contract created an “exclusive emolument.” In essence, the claim is that payment to United Maintenance Group (UMG) was without merit. While I have explained this issue many times to both Mr. Hammer and others, it seems that they remain unsatisfied with my responses.
Since Mr. Cohen has threatened that “my clients will proceed accordingly,” I am left to assume that a legal action of some type may occur. While I may find the legal proposition and statements by Mr. Cohen both irresponsible and unsustainable, I am not an attorney and I do not believe it is in the best interest of the City of Greensboro to allow this sort of claim to stand without response. Thus I felt it would be prudent to ask our Legal Department to obtain the services of an independent attorney who is considered an expert in construction litigation to review the actions of myself and staff on this matter. My expectation is that the resulting report would put an end to the debate, because either the approval of additional payment for the work accomplished was appropriate given the issues at hand or it was not. Short of some sort of lawsuit, the opinion of the consulting attorney should provide ample support for either result.
The City Legal Department selected the firm of Conner Gwyn Schenck, PLLC to review all records, documentation and decisions and to answer the fundamental question, “In your opinion as construction contract lawyers, do you believe that the claims for additional compensation by UMG were legal and enforceable contract claims at the time the settlement was made?” I have just received the report and it is attached. I believe they did a full and complete review of all the issues. While the report is comprehensive, the final result was that UMG could present a genuine and material claim to the City for failing to pay the cost of the additional work and that no absolute bar to such a claim exists. Thus the monies received could not be considered an “exclusive emolument.” If you have any questions, please contact Linda Miles at 373-2320.
Following is the lengthy (12 pages) letter from the attorney, James S. Schenck, IV, that concludes that the city acted appropriately in paying the additional money to United Maintenance Group for their work at Willow Oaks: [NOTE: For some reason, the formatting suffered when I copied the PDF file to this post so you may find some weird symbols or other errors I did not catch and correct.]
CONNER GWYN SCHENCK
May 18, 2007
Linda A. Miles, City Attorney
City of Greensboro
P.O. Box 3136
Greensboro, NC 27402
RE: United Maintenance Group, LLP
Dear Ms. Miles:
We are writing in response to your request for our opinion about a certain contract settlement reached by the City of Greensboro with United Maintenance Group, lLP on or about June 22, 2006. This settlement was in connection with a contract described as Willow Oaks Shopping Center Demolition Services, dated September 16, 2004. In this letter we refer to the City of Greensboro as the City, United Maintenance Group, LLP as UMG, and the demolition contract as the Contract. We also sometimes refer to the work done by UMG as the Project.
We understand that on June 22, 2006, the City paid $35,006.00 to UMG to settle claims by UMG for additional compensation for work on the Project. You have asked us whether, in our opinion as construction contract lawyers, we believe that the claims for additional compensation by UMG were legal and enforceable contract claims at the time the settlement was made. We believe that they were.
Scope of our review:
Our opinions are based on the following information, all of which you have supplied to us to date:
- a file kept by Butch Simmons
- a file kept by Dyan Arkin
- interviews with Mitchell Johnson, Linda Miles, Terry Wood and Butch Simmons
We believe that this information is sufficient to support the opinions expressed in this letter. Our opinions could change if additional or conflicting information were brought to our attention.
Factual overview:
Based on the information supplied to us, we believe that the following facts are material to our opinion:
The City issued Request for Quotation RFQ No. 04-578 for Willow Oaks Shopping Center Demolition Services on August 26, 2004 (referred to here as the RFQ). Attached to and incorporated into the RFQ was a two page narrative document entitled "Specifications for Demolition Services." Also attached was a drawing containing a site plan view of Willow Oaks Shopping Center. Finally, the RFQ included a form of quotation for use by the contractors who responded to the RFQ.
The RFQ sought quotations from qualified companies to provide demolition work, grading and seeding at the former Willow Oaks Shopping Center as per the attached specifications and drawing. Paragraph 1 of the specifications for demolition services described the work as follows:
This work includes, but is not limited to providing all materials, equipment, supervision, and permits required to demolish pavement, asphalt and concrete under parking areas, concrete or masonry structure foundations, footings, steps walks, slabs, remove and dispose of all debris, rough grade lots to drain, and seed and mulch. This work also includes the installation of temporary erosion control measures and tree protection measures as necessary.
Paragraph 3 of the RFQ provided in part:
Contractor shall leave finished lot graded and compacted so that it can be easily maintained and mowed. Cut and fill shall be included as a separate line item in quote if necessary to allow for good drainage with no standing water at finished lot. Contractor is responsible for providing and compacting suitable borrow material as necessary to fill excavated areas to proposed elevations. Existing retaining walls shall be left intact and protected during demolition.
Finally, paragraph 6 of the RFQ provided in part as follows:
All hardscape within City ROW shall remain, including but not limited to curbs, sidewalks, curb cuts, and driveway aprons ... All pipes, wires, and projectiles must be removed to a min. of 3'-0- below finished grade.
The drawing submitted with the RFQ shows only the surface of the site. It has contour lines and identifies the adjacent streets and rights of way. The drawing shows two large concrete building slabs on grade. It indicates that there is pavement over most of the site. The drawing also shows the location of some reinforced concrete pipe, which presumably provided drainage for the site. There is no evidence that the bidders were provided with soil borings or other subsurface investigations. There is nothing in the RFQ that clearly states what the finished elevation of the site was to be.
On September 1, 2004, the City issued a document entitled Addendum NO.1 to the RFQ. This Addendum clarified the scope and requirements of the Project. Notably, the Addendum Identified a storm water drain that was to be removed, sidewalks that were to be removed, and a block retaining wall that was to be removed. The deadline for submission and opening of proposals was extended to September 9, 2004.
It appears that Addendum No. 1 was prepared at the suggestion of purchasing officer Ron Goodwin. In an email to Dyan Arkin and Butch Shumate dated September 1, 2004, Mr. Goodwin explained that he had talked to Danny Brown of UMG, who had questions about the scope of the Project. Goodwin suggested that the City issue an addendum to the RFQ, "so that all bidders are quoting on the same thing".
The form of proposal provided to the bidders describes the work in language identical to paragraph 1 of the specifications for demolition services. The language about cut and fill and finished elevations is not typed on the proposal form. A line is provided for the price of materials, and a line is provided for the price for labor. There is no separate line item for cut and fill, nor are there unit prices for excavation, grading, cut or fill. UMG filled in the blanks on the proposal form without changing its language in any respect.
On September 10, 2004, Butch Shumate of the City wrote an email to Ron Goodwin, purchaser for the City, and Dyan Arkin, representative of the Department of Housing and Community Development, recommending that the Contract be awarded to UMG, for the bid price of $30,959.00. Mr. Shumate indicated in the email that he had discussed the bid and the scope with Danny Brown of UMG, and that Mr. Brown was willing to stand by his bid.
A bid tabulation prepared by the City was in the file provided to us. The bid tabulation reflects six bids. The three lowest bids ranged from $30,959.00 to $39,740.80. The other three bids ranged from $63,898.00 to $118,650.00. There are many possible explanations for the wide range of bids, but one possible explanation is that the bidders did not share the same understanding of the scope of the Project.
A pre-construction meeting was held on September 24, 2004. Mr. Brown attended for UMG. Ms. Arkin attended for the City. James Cox was also in attendance. There are no minutes or other evidence from this meeting suggesting that the scope of the work on the Project was discussed.
Work proceeded In October and November, and was observed from time to time by Butch Shumate and Dyan Arkin. It is undisputed that UMG encountered concrete block, stone fill and other debris that was not shown or described in the RFQ and that could not have been inferred from the RFO. To summarize, UMG discovered buried building foundations, stone fill inside the buried building foundations, buried block foundation walls, a large concrete footing to support a sign, and other large buried concrete slabs. Some of these buried slabs were extremely large. Some of the buried block foundation walls extended to a depth of over twenty feet below grade. These old foundations had been backfilled with stone and brick, all of which UMG excavated and removed. UMG did not backfill the old foundations or bring the site to the finished elevation required for future construction by the City. Instead, UMG rough graded the site enough to allow rainwater to drain off the site, and planted grass. UMG left the grade below the original grade, in some cases eight feet or more.
All of these conditions were observed by the representatives of the City. It appears that the representatives of the City instructed UMG to excavate all of the buried foundations, fill and slabs, without ever explicitly stating that UMG would receive additional compensation for the work.
UMG submitted claims for additional compensation by preparing five "invoices", as follows:
Invoice 717 dated 10/5/04 for removing buried footers and fill, In the amount of $15,379.00. This invoice is also described as "Addendum #1".
Invoice 718 dated 10/8/04 for excavation of another footing and foundation wall discovered under the pavement, in the amount of $2,831.00. This invoice Is also described as "Addendum #2".
Invoice 719 dated 10/13/04 for demolition and disposal of concrete slabs from underground tanks, in the amount of $7,891.00. This invoice is also described as "Addendum #3".
Invoice 720 dated 11/09/04 for excavation and removal of buried foundation walls and fill, in the amount of $21,987.00. This Invoice is also described as "Addendum #4."
Invoice 721 dated 11/11/04 for removal of a sign footing, in the amount of $3,793.00. This invoice is described as "Addendum #5."
These invoices apparently were revised at some point, because there are different versions of them in the file. Both versions of each document appear to relate to the same work, however. One version of the documents references conversations with Mr. Shumate about the footers and soil conditions, and some say that Mr. Shumate directed UMG to remove the unforeseen buried
foundations, fill and slabs.
On November 11, 2004, UMG submitted a final invoice for the original Contract balance and all of the addendum invoices. Ultimately, UMG requested that it be paid $82,840.00 for the work, rather than the original contract price of $30,959.00.
The file contains correspondence and notes by Dyan Arkin and Butch Shumate reflecting their efforts to analyze and respond to the request by UMG for additional compensation. The notes suggest that both Shumate and Arkin were prepared to pay some additional compensation to UMG, but not the full amount requested by UMG. Meanwhile, with the apparent concurrence of UMG, the City paid UMG 90% of the original Contract price, or $27,863.00, in early December.
Emails in the file suggest that UMG called Shumate and Arkin "almost daily" from November 11 to December 21, 2004, asking when he would be paid. The representatives of the City, however, did not believe that UMG had submitted enough information about its costs to justify payment of the full amount UMG claimed. Shumate and Arkin, however, were prepared to increase the amount of the UMG Contract by $22,475.50, mainly due to the sign footings. On December 22, 2004, Ron Goodwin sent a letter to Danny Brown of UMG requesting a meeting to discuss the claim and try to resolve it. Goodwin asked UMG to bring business records to substantiate the amounts claimed for the work. It appears that UMG cancelled this meeting after it was first scheduled. An email suggests that Goodwin met with someone In the City Attorney's office In early February. On February 11, 2005, Mr. Goodwin sent another letter to UMG, again requesting business records in support of the claim.
In late February 2005, UMG did submit additional materials to support its claim. These materials consisted of canceled checks and invoices and statements from subcontractors and suppliers.
On or about March 10, 2005, Mr. Andrew Scott of HCD sent a message to Dyan Arkin and others stating that he had reached an interim agreement with UMG to pay the additional compensation which the City staff was comfortable paying, and continue to negotiate the balance of the UMG claim. It is not clear how Mr. Scott came to be involved. By virtue of his agreement, however, the City was willing to pay was $16,875.00 for additional work, plus the ten percent of the original Contract that had been withheld in December. A joint letter was drafted and signed by Andrew Scott and Danny Brown, memorializing this agreement. The letter states, in part:
My understanding is that all parties involved agree that some additional work was field-authorized and that you have done your best to provide sufficient documentation to show what costs you incurred over and above the original scope of work ....As soon as this letter is received and acknowledged, Dyan will submit a check request for $19,970.90. Any additional payment would require supplementary documentation over and above that received to date.
On March 16,2005, the City prepared and executed a document entitled Change Order #1 to the contract, in the amount of $16,875.00. The description of the change is described as "additional work as authorized in the field between 10/5/04 and 11/19/04". The reason for the change is described as follows:
As the contractor proceeded to remove pavement, footings and foundations at the site, he encountered areas where footings were larger than he expected. In addition, work was field authorized to remove foundation and footings related to a previously removed billboard and hidden wall materials.
On March 22, 2005, the City engaged Steve Kennedy of US Infrastructure of North Carolina, Inc., a consulting engineering firm, to review the claims by UMG and provide an independent evaluation of the claims. Mr. Kennedy produced a report with his evaluation dated March 22, 2005. In his letter, Mr. Kennedy recommended that the City pay no more to UMG than had already been paid pursuant to Change Order #1. Mr. Kennedy did not dispute that UMG performed extra work. Instead, Mr. Kennedy concluded that UMG had not produced sufficient evidence of the quantity or cost of the extra work to support a claim for more compensation than the City had already paid.
UMG did not give up, however. The files indicate that Mr. Brown of UMG was still contacting representatives of the City and asking why UMG was not being paid, and that his demands were being discussed internally. Then, on April 20, 2005, Dyan Arkin sent a letter to Andy Scott recommending that the City follow the recommendation by Steve Kennedy that no more money be paid to UMG.
The letter from Dyan Arkin on April 20, 2005 took a somewhat different tack from earlier correspondence about the UMG claim. In that letter, Arkin argued that some of the work that UMG claimed as extra work was actually within the scope of the contract. Up to that point in time, the City had been willing to concede that the work was extra, but the City contended that the amount sought by UMG was excessive.
On February 2, 2006, UMG sent a letter to Ron Goodwin at the City again requesting payment of the balance of the claims. Once again, on February 7, 2006, the City responded to UMG by saying that UMG had to produce additional documentation in support of the claim before the City would consider it further.
Still, UMG persisted. UMG took the claims directly to the City Manager's Office, where the claims were reviewed and evaluated again, this time by Ben Brown and Butch Simmons. Mr. Simmons prepared a short memo with his findings and recommendations, which Mr. Brown endorsed. To paraphrase, Mr. Simmons found that the demolition specifications were somewhat vague, that UMG did not interpret them the same way the City did, that there were misunderstandings about the nature of UMG's claims and the records that needed to be kept to document the extra work, and that the absence of records affected not only the ability of UMG to prove the claims, but also the ability of the City to refute them. In the end, Mr. Simmons recommended that the City pay the claims, based on the inability of the City to refute the claims, and "in the spirit of keeping a good working relationship with the local contracting community". This recommendation was shared with Mitchell Johnson, City Manager, who agreed with it. A payment of $35,006 to UMG was then authorized and paid in June 2006.
Legal Discussion:
You have asked whether the claims for additional compensation by UMG were legal and enforceable contract claims at the time the settlement was made. We take your question to be whether UMG could have sued to recover damages for breach of contract by the City, and survived a motion for summary judgment, if the facts stated above are taken as true, and any doubts are resolved in favor of UMG.
Threshold Question: Sovereign Immunity: We acknowledge that UMG has legal and enforceable claims only if the City has waived its sovereign immunity. The North Carolina Court of Appeals has held "that sovereign immunity does not apply to breach of contract claims. Whenever a sovereign enters into a valid contract, it implicitly consents to be sued for damages on the contract in the event it breaches the contract." Houpe v. City of Statesville, 128 N.C. App. 334 at p. 343 (1998) (citing Smith v. State, 289 N.C. 303 (1976)). The City waived its sovereign immunity by entering into a contract with UMG.
Breach of contract; Verbal or Implied contract: We believe that UMG had a justiciable claim against the City for breach of contract. To prove a claim for breach of contract, UMG would have had to prove that the City modified the original scope of the Contract by requiring additional work. Second, UMG would have had to prove that the City breached the Contract by failing to pay the sums owed under the modified contract.
UMG would likely argue that under the original Contract it was only required to demolish and remove the structures visible on the surface, plus minor subsurface structures to a depth of no more than three feet. UMG contended that the demolition of the buried foundation footings, foundation walls and fill was work beyond the scope of its original contract. This contention has merit, and even some of the City officials agreed that UMG performed work outside the scope of the contract. Admittedly, the scope of work required under the Contract is not clearly stated. Under paragraph 1 of the specifications UMG is required to demolish pavement, asphalt and concrete under parking areas, concrete or masonry structure foundations, footings, steps, walks, slabs, remove and dispose of all debris, rough grade lots to drain and seed and mulch." Paragraph 6 of the specifications states, In part, that [a]1"pipes, wires, and projectiles must be removed to a minimum depth of 3'-0 below finished grade." The specifications do not state the required final grade for the completed work, however, and do not clearly identify which or how many buried structures must be removed. "Projectiles" are not defined under the contract. These ambiguous terms could be construed against the City, the drafter of the contract. The most reasonable and customary interpretation of the contract, in our opinion, was that UMG was to demolish and remove the existing surface structures as well as small subsurface artifacts ("wires, pipes and projectiles") to a depth of three feet below the final grade, which is implied to be roughly equal to the surrounding grade so as to provide effective drainage from the Project site. There is nothing in the specifications or other bid documents to inform UMG that the City would require demolition and removal of all surface and subsurface structures on the site regardless of depth or size.
In other words, we believe UMG might convince a trier of fact that the buried footings, foundations and fill were beyond the scope of the contract. If so, it follows that UMG did not have to excavate those structures or the fill material unless its contract was modified to include that work. UMG would have been able to present evidence, in the form of its Addenda 1 through 5, that an authorized agent of the City directed UMG to perform additional work outside the scope of its original contract, thereby modifying the contract.
Under North Carolina law, "[t]he provisions of a written contract may be modified or waived by a subsequent parol agreement, or by conduct which naturally and justly leads the other party to believe the provisions of the contract are modified or waived. This principle has been sustained even where the Instrument provides for any modification of the contract to be in writing." JR. Graham and Son, Inc. v. Randolph County Board of Education, 25 N.C. App. 163, 167 (1975) . In Graham, the North Carolina Court of Appeals found that the project architect on a public school construction project "instructed plaintiff to do additional work ...Plaintiff complied. This constituted an oral modification of the contract for which plaintiff was entitled to recover." Id. at 168.
In Son-Shine Grading, Inc. v. ADC Construction Company, Inc., 68 N.C. App. 417 (1984), the North Carolina Court of Appeals found that the superintendent for a general contractor on a private construction project made an oral modification to the parties' subcontract even though the contract required any changes to be in writing. Id. at 422. The Court of Appeals further held that the general contractor ratified the oral contract modification reached by Its superintendent by paying the grading subcontractor In accordance with the oral contract modification. Id. at 423.
In the present case, the City directed UMG to remove subsurface structures, some of which were more than twenty feet below the surface. The verbal directives from the City's agents could be construed as verbal modifications to the parties' contract. When the City refused to pay for the work it directed, UMG could make a claim against the City for breach of contract and sue to collect damages based upon the modified contract.
UMG could further argue that by agreeing to Change Order 1 and paying for additional excavation work the City ratified an oral contract modification made by its agents. The City would then be estopped to deny that its agents lacked authority to issue such directives or that the directives were not in fact issued. See Son-Shine Grading, 68 N.C. App. at 423.
Damages:price for work: Our perception is that the City acknowledged that UMG was asked to perform additional work under a modified contract. UMG's claims under Addenda 1 through 5 are based upon the costs it contends it incurred in complying with the City's verbal directives. The City and UMG repeatedly discussed the sufficiency of UMG's cost records. Nevertheless, the City staff refused to pay more compensation to UMG because UMG's documentation of its costs was not sufficiently detailed for the staff. Mr. Kennedy concurred, and based his recommendation to deny the claim on the lack of documentation of costs.
We think UMG could have presented enough evidence of damages to survive a directed verdict. Also, we suspect that UMG had additional evidence of damages. For instance, we do not think that the documentation UMG presented included all of its own labor or equipment.
North Carolina Courts are fairly lenient towards a plaintiff in connection with the burden of proof regarding damages once the plaintiff has shown an entitlement to some recovery. In Bolton v. T.A. Loving, 94 N.C. App. 392 (1989), the North Carolina Court of Appeals stated "[w]here the plaintiff can prove the fact of damage, but not the extent of it, the reasonable certainty rule as it is now applied In most courts does not require proof of damages with mathematical precision. It does require that the plaintiff adduce some relevant datum from which a 'just and reasonable' estimate of the amount might be drawn, and without any such datum in the evidence, the claim will necessarily be dismissed as speculative and conjectural. Beyond this, the plaintiff is probably expected to prove his damages with as much accuracy as is reasonably possible to him, but precision not attainable In the nature of the claim and circumstances is not ordinarily required." Id. at 405.
In the present ease, UMG has project records reflecting the amount of additional work it performed. It is likely that UMG could corroborate these records with eyewitness testimony. The records and likely testimony establish "some relevant datum" supporting UMG's claimed damages. These documents and testimony would be sufficient to meet its burden of proof and submit its damages claim to a jury.
Under the traditional measure of contract damages, UMG would be entitled to recover any balance remaining on its contract since upon completion of the contract work the contractor "is entitled to recover the full contract price, just as in any case where full performance creates a liquidated debt." Dobbs, Remedies at page 912. In this ease, UMG was in fact paid the full amount of the agreed upon contract price and no agreement was reached regarding the pricing of the additional work directed by the City when that work was performed. Nonetheless, UMG could argue that under common law damage principles, it was entitled to recover the actual cost of the additional work it performed. Under common law rules, "the traditional goal in awarding damages for breach of contract Is to award a sum that will put the non-breaching party in as good a position as he would have been in had the contract been performed. This gives him the benefit of his bargain." Dobbs, Remedies at p. 786. Reliance damages are an element of traditional breach of contract damages and serve to compensate the non-breaching party for the costs reasonably incurred in reliance on the contract. "A party's 'reliance interest' is defined as Its 'interest in being reimbursed for loss caused by reliance on the contract by being put in as good a position as he would have been had the contract not been made." Moseley, Construction Damages and Remedies at p. 5. Furthermore, the traditional practice in the construction industry is for owners and contractors to base the amount of a change order or contract adjustment on the actual cost of performing the changed or extra work. See Foster, Construction and Design Law at §25.3e ("The preferred method for determining damages and cost adjustments is to introduce the actual cost incurred for the additional or changed work.")
In the present case, UMG could argue that it relied upon the verbal directives from the City, which were a modification of the parties' contract. UMG incurred additional costs in reliance upon these verbal directives. In order to protect its reliance interest in the contract, UMG would be entitled to recover the actual costs It incurred in performing the work directed by the City.
Defenses and bars to the claim: In addition to analyzing whether UMG had legal and enforceable contract claims, we have analyzed the common defenses that an owner like the City might have to such claims. In our opinion, the City had no defense that would absolutely bar the claim by UMG.
Statute of limitations: One might ask whether UMG was barred from suing the City at the time of the final settlement, under the applicable statute of limitations. We think not. The applicable statute of limitations is two years from the date of the breach, which we take to be November 2004. See N.C.G.S. §1-53. The settlement occurred In June 2006, well inside the two year statute.
Licensure: Under North Carolina law, a person engaged in "general contracting" must be licensed by the North Carolina Licensing Board for General Contractors. N.C.G.S. §87-1. If a contractor is not property licensed, the project owner is not obligated to pay the contractor. Brady v. Fulghum, 309 N.C. 580 (1983). In the present case, UMG does not appear to have had a general contractors license. Nevertheless, UMG has compelling arguments that a general contractors license was not required to perform the work under the contract.
First, it does not appear that UMG was required to obtain a building permit or a grading permit. Mr. Simmons is of the opinion that no permit was required by the contract or the local codes. Furthermore, the contract did not require that the bidders be licensed general contractors. The reason is that the sort of work being done by UMG does not require permits or, as generally believed, contractor licenses.
UMG's work at the Project was demolition work. As we understand it, the work involved a type of demolition, removal of pavement and foundations, for which a building permit is not required. Such work Is generally considered to be outside the definition of "general contracting" set forth In N.C.G.S. §87-1, which applies only to "construction." "General contracting" Is defined as the "construction of any building, highway, public utilities, grading or any improvement or structure where the cost of the undertaking is thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) or more." N.C.G.S. §87-1. Demolition work is not specifically referenced in the general contracting statutes. The only part of the work by UMG that could be construed as "general contracting" is grading work, but even the grading work done by UMG might be outside the requirements of the statute. The North Carolina Supreme Court has stated "[c]onstrued in the context of the language in N.C.G.S. 87-1 and -10 ... the word 'grading' connotes an activity which is part of, or preparatory for, work property termed 'building and construction'." C.C. Walker Grading and Hauling v. SRF Management Corp., 311 N.C. at 180 (1984).
UMG was required only to remove the old pavement and slabs and excavate the buried structures and fill. Once this material was removed, UMG was to fill holes and rough grade the site enough for water to drain and grass to grow. UMG was not required to shape the site, fill and compact the site, or otherwise prepare the site for road or building construction. The demolition work did include minor grading or dress up of the Project site, but such grading work would not be considered "preparatory for building and construction" insofar as UMG's contract. The Project site was only shaped so as to fill in holes and allow rain to drain off the site. When its work was complete, UMG left the finished grade of the site many feet below the original grade, and many feet below the grade of the main road past the site. UMG hauled debris out, but hauled nothing back in to fill the resulting excavation. It was left to the general contractor who constructed the streets and houses on the Project site to use its own site grading contractors to grade and compact the site prior to performing its own construction work.
The UMG contract Specifications did describe cut, fill, borrow and erosion control activities, "as needed." The contract also required separate pricing for such grading work. The contract proposal form, however, did not require pricing for cut and fill or other grading, implying that such work was not actually required. This was consistent with the actual work at the site; UMG did not perform grading to final grades for construction.
Finally, there is nothing in the record which would allow the City to segregate the cost of this minor grading work from the overall undertaking. UMG's bid for the entire scope of work was only $30,900.00; therefore, the costs associated with the minor grading activities would certainly be below the $30,000.00 threshold for "general contracting" set forth in N.C.G.S. §87-1.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals stated in Spivey and Seff, Inc. v. Highview Farms, Inc., 110 N.C. App. 719 (1993), a case involving a contract for the construction of a golf course, that "there is no evidence as to what portion of the $1,100,000.00 contract was for the grading of the project, and to assign any value would require raw speculation. Because the record does not reflect that the grading had a cost of at least $45,000.00 [the then statutory threshold for N.C.G.S. §87-1], the trial court correctly determined that plaintiff did not violate N.C.G.S. §87-1 and was not therefore precluded from suing defendants." Id. at 539.
None of the extra work claims in Addenda 1 through 5 contain any reference to additional site grading costs. As in Spivey and Self, there is nothing in the record to show that UMG performed grading or other "general contracting" work with a value in excess of $30,000.00. Based upon these facts, UMG would not need a general contractor's license to perform the work under the contract.
Change order effect: We questioned whether UMG, by signing the change order letter, might have waived its rights to further compensation for the additional work. We believe not. The letter clearly states that UMG could continue to seek further payment for the additional work, subject to providing additional proof.
Conclusion:
To summarize, we think that UMG could present genuine and material evidence that the City agreed to a modification to the demolition contract. There is genuine and material evidence that the City agreed to pay UMG for the additional work. While the City did make a payment for the additional work, UMG never accepted that payment as full and final payment for the additional work. Instead, UMG contended that it was entitled to additional payment. In short, UMG could have sued the City for falling to pay the cost of the work, leaving UMG short on its contract. We see no absolute bar to such a claim by UMG.
We hope that this review is responsive to your request and useful to you and the City. If you have any questions or want us to pursue this inquiry further, please let us know.
Yours very truly,
Conner Gwyn Schenck, PLLC
James S. Schenck, IV
Response to Potential Legal Action by Owners of the Rhinoceros Times:
Several Council members received a copy of a letter to Linda Miles from the attorney representing the Rhinoceros Times (see attached). In this letter, Mr. Cohen argues that actions I took with regard to the Willow Oaks demolition contract created an “exclusive emolument.” In essence, the claim is that payment to United Maintenance Group (UMG) was without merit. While I have explained this issue many times to both Mr. Hammer and others, it seems that they remain unsatisfied with my responses.
Since Mr. Cohen has threatened that “my clients will proceed accordingly,” I am left to assume that a legal action of some type may occur. While I may find the legal proposition and statements by Mr. Cohen both irresponsible and unsustainable, I am not an attorney and I do not believe it is in the best interest of the City of Greensboro to allow this sort of claim to stand without response. Thus I felt it would be prudent to ask our Legal Department to obtain the services of an independent attorney who is considered an expert in construction litigation to review the actions of myself and staff on this matter. My expectation is that the resulting report would put an end to the debate, because either the approval of additional payment for the work accomplished was appropriate given the issues at hand or it was not. Short of some sort of lawsuit, the opinion of the consulting attorney should provide ample support for either result.
The City Legal Department selected the firm of Conner Gwyn Schenck, PLLC to review all records, documentation and decisions and to answer the fundamental question, “In your opinion as construction contract lawyers, do you believe that the claims for additional compensation by UMG were legal and enforceable contract claims at the time the settlement was made?” I have just received the report and it is attached. I believe they did a full and complete review of all the issues. While the report is comprehensive, the final result was that UMG could present a genuine and material claim to the City for failing to pay the cost of the additional work and that no absolute bar to such a claim exists. Thus the monies received could not be considered an “exclusive emolument.” If you have any questions, please contact Linda Miles at 373-2320.
Following is the lengthy (12 pages) letter from the attorney, James S. Schenck, IV, that concludes that the city acted appropriately in paying the additional money to United Maintenance Group for their work at Willow Oaks: [NOTE: For some reason, the formatting suffered when I copied the PDF file to this post so you may find some weird symbols or other errors I did not catch and correct.]
CONNER GWYN SCHENCK
May 18, 2007
Linda A. Miles, City Attorney
City of Greensboro
P.O. Box 3136
Greensboro, NC 27402
RE: United Maintenance Group, LLP
Dear Ms. Miles:
We are writing in response to your request for our opinion about a certain contract settlement reached by the City of Greensboro with United Maintenance Group, lLP on or about June 22, 2006. This settlement was in connection with a contract described as Willow Oaks Shopping Center Demolition Services, dated September 16, 2004. In this letter we refer to the City of Greensboro as the City, United Maintenance Group, LLP as UMG, and the demolition contract as the Contract. We also sometimes refer to the work done by UMG as the Project.
We understand that on June 22, 2006, the City paid $35,006.00 to UMG to settle claims by UMG for additional compensation for work on the Project. You have asked us whether, in our opinion as construction contract lawyers, we believe that the claims for additional compensation by UMG were legal and enforceable contract claims at the time the settlement was made. We believe that they were.
Scope of our review:
Our opinions are based on the following information, all of which you have supplied to us to date:
- a file kept by Butch Simmons
- a file kept by Dyan Arkin
- interviews with Mitchell Johnson, Linda Miles, Terry Wood and Butch Simmons
We believe that this information is sufficient to support the opinions expressed in this letter. Our opinions could change if additional or conflicting information were brought to our attention.
Factual overview:
Based on the information supplied to us, we believe that the following facts are material to our opinion:
The City issued Request for Quotation RFQ No. 04-578 for Willow Oaks Shopping Center Demolition Services on August 26, 2004 (referred to here as the RFQ). Attached to and incorporated into the RFQ was a two page narrative document entitled "Specifications for Demolition Services." Also attached was a drawing containing a site plan view of Willow Oaks Shopping Center. Finally, the RFQ included a form of quotation for use by the contractors who responded to the RFQ.
The RFQ sought quotations from qualified companies to provide demolition work, grading and seeding at the former Willow Oaks Shopping Center as per the attached specifications and drawing. Paragraph 1 of the specifications for demolition services described the work as follows:
This work includes, but is not limited to providing all materials, equipment, supervision, and permits required to demolish pavement, asphalt and concrete under parking areas, concrete or masonry structure foundations, footings, steps walks, slabs, remove and dispose of all debris, rough grade lots to drain, and seed and mulch. This work also includes the installation of temporary erosion control measures and tree protection measures as necessary.
Paragraph 3 of the RFQ provided in part:
Contractor shall leave finished lot graded and compacted so that it can be easily maintained and mowed. Cut and fill shall be included as a separate line item in quote if necessary to allow for good drainage with no standing water at finished lot. Contractor is responsible for providing and compacting suitable borrow material as necessary to fill excavated areas to proposed elevations. Existing retaining walls shall be left intact and protected during demolition.
Finally, paragraph 6 of the RFQ provided in part as follows:
All hardscape within City ROW shall remain, including but not limited to curbs, sidewalks, curb cuts, and driveway aprons ... All pipes, wires, and projectiles must be removed to a min. of 3'-0- below finished grade.
The drawing submitted with the RFQ shows only the surface of the site. It has contour lines and identifies the adjacent streets and rights of way. The drawing shows two large concrete building slabs on grade. It indicates that there is pavement over most of the site. The drawing also shows the location of some reinforced concrete pipe, which presumably provided drainage for the site. There is no evidence that the bidders were provided with soil borings or other subsurface investigations. There is nothing in the RFQ that clearly states what the finished elevation of the site was to be.
On September 1, 2004, the City issued a document entitled Addendum NO.1 to the RFQ. This Addendum clarified the scope and requirements of the Project. Notably, the Addendum Identified a storm water drain that was to be removed, sidewalks that were to be removed, and a block retaining wall that was to be removed. The deadline for submission and opening of proposals was extended to September 9, 2004.
It appears that Addendum No. 1 was prepared at the suggestion of purchasing officer Ron Goodwin. In an email to Dyan Arkin and Butch Shumate dated September 1, 2004, Mr. Goodwin explained that he had talked to Danny Brown of UMG, who had questions about the scope of the Project. Goodwin suggested that the City issue an addendum to the RFQ, "so that all bidders are quoting on the same thing".
The form of proposal provided to the bidders describes the work in language identical to paragraph 1 of the specifications for demolition services. The language about cut and fill and finished elevations is not typed on the proposal form. A line is provided for the price of materials, and a line is provided for the price for labor. There is no separate line item for cut and fill, nor are there unit prices for excavation, grading, cut or fill. UMG filled in the blanks on the proposal form without changing its language in any respect.
On September 10, 2004, Butch Shumate of the City wrote an email to Ron Goodwin, purchaser for the City, and Dyan Arkin, representative of the Department of Housing and Community Development, recommending that the Contract be awarded to UMG, for the bid price of $30,959.00. Mr. Shumate indicated in the email that he had discussed the bid and the scope with Danny Brown of UMG, and that Mr. Brown was willing to stand by his bid.
A bid tabulation prepared by the City was in the file provided to us. The bid tabulation reflects six bids. The three lowest bids ranged from $30,959.00 to $39,740.80. The other three bids ranged from $63,898.00 to $118,650.00. There are many possible explanations for the wide range of bids, but one possible explanation is that the bidders did not share the same understanding of the scope of the Project.
A pre-construction meeting was held on September 24, 2004. Mr. Brown attended for UMG. Ms. Arkin attended for the City. James Cox was also in attendance. There are no minutes or other evidence from this meeting suggesting that the scope of the work on the Project was discussed.
Work proceeded In October and November, and was observed from time to time by Butch Shumate and Dyan Arkin. It is undisputed that UMG encountered concrete block, stone fill and other debris that was not shown or described in the RFQ and that could not have been inferred from the RFO. To summarize, UMG discovered buried building foundations, stone fill inside the buried building foundations, buried block foundation walls, a large concrete footing to support a sign, and other large buried concrete slabs. Some of these buried slabs were extremely large. Some of the buried block foundation walls extended to a depth of over twenty feet below grade. These old foundations had been backfilled with stone and brick, all of which UMG excavated and removed. UMG did not backfill the old foundations or bring the site to the finished elevation required for future construction by the City. Instead, UMG rough graded the site enough to allow rainwater to drain off the site, and planted grass. UMG left the grade below the original grade, in some cases eight feet or more.
All of these conditions were observed by the representatives of the City. It appears that the representatives of the City instructed UMG to excavate all of the buried foundations, fill and slabs, without ever explicitly stating that UMG would receive additional compensation for the work.
UMG submitted claims for additional compensation by preparing five "invoices", as follows:
Invoice 717 dated 10/5/04 for removing buried footers and fill, In the amount of $15,379.00. This invoice is also described as "Addendum #1".
Invoice 718 dated 10/8/04 for excavation of another footing and foundation wall discovered under the pavement, in the amount of $2,831.00. This invoice Is also described as "Addendum #2".
Invoice 719 dated 10/13/04 for demolition and disposal of concrete slabs from underground tanks, in the amount of $7,891.00. This invoice is also described as "Addendum #3".
Invoice 720 dated 11/09/04 for excavation and removal of buried foundation walls and fill, in the amount of $21,987.00. This Invoice is also described as "Addendum #4."
Invoice 721 dated 11/11/04 for removal of a sign footing, in the amount of $3,793.00. This invoice is described as "Addendum #5."
These invoices apparently were revised at some point, because there are different versions of them in the file. Both versions of each document appear to relate to the same work, however. One version of the documents references conversations with Mr. Shumate about the footers and soil conditions, and some say that Mr. Shumate directed UMG to remove the unforeseen buried
foundations, fill and slabs.
On November 11, 2004, UMG submitted a final invoice for the original Contract balance and all of the addendum invoices. Ultimately, UMG requested that it be paid $82,840.00 for the work, rather than the original contract price of $30,959.00.
The file contains correspondence and notes by Dyan Arkin and Butch Shumate reflecting their efforts to analyze and respond to the request by UMG for additional compensation. The notes suggest that both Shumate and Arkin were prepared to pay some additional compensation to UMG, but not the full amount requested by UMG. Meanwhile, with the apparent concurrence of UMG, the City paid UMG 90% of the original Contract price, or $27,863.00, in early December.
Emails in the file suggest that UMG called Shumate and Arkin "almost daily" from November 11 to December 21, 2004, asking when he would be paid. The representatives of the City, however, did not believe that UMG had submitted enough information about its costs to justify payment of the full amount UMG claimed. Shumate and Arkin, however, were prepared to increase the amount of the UMG Contract by $22,475.50, mainly due to the sign footings. On December 22, 2004, Ron Goodwin sent a letter to Danny Brown of UMG requesting a meeting to discuss the claim and try to resolve it. Goodwin asked UMG to bring business records to substantiate the amounts claimed for the work. It appears that UMG cancelled this meeting after it was first scheduled. An email suggests that Goodwin met with someone In the City Attorney's office In early February. On February 11, 2005, Mr. Goodwin sent another letter to UMG, again requesting business records in support of the claim.
In late February 2005, UMG did submit additional materials to support its claim. These materials consisted of canceled checks and invoices and statements from subcontractors and suppliers.
On or about March 10, 2005, Mr. Andrew Scott of HCD sent a message to Dyan Arkin and others stating that he had reached an interim agreement with UMG to pay the additional compensation which the City staff was comfortable paying, and continue to negotiate the balance of the UMG claim. It is not clear how Mr. Scott came to be involved. By virtue of his agreement, however, the City was willing to pay was $16,875.00 for additional work, plus the ten percent of the original Contract that had been withheld in December. A joint letter was drafted and signed by Andrew Scott and Danny Brown, memorializing this agreement. The letter states, in part:
My understanding is that all parties involved agree that some additional work was field-authorized and that you have done your best to provide sufficient documentation to show what costs you incurred over and above the original scope of work ....As soon as this letter is received and acknowledged, Dyan will submit a check request for $19,970.90. Any additional payment would require supplementary documentation over and above that received to date.
On March 16,2005, the City prepared and executed a document entitled Change Order #1 to the contract, in the amount of $16,875.00. The description of the change is described as "additional work as authorized in the field between 10/5/04 and 11/19/04". The reason for the change is described as follows:
As the contractor proceeded to remove pavement, footings and foundations at the site, he encountered areas where footings were larger than he expected. In addition, work was field authorized to remove foundation and footings related to a previously removed billboard and hidden wall materials.
On March 22, 2005, the City engaged Steve Kennedy of US Infrastructure of North Carolina, Inc., a consulting engineering firm, to review the claims by UMG and provide an independent evaluation of the claims. Mr. Kennedy produced a report with his evaluation dated March 22, 2005. In his letter, Mr. Kennedy recommended that the City pay no more to UMG than had already been paid pursuant to Change Order #1. Mr. Kennedy did not dispute that UMG performed extra work. Instead, Mr. Kennedy concluded that UMG had not produced sufficient evidence of the quantity or cost of the extra work to support a claim for more compensation than the City had already paid.
UMG did not give up, however. The files indicate that Mr. Brown of UMG was still contacting representatives of the City and asking why UMG was not being paid, and that his demands were being discussed internally. Then, on April 20, 2005, Dyan Arkin sent a letter to Andy Scott recommending that the City follow the recommendation by Steve Kennedy that no more money be paid to UMG.
The letter from Dyan Arkin on April 20, 2005 took a somewhat different tack from earlier correspondence about the UMG claim. In that letter, Arkin argued that some of the work that UMG claimed as extra work was actually within the scope of the contract. Up to that point in time, the City had been willing to concede that the work was extra, but the City contended that the amount sought by UMG was excessive.
On February 2, 2006, UMG sent a letter to Ron Goodwin at the City again requesting payment of the balance of the claims. Once again, on February 7, 2006, the City responded to UMG by saying that UMG had to produce additional documentation in support of the claim before the City would consider it further.
Still, UMG persisted. UMG took the claims directly to the City Manager's Office, where the claims were reviewed and evaluated again, this time by Ben Brown and Butch Simmons. Mr. Simmons prepared a short memo with his findings and recommendations, which Mr. Brown endorsed. To paraphrase, Mr. Simmons found that the demolition specifications were somewhat vague, that UMG did not interpret them the same way the City did, that there were misunderstandings about the nature of UMG's claims and the records that needed to be kept to document the extra work, and that the absence of records affected not only the ability of UMG to prove the claims, but also the ability of the City to refute them. In the end, Mr. Simmons recommended that the City pay the claims, based on the inability of the City to refute the claims, and "in the spirit of keeping a good working relationship with the local contracting community". This recommendation was shared with Mitchell Johnson, City Manager, who agreed with it. A payment of $35,006 to UMG was then authorized and paid in June 2006.
Legal Discussion:
You have asked whether the claims for additional compensation by UMG were legal and enforceable contract claims at the time the settlement was made. We take your question to be whether UMG could have sued to recover damages for breach of contract by the City, and survived a motion for summary judgment, if the facts stated above are taken as true, and any doubts are resolved in favor of UMG.
Threshold Question: Sovereign Immunity: We acknowledge that UMG has legal and enforceable claims only if the City has waived its sovereign immunity. The North Carolina Court of Appeals has held "that sovereign immunity does not apply to breach of contract claims. Whenever a sovereign enters into a valid contract, it implicitly consents to be sued for damages on the contract in the event it breaches the contract." Houpe v. City of Statesville, 128 N.C. App. 334 at p. 343 (1998) (citing Smith v. State, 289 N.C. 303 (1976)). The City waived its sovereign immunity by entering into a contract with UMG.
Breach of contract; Verbal or Implied contract: We believe that UMG had a justiciable claim against the City for breach of contract. To prove a claim for breach of contract, UMG would have had to prove that the City modified the original scope of the Contract by requiring additional work. Second, UMG would have had to prove that the City breached the Contract by failing to pay the sums owed under the modified contract.
UMG would likely argue that under the original Contract it was only required to demolish and remove the structures visible on the surface, plus minor subsurface structures to a depth of no more than three feet. UMG contended that the demolition of the buried foundation footings, foundation walls and fill was work beyond the scope of its original contract. This contention has merit, and even some of the City officials agreed that UMG performed work outside the scope of the contract. Admittedly, the scope of work required under the Contract is not clearly stated. Under paragraph 1 of the specifications UMG is required to demolish pavement, asphalt and concrete under parking areas, concrete or masonry structure foundations, footings, steps, walks, slabs, remove and dispose of all debris, rough grade lots to drain and seed and mulch." Paragraph 6 of the specifications states, In part, that [a]1"pipes, wires, and projectiles must be removed to a minimum depth of 3'-0 below finished grade." The specifications do not state the required final grade for the completed work, however, and do not clearly identify which or how many buried structures must be removed. "Projectiles" are not defined under the contract. These ambiguous terms could be construed against the City, the drafter of the contract. The most reasonable and customary interpretation of the contract, in our opinion, was that UMG was to demolish and remove the existing surface structures as well as small subsurface artifacts ("wires, pipes and projectiles") to a depth of three feet below the final grade, which is implied to be roughly equal to the surrounding grade so as to provide effective drainage from the Project site. There is nothing in the specifications or other bid documents to inform UMG that the City would require demolition and removal of all surface and subsurface structures on the site regardless of depth or size.
In other words, we believe UMG might convince a trier of fact that the buried footings, foundations and fill were beyond the scope of the contract. If so, it follows that UMG did not have to excavate those structures or the fill material unless its contract was modified to include that work. UMG would have been able to present evidence, in the form of its Addenda 1 through 5, that an authorized agent of the City directed UMG to perform additional work outside the scope of its original contract, thereby modifying the contract.
Under North Carolina law, "[t]he provisions of a written contract may be modified or waived by a subsequent parol agreement, or by conduct which naturally and justly leads the other party to believe the provisions of the contract are modified or waived. This principle has been sustained even where the Instrument provides for any modification of the contract to be in writing." JR. Graham and Son, Inc. v. Randolph County Board of Education, 25 N.C. App. 163, 167 (1975) . In Graham, the North Carolina Court of Appeals found that the project architect on a public school construction project "instructed plaintiff to do additional work ...Plaintiff complied. This constituted an oral modification of the contract for which plaintiff was entitled to recover." Id. at 168.
In Son-Shine Grading, Inc. v. ADC Construction Company, Inc., 68 N.C. App. 417 (1984), the North Carolina Court of Appeals found that the superintendent for a general contractor on a private construction project made an oral modification to the parties' subcontract even though the contract required any changes to be in writing. Id. at 422. The Court of Appeals further held that the general contractor ratified the oral contract modification reached by Its superintendent by paying the grading subcontractor In accordance with the oral contract modification. Id. at 423.
In the present case, the City directed UMG to remove subsurface structures, some of which were more than twenty feet below the surface. The verbal directives from the City's agents could be construed as verbal modifications to the parties' contract. When the City refused to pay for the work it directed, UMG could make a claim against the City for breach of contract and sue to collect damages based upon the modified contract.
UMG could further argue that by agreeing to Change Order 1 and paying for additional excavation work the City ratified an oral contract modification made by its agents. The City would then be estopped to deny that its agents lacked authority to issue such directives or that the directives were not in fact issued. See Son-Shine Grading, 68 N.C. App. at 423.
Damages:price for work: Our perception is that the City acknowledged that UMG was asked to perform additional work under a modified contract. UMG's claims under Addenda 1 through 5 are based upon the costs it contends it incurred in complying with the City's verbal directives. The City and UMG repeatedly discussed the sufficiency of UMG's cost records. Nevertheless, the City staff refused to pay more compensation to UMG because UMG's documentation of its costs was not sufficiently detailed for the staff. Mr. Kennedy concurred, and based his recommendation to deny the claim on the lack of documentation of costs.
We think UMG could have presented enough evidence of damages to survive a directed verdict. Also, we suspect that UMG had additional evidence of damages. For instance, we do not think that the documentation UMG presented included all of its own labor or equipment.
North Carolina Courts are fairly lenient towards a plaintiff in connection with the burden of proof regarding damages once the plaintiff has shown an entitlement to some recovery. In Bolton v. T.A. Loving, 94 N.C. App. 392 (1989), the North Carolina Court of Appeals stated "[w]here the plaintiff can prove the fact of damage, but not the extent of it, the reasonable certainty rule as it is now applied In most courts does not require proof of damages with mathematical precision. It does require that the plaintiff adduce some relevant datum from which a 'just and reasonable' estimate of the amount might be drawn, and without any such datum in the evidence, the claim will necessarily be dismissed as speculative and conjectural. Beyond this, the plaintiff is probably expected to prove his damages with as much accuracy as is reasonably possible to him, but precision not attainable In the nature of the claim and circumstances is not ordinarily required." Id. at 405.
In the present ease, UMG has project records reflecting the amount of additional work it performed. It is likely that UMG could corroborate these records with eyewitness testimony. The records and likely testimony establish "some relevant datum" supporting UMG's claimed damages. These documents and testimony would be sufficient to meet its burden of proof and submit its damages claim to a jury.
Under the traditional measure of contract damages, UMG would be entitled to recover any balance remaining on its contract since upon completion of the contract work the contractor "is entitled to recover the full contract price, just as in any case where full performance creates a liquidated debt." Dobbs, Remedies at page 912. In this ease, UMG was in fact paid the full amount of the agreed upon contract price and no agreement was reached regarding the pricing of the additional work directed by the City when that work was performed. Nonetheless, UMG could argue that under common law damage principles, it was entitled to recover the actual cost of the additional work it performed. Under common law rules, "the traditional goal in awarding damages for breach of contract Is to award a sum that will put the non-breaching party in as good a position as he would have been in had the contract been performed. This gives him the benefit of his bargain." Dobbs, Remedies at p. 786. Reliance damages are an element of traditional breach of contract damages and serve to compensate the non-breaching party for the costs reasonably incurred in reliance on the contract. "A party's 'reliance interest' is defined as Its 'interest in being reimbursed for loss caused by reliance on the contract by being put in as good a position as he would have been had the contract not been made." Moseley, Construction Damages and Remedies at p. 5. Furthermore, the traditional practice in the construction industry is for owners and contractors to base the amount of a change order or contract adjustment on the actual cost of performing the changed or extra work. See Foster, Construction and Design Law at §25.3e ("The preferred method for determining damages and cost adjustments is to introduce the actual cost incurred for the additional or changed work.")
In the present case, UMG could argue that it relied upon the verbal directives from the City, which were a modification of the parties' contract. UMG incurred additional costs in reliance upon these verbal directives. In order to protect its reliance interest in the contract, UMG would be entitled to recover the actual costs It incurred in performing the work directed by the City.
Defenses and bars to the claim: In addition to analyzing whether UMG had legal and enforceable contract claims, we have analyzed the common defenses that an owner like the City might have to such claims. In our opinion, the City had no defense that would absolutely bar the claim by UMG.
Statute of limitations: One might ask whether UMG was barred from suing the City at the time of the final settlement, under the applicable statute of limitations. We think not. The applicable statute of limitations is two years from the date of the breach, which we take to be November 2004. See N.C.G.S. §1-53. The settlement occurred In June 2006, well inside the two year statute.
Licensure: Under North Carolina law, a person engaged in "general contracting" must be licensed by the North Carolina Licensing Board for General Contractors. N.C.G.S. §87-1. If a contractor is not property licensed, the project owner is not obligated to pay the contractor. Brady v. Fulghum, 309 N.C. 580 (1983). In the present case, UMG does not appear to have had a general contractors license. Nevertheless, UMG has compelling arguments that a general contractors license was not required to perform the work under the contract.
First, it does not appear that UMG was required to obtain a building permit or a grading permit. Mr. Simmons is of the opinion that no permit was required by the contract or the local codes. Furthermore, the contract did not require that the bidders be licensed general contractors. The reason is that the sort of work being done by UMG does not require permits or, as generally believed, contractor licenses.
UMG's work at the Project was demolition work. As we understand it, the work involved a type of demolition, removal of pavement and foundations, for which a building permit is not required. Such work Is generally considered to be outside the definition of "general contracting" set forth In N.C.G.S. §87-1, which applies only to "construction." "General contracting" Is defined as the "construction of any building, highway, public utilities, grading or any improvement or structure where the cost of the undertaking is thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) or more." N.C.G.S. §87-1. Demolition work is not specifically referenced in the general contracting statutes. The only part of the work by UMG that could be construed as "general contracting" is grading work, but even the grading work done by UMG might be outside the requirements of the statute. The North Carolina Supreme Court has stated "[c]onstrued in the context of the language in N.C.G.S. 87-1 and -10 ... the word 'grading' connotes an activity which is part of, or preparatory for, work property termed 'building and construction'." C.C. Walker Grading and Hauling v. SRF Management Corp., 311 N.C. at 180 (1984).
UMG was required only to remove the old pavement and slabs and excavate the buried structures and fill. Once this material was removed, UMG was to fill holes and rough grade the site enough for water to drain and grass to grow. UMG was not required to shape the site, fill and compact the site, or otherwise prepare the site for road or building construction. The demolition work did include minor grading or dress up of the Project site, but such grading work would not be considered "preparatory for building and construction" insofar as UMG's contract. The Project site was only shaped so as to fill in holes and allow rain to drain off the site. When its work was complete, UMG left the finished grade of the site many feet below the original grade, and many feet below the grade of the main road past the site. UMG hauled debris out, but hauled nothing back in to fill the resulting excavation. It was left to the general contractor who constructed the streets and houses on the Project site to use its own site grading contractors to grade and compact the site prior to performing its own construction work.
The UMG contract Specifications did describe cut, fill, borrow and erosion control activities, "as needed." The contract also required separate pricing for such grading work. The contract proposal form, however, did not require pricing for cut and fill or other grading, implying that such work was not actually required. This was consistent with the actual work at the site; UMG did not perform grading to final grades for construction.
Finally, there is nothing in the record which would allow the City to segregate the cost of this minor grading work from the overall undertaking. UMG's bid for the entire scope of work was only $30,900.00; therefore, the costs associated with the minor grading activities would certainly be below the $30,000.00 threshold for "general contracting" set forth in N.C.G.S. §87-1.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals stated in Spivey and Seff, Inc. v. Highview Farms, Inc., 110 N.C. App. 719 (1993), a case involving a contract for the construction of a golf course, that "there is no evidence as to what portion of the $1,100,000.00 contract was for the grading of the project, and to assign any value would require raw speculation. Because the record does not reflect that the grading had a cost of at least $45,000.00 [the then statutory threshold for N.C.G.S. §87-1], the trial court correctly determined that plaintiff did not violate N.C.G.S. §87-1 and was not therefore precluded from suing defendants." Id. at 539.
None of the extra work claims in Addenda 1 through 5 contain any reference to additional site grading costs. As in Spivey and Self, there is nothing in the record to show that UMG performed grading or other "general contracting" work with a value in excess of $30,000.00. Based upon these facts, UMG would not need a general contractor's license to perform the work under the contract.
Change order effect: We questioned whether UMG, by signing the change order letter, might have waived its rights to further compensation for the additional work. We believe not. The letter clearly states that UMG could continue to seek further payment for the additional work, subject to providing additional proof.
Conclusion:
To summarize, we think that UMG could present genuine and material evidence that the City agreed to a modification to the demolition contract. There is genuine and material evidence that the City agreed to pay UMG for the additional work. While the City did make a payment for the additional work, UMG never accepted that payment as full and final payment for the additional work. Instead, UMG contended that it was entitled to additional payment. In short, UMG could have sued the City for falling to pay the cost of the work, leaving UMG short on its contract. We see no absolute bar to such a claim by UMG.
We hope that this review is responsive to your request and useful to you and the City. If you have any questions or want us to pursue this inquiry further, please let us know.
Yours very truly,
Conner Gwyn Schenck, PLLC
James S. Schenck, IV
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Human Relations Director John Shaw is retiring after many years of exceptional service to the city, and the search is now beginning for his replacement. Here is a press release with details on how citizens may give their input.
RESIDENTS INVITED TO GIVE INPUT ON QUALITIES FOR CITY’S NEXT HUMAN RELATIONS DIRECTOR
GREENSBORO, NC (May 17, 2007) – The City of Greensboro has planned a series of public meetings to get input on the qualities needed in the next director of the Human Relations Department. The purpose of the Human Relations Department is to promote mutual understanding, fair treatment, and appreciation of diversity for all residents. The new director will oversee this effort, as well as:
· Manage the review, investigation and resolution of discrimination cases
· Oversee the Human Relations Commission and Commission on the Status of Women
· Oversee the Complaint Review Committee that works with concerns regarding the Police Department
Three meetings are scheduled for public input and all will be held at the Kitchen Operations Center, 2602 S. Elm-Eugene Street, in the Lake Townsend Room:
· June 7 from 12 noon – 1 pm
· June 7 from 7 – 8 pm
· June 12 from 7 – 8 pm
Greensboro residents can also email their comments on the City’s website at www.greensboro-nc.gov or call 373-2489 to tell their suggestions to a Customer Service Representative. All information given will be used to help develop the criteria for the selection process.
Any individual with a disability who needs an interpreter, sign language translator or auxiliary aids or services for this meeting may contact Donna Gray at 373-2723 or 333-6930 (TDD).
The mission of the Human Relations Department is to promote mutual understanding and fair treatment among all residents of Greensboro in conjunction with the Human Relations Commission and the Commission on the Status of Women. Through mediation, the Department seeks the voluntary resolution of complaints of discrimination or unfair treatment in employment, housing and public accommodations because of an individual's race, color, sex, religion, national origin, familial status, or disability.
RESIDENTS INVITED TO GIVE INPUT ON QUALITIES FOR CITY’S NEXT HUMAN RELATIONS DIRECTOR
GREENSBORO, NC (May 17, 2007) – The City of Greensboro has planned a series of public meetings to get input on the qualities needed in the next director of the Human Relations Department. The purpose of the Human Relations Department is to promote mutual understanding, fair treatment, and appreciation of diversity for all residents. The new director will oversee this effort, as well as:
· Manage the review, investigation and resolution of discrimination cases
· Oversee the Human Relations Commission and Commission on the Status of Women
· Oversee the Complaint Review Committee that works with concerns regarding the Police Department
Three meetings are scheduled for public input and all will be held at the Kitchen Operations Center, 2602 S. Elm-Eugene Street, in the Lake Townsend Room:
· June 7 from 12 noon – 1 pm
· June 7 from 7 – 8 pm
· June 12 from 7 – 8 pm
Greensboro residents can also email their comments on the City’s website at www.greensboro-nc.gov or call 373-2489 to tell their suggestions to a Customer Service Representative. All information given will be used to help develop the criteria for the selection process.
Any individual with a disability who needs an interpreter, sign language translator or auxiliary aids or services for this meeting may contact Donna Gray at 373-2723 or 333-6930 (TDD).
The mission of the Human Relations Department is to promote mutual understanding and fair treatment among all residents of Greensboro in conjunction with the Human Relations Commission and the Commission on the Status of Women. Through mediation, the Department seeks the voluntary resolution of complaints of discrimination or unfair treatment in employment, housing and public accommodations because of an individual's race, color, sex, religion, national origin, familial status, or disability.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Another Kammie visit
Guess who spent the evening at Grandma's house (crawling anywhere she made up her mind to go)! I'm exhausted!
Monday, May 14, 2007
My two-cents worth on Canada Dry
There has been a lot of discussion and outright speculation on the question of the city's purchase of the Canada Dry property, the environmental condition of that property, and how this latest acquisition effort has progressed. I totally agree with David Hoggard that Jordan Green's extensive article over at YES!Weekly is by far the most comprehensive and factual reporting on the issue, judging by the information to which I have had access.
There is no need to rehash what has already been accurately reported in Jordan's report, but I will add a note here and there to better explain the city council's actions to this point.
* For the record, I want everyone to understand that the council is absolutely NOT in a blind rush to obtain this property under a "pig in a poke" scenario at any cost and irregardless of any environmental contamination. Indeed, it was the city council's great discomfort with the uncertain environmental conditions, potential bottomless-pit liability for clean-up of that possible contamination, and sticker-shock over the (then) asking price that led us to "pull the plug" on purchase negotiations over a year ago. Despite the interest of a majority of councilmembers in re-examining the situation and our options now, that same skeptical reluctance and caution on those very same issues -- environmental contamination, liability for remediation, and value of the property versus the asking price for it -- is still very much in play.
A majority of councilmembers have directed staff to investigate the updated environmental conditions, comparable property purchase prices in the area, and the current asking price for the property. If the answers aren't to our liking and the city isn't totally protected from liability, this deal is NOT going to happen!
* Despite allegations to the contrary, City Manager Mitchell Johnson has NOT been the driving force behind this renewed effort to purchase. Whenever this subject came up over the past year at the urging of the War Memorial Commission and/or the Convention and Visitors Bureau, Mitch made it abundantly clear to all concerned that he was not going to champion this cause and would remain hands-off until a majority of city councilmembers directed him otherwise. Those entities -- bolstered by public comments at the High Point Road/West Lee Street corridor planning workshop and the Convention and Vistors Bureau dilemma of an expired lease at their current location -- have been quietly working behind the scenes the last couple of months to build support on council to at least review the current situation and reconsider the purchase IF all the obstacles have been adequately addressed. Their efforts were successful in getting a majority of us to take a second look.
* The main reason the property is currently labeled such a high environmental risk is due to the remaining open well on the property that theoretically could be used as a drinking water source. Permanent closure of that well would eliminate that high risk category.
The Bryan Foundation has offered up to $200,000 to remediate asbestos, lead paint, and other common environmental hazards typical of a building of this age.
* I personally believe the purchase makes sense (assuming all problems have been eliminated and the price is right) even if the ACC Hall of Champions never materializes. This site has been on the Coliseum's Master Plan since the early 90's to complete the complex "footprint" and provide additional parking and/or exhibition space. Shifting smaller exhibits and craft shows to up-fitted space in the Canada Dry building will free up space for the larger shows and conventions that generate plenty of revenue for the coliseum as well as private businesses.
It is logical that the Convention and Visitors Bureau be located close to where the large majority of our out-of-town visitors come -- the Coliseum and the Koury Convention Center; revenue from their lease of space in the refurbished Canada Dry building will offset the cost.
The upgrade of this current eyesore can help to jump-start additional investment in the High Point Road-Lee Street corridor, for which a study is already underway. This public investment will demonstrate the city's commitment to participation in the long-overdue redevelopment of this vital gateway into our city.
* IF the ACC Hall of Champions is eventually built through private donations or other non-city tax sources, it will greatly enhance the city's tourism efforts. Based on my understanding of the presentation made to members of the General Assembly prior to their approval of the $2 million for this effort, the city's intent to use that allocation to stabilize and upgrade the Canada Dry building was an approved, legitimate, and expected use of those funds.
In summary, it is my understanding that the city council will hold a closed session after tomorrow night's meeting (May 15) to receive updated information and discuss the appropriate price and conditions (environmental clean-ups) for this property and determine if the city should submit an offer. However, if the environmental conditions have not been adequately addressed and/or if the asking price has been raised again, I personally will not support the purchase of the property despite my belief it would be a big plus for many reasons. Despite our genuine interest in moving forward, the council will not hesitate to say "NO!" again if the risks and costs are too high.
UPDATE: City Manager Mitchell Johnson phoned around 3PM to let me know that he has not received all the pertinent updated information we need at this point. Therefore, he will NOT be requesting a closed session on this particular issue tonight. We'll do that at a later time when accurate information is available.
There is no need to rehash what has already been accurately reported in Jordan's report, but I will add a note here and there to better explain the city council's actions to this point.
* For the record, I want everyone to understand that the council is absolutely NOT in a blind rush to obtain this property under a "pig in a poke" scenario at any cost and irregardless of any environmental contamination. Indeed, it was the city council's great discomfort with the uncertain environmental conditions, potential bottomless-pit liability for clean-up of that possible contamination, and sticker-shock over the (then) asking price that led us to "pull the plug" on purchase negotiations over a year ago. Despite the interest of a majority of councilmembers in re-examining the situation and our options now, that same skeptical reluctance and caution on those very same issues -- environmental contamination, liability for remediation, and value of the property versus the asking price for it -- is still very much in play.
A majority of councilmembers have directed staff to investigate the updated environmental conditions, comparable property purchase prices in the area, and the current asking price for the property. If the answers aren't to our liking and the city isn't totally protected from liability, this deal is NOT going to happen!
* Despite allegations to the contrary, City Manager Mitchell Johnson has NOT been the driving force behind this renewed effort to purchase. Whenever this subject came up over the past year at the urging of the War Memorial Commission and/or the Convention and Visitors Bureau, Mitch made it abundantly clear to all concerned that he was not going to champion this cause and would remain hands-off until a majority of city councilmembers directed him otherwise. Those entities -- bolstered by public comments at the High Point Road/West Lee Street corridor planning workshop and the Convention and Vistors Bureau dilemma of an expired lease at their current location -- have been quietly working behind the scenes the last couple of months to build support on council to at least review the current situation and reconsider the purchase IF all the obstacles have been adequately addressed. Their efforts were successful in getting a majority of us to take a second look.
* The main reason the property is currently labeled such a high environmental risk is due to the remaining open well on the property that theoretically could be used as a drinking water source. Permanent closure of that well would eliminate that high risk category.
The Bryan Foundation has offered up to $200,000 to remediate asbestos, lead paint, and other common environmental hazards typical of a building of this age.
* I personally believe the purchase makes sense (assuming all problems have been eliminated and the price is right) even if the ACC Hall of Champions never materializes. This site has been on the Coliseum's Master Plan since the early 90's to complete the complex "footprint" and provide additional parking and/or exhibition space. Shifting smaller exhibits and craft shows to up-fitted space in the Canada Dry building will free up space for the larger shows and conventions that generate plenty of revenue for the coliseum as well as private businesses.
It is logical that the Convention and Visitors Bureau be located close to where the large majority of our out-of-town visitors come -- the Coliseum and the Koury Convention Center; revenue from their lease of space in the refurbished Canada Dry building will offset the cost.
The upgrade of this current eyesore can help to jump-start additional investment in the High Point Road-Lee Street corridor, for which a study is already underway. This public investment will demonstrate the city's commitment to participation in the long-overdue redevelopment of this vital gateway into our city.
* IF the ACC Hall of Champions is eventually built through private donations or other non-city tax sources, it will greatly enhance the city's tourism efforts. Based on my understanding of the presentation made to members of the General Assembly prior to their approval of the $2 million for this effort, the city's intent to use that allocation to stabilize and upgrade the Canada Dry building was an approved, legitimate, and expected use of those funds.
In summary, it is my understanding that the city council will hold a closed session after tomorrow night's meeting (May 15) to receive updated information and discuss the appropriate price and conditions (environmental clean-ups) for this property and determine if the city should submit an offer. However, if the environmental conditions have not been adequately addressed and/or if the asking price has been raised again, I personally will not support the purchase of the property despite my belief it would be a big plus for many reasons. Despite our genuine interest in moving forward, the council will not hesitate to say "NO!" again if the risks and costs are too high.
UPDATE: City Manager Mitchell Johnson phoned around 3PM to let me know that he has not received all the pertinent updated information we need at this point. Therefore, he will NOT be requesting a closed session on this particular issue tonight. We'll do that at a later time when accurate information is available.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
PART update
Last Wednesday's (May 9) meeting of the PART Board of Trustees was one of the shortest, but most productive, meetings we have had in a long time. In one hour's time, we accomplished the following:
* Conducted a public hearing on the question of levying an annual $1 per vehicle registration fee in Randolph County (no speakers this time), approved that action effective October 1, 2007. and authorized the Randolph County Tax Collector to collect that fee. park-and-ride lots will be constructed and PART Express bus service begun in Randolph County as soon as the work can be done, likely in early 2008.
* Set a public hearing date of June 13 to consider the levy of the 5% vehicle rental tax in Davidson County.
* Approved the 2008-12 Capital Improvement Plan that forecasts the needs for Park-and-ride lots, new and replacement buses, terminals, mini-hubs, and amenities such as shelters at some fo the park-and-ride lots. The plan assumes extension of bus service to Davidson, Yadkin, and Davie counties as well as to areas within Guilford County such as Stokesdale, Forest Oaks, and Pleasant Garden. With a projected total price tag of $47,148,750, PART would be responsible for 10% of those costs ($4,714,875) to match the federal share of 80% and the state share of 10%.
* Adopted the fiscal year 2007-08 Transportation Demand Management budget which will target employers and employees to increase their use of transportation options, NCDOT is picking up 35-40% of the cost of this program.
* We also approved the operating budget of $13,674,074 which includes the addition of three employees -- a finance director and an accountant to replace the services we currently contract with the city of Winston-Salem (PART has outgrown their capacity to service us) and an assistant director as part of our succession planning efforts whenever Executive Director Brent McKinney chooses to retire (hopefully no time soon!).
PART ridership continues to grow at a healthy pace with a total of 247,810 boardings in 2006. Boardings in January-April 2007 averaged 3,000+ more per month than those 2006 counts. As the price of gasoline continues to increase, we expect that ridership to grow even more as people discover the bargain and convenience of PART Express.
* Conducted a public hearing on the question of levying an annual $1 per vehicle registration fee in Randolph County (no speakers this time), approved that action effective October 1, 2007. and authorized the Randolph County Tax Collector to collect that fee. park-and-ride lots will be constructed and PART Express bus service begun in Randolph County as soon as the work can be done, likely in early 2008.
* Set a public hearing date of June 13 to consider the levy of the 5% vehicle rental tax in Davidson County.
* Approved the 2008-12 Capital Improvement Plan that forecasts the needs for Park-and-ride lots, new and replacement buses, terminals, mini-hubs, and amenities such as shelters at some fo the park-and-ride lots. The plan assumes extension of bus service to Davidson, Yadkin, and Davie counties as well as to areas within Guilford County such as Stokesdale, Forest Oaks, and Pleasant Garden. With a projected total price tag of $47,148,750, PART would be responsible for 10% of those costs ($4,714,875) to match the federal share of 80% and the state share of 10%.
* Adopted the fiscal year 2007-08 Transportation Demand Management budget which will target employers and employees to increase their use of transportation options, NCDOT is picking up 35-40% of the cost of this program.
* We also approved the operating budget of $13,674,074 which includes the addition of three employees -- a finance director and an accountant to replace the services we currently contract with the city of Winston-Salem (PART has outgrown their capacity to service us) and an assistant director as part of our succession planning efforts whenever Executive Director Brent McKinney chooses to retire (hopefully no time soon!).
PART ridership continues to grow at a healthy pace with a total of 247,810 boardings in 2006. Boardings in January-April 2007 averaged 3,000+ more per month than those 2006 counts. As the price of gasoline continues to increase, we expect that ridership to grow even more as people discover the bargain and convenience of PART Express.
Happy Mother's Day
This tribute shared by a friend touched my heart. Happy Mother's Day to all!
A baby asked God, "They tell me you are sending me to earth tomorrow, but how am I going to live there being so small and helpless?"
God said, "Your angel will be waiting for you and will take care of you."
The child further inquired, "But tell me, here in heaven I don't have to do anything but sing and smile to be happy."
God said, "Your angel will sing for you and will also smile for you. And you will feel your angel's love and be very happy."
Again the child asked, "And how am I going to be able to understand when people talk to me if I don't know the language?"
God said, "Your angel will tell you the most beautiful and sweet words you will ever hear , and with much patience and care, your angel will teach you how to speak."
"And what am I going to do when I want to talk to you?"
God said, "Your angel will place your hands together and will teach you how to pray."
'Who will protect me?'
God said, "Your angel will defend you even if it means risking its life."
"But I will always be sad because I will not see you anymore."
God said, "Your angel will always talk to you about Me and will teach you the way to come back to Me, even though I will always be next to you."
At that moment there was much peace in Heaven, but voices from Earth could be heard and the child hurriedly asked, "God, if I am to leave now, please tell me my angel's name."
God said, "You will simply call her, "Mom."
A baby asked God, "They tell me you are sending me to earth tomorrow, but how am I going to live there being so small and helpless?"
God said, "Your angel will be waiting for you and will take care of you."
The child further inquired, "But tell me, here in heaven I don't have to do anything but sing and smile to be happy."
God said, "Your angel will sing for you and will also smile for you. And you will feel your angel's love and be very happy."
Again the child asked, "And how am I going to be able to understand when people talk to me if I don't know the language?"
God said, "Your angel will tell you the most beautiful and sweet words you will ever hear , and with much patience and care, your angel will teach you how to speak."
"And what am I going to do when I want to talk to you?"
God said, "Your angel will place your hands together and will teach you how to pray."
'Who will protect me?'
God said, "Your angel will defend you even if it means risking its life."
"But I will always be sad because I will not see you anymore."
God said, "Your angel will always talk to you about Me and will teach you the way to come back to Me, even though I will always be next to you."
At that moment there was much peace in Heaven, but voices from Earth could be heard and the child hurriedly asked, "God, if I am to leave now, please tell me my angel's name."
God said, "You will simply call her, "Mom."
Scenes from the Animal Discovery grand opening
Mayor Keith Holliday, Natural Science Center Boardmember Marc Isaacson, and Director Glenn Dobrogosz do the honors along with former director Ed Vonderlippe (out of picture).Saturday morning's official opening of Animal Discovery at Greensboro's Natural Science Center was well-attended and loads of fun, particularly for the crowds of children who were present. It was my first look at the completed project, and I was extremely pleased and proud with what I saw. Greensboro has another jewel in its crown that will serve our citizens well -- many thanks to the hardworking members of the Natural Science Center Board and to the citizens of Greensboro who voted "yes" for the bond referendum that made this exciting new venue a reality.
Volunteers are the key to the successful and economical operation of the Natural Science Center. Here are several of those volunteers in action.
The entrance into the Natural Science Center is attractive and inviting (as is the entire center).
A dangerous place to rest???
Weekly schedule
The first part of my week will be pretty intense, but is not too bad over all.
I'm headed to Raleigh on Monday, May 14 to help review applications for new charter schools. Although the Charter Schools Advisory Committee (CSAC) on which I formerly served was dissolved in April, my reprieve did not last very long. State Board Chairman Howard Lee appointed me as one of the two former CSAC members to serve and advise on the State Board's Leadership for Innovation Committee; shortly after that, the director of the Office of Charter Schools placed me on the application review committee. Well, at least I had one month off from this assignment!
The regular city council meeting scheduled for Tuesday evening, May 15 could be one of those marathon sessions. The agenda contains two rescheduled controversial zoning cases -- the number one cause of lengthy meetings -- as well as receipt of the city manager's proposed 2007-08 budget, consideration and adoption of the revised City-County Water/Sewer Policy, receipt of the clerk's certification of the Bellamy-Small recall petition, and the setting of a special election for that question. I also anticipate a closed session to discuss the acquisition of the Canada Dry property (more details on that in another post when I have time). It could be a LONG night!
Hopefully, I'll be recovered enough to enjoy the One Guilford: A Leadership Symposium on Wednesday, May 16 at High Point University.
Thursday, May 17 appears to be clear except for a meeting of the Ardmore Park Crime Watch that evening. This neighborhood group is one of the more active ones in District 5 and has really made a difference.
Congressman Brad Miller will be speaking at the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Windhill Court development on Friday, May 18., and I plan to attend.
This week end with a bit of fun on a pontoon boat out on Lake Townsend observing the BassMasters event on Saturday, May 19 -- a pleasant way to finish up a busy week.
I'm headed to Raleigh on Monday, May 14 to help review applications for new charter schools. Although the Charter Schools Advisory Committee (CSAC) on which I formerly served was dissolved in April, my reprieve did not last very long. State Board Chairman Howard Lee appointed me as one of the two former CSAC members to serve and advise on the State Board's Leadership for Innovation Committee; shortly after that, the director of the Office of Charter Schools placed me on the application review committee. Well, at least I had one month off from this assignment!
The regular city council meeting scheduled for Tuesday evening, May 15 could be one of those marathon sessions. The agenda contains two rescheduled controversial zoning cases -- the number one cause of lengthy meetings -- as well as receipt of the city manager's proposed 2007-08 budget, consideration and adoption of the revised City-County Water/Sewer Policy, receipt of the clerk's certification of the Bellamy-Small recall petition, and the setting of a special election for that question. I also anticipate a closed session to discuss the acquisition of the Canada Dry property (more details on that in another post when I have time). It could be a LONG night!
Hopefully, I'll be recovered enough to enjoy the One Guilford: A Leadership Symposium on Wednesday, May 16 at High Point University.
Thursday, May 17 appears to be clear except for a meeting of the Ardmore Park Crime Watch that evening. This neighborhood group is one of the more active ones in District 5 and has really made a difference.
Congressman Brad Miller will be speaking at the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Windhill Court development on Friday, May 18., and I plan to attend.
This week end with a bit of fun on a pontoon boat out on Lake Townsend observing the BassMasters event on Saturday, May 19 -- a pleasant way to finish up a busy week.
Bike to Work Week
This upcoming week is a special one focusing on alternative modes of transportation, specifically bicycles. Here's the press release with details:
BIKE-TO-WORK WEEK TO BE HELD MAY 14-18
Save Money, Improve Your Health, and Help the Environment
GREENSBORO, NC (May 8, 2007) – Greensboro residents are invited to celebrate Bike-to-Work Week May 14-18 by riding their bike to work. The event is part of National Bike Month, begun in 1956 by the League of American Bicyclists. Bike-to-Work Week is intended to:
· Increase public awareness of cyclists
· Educate the community about the benefits of bicycling as a form of transportation
· Make information about bicycle commuting available to potential riders
· Encourage people to try bicycle commuting
Bike-to-Work Week is sponsored by various local governments and advocacy groups, including the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
Bicycling and other forms of alternative transportation can help reduce pollution, reduce America’s dependence on fossil fuels, and improve health and well-being. With gas prices rapidly approaching $3.00 a gallon, bicycling becomes an even more attractive form of transportation.
As part of Bike-to-Work Week, bicycle commuters are invited to the Millennium Arch on Friday, May 18, from 7 to 9 am for free food, coffee and prizes. The Millennium Arch is at the intersection of Greene Street and February One Place. Other events in recognition of the week include:
May 14 Bicycle refueling station – REI Shops at Friendly Center, 7 – 9 am
May 15 Bicycle movie night, “Breaking Away” – REI Shops at Friendly Center, 6:30 pm
May 16 Ride of Silence – First Horizon Park, 6:30 pm
May 17 Bicycle movie night, TBA – High Point
For more bicycling information, visit http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/Departments/GDOT/divisions/planning/bicycle/
BIKE-TO-WORK WEEK TO BE HELD MAY 14-18
Save Money, Improve Your Health, and Help the Environment
GREENSBORO, NC (May 8, 2007) – Greensboro residents are invited to celebrate Bike-to-Work Week May 14-18 by riding their bike to work. The event is part of National Bike Month, begun in 1956 by the League of American Bicyclists. Bike-to-Work Week is intended to:
· Increase public awareness of cyclists
· Educate the community about the benefits of bicycling as a form of transportation
· Make information about bicycle commuting available to potential riders
· Encourage people to try bicycle commuting
Bike-to-Work Week is sponsored by various local governments and advocacy groups, including the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
Bicycling and other forms of alternative transportation can help reduce pollution, reduce America’s dependence on fossil fuels, and improve health and well-being. With gas prices rapidly approaching $3.00 a gallon, bicycling becomes an even more attractive form of transportation.
As part of Bike-to-Work Week, bicycle commuters are invited to the Millennium Arch on Friday, May 18, from 7 to 9 am for free food, coffee and prizes. The Millennium Arch is at the intersection of Greene Street and February One Place. Other events in recognition of the week include:
May 14 Bicycle refueling station – REI Shops at Friendly Center, 7 – 9 am
May 15 Bicycle movie night, “Breaking Away” – REI Shops at Friendly Center, 6:30 pm
May 16 Ride of Silence – First Horizon Park, 6:30 pm
May 17 Bicycle movie night, TBA – High Point
For more bicycling information, visit http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/Departments/GDOT/divisions/planning/bicycle/
Military plea -- target the right persons
A wide variety of unsolicited information often comes across the desks and computers of city councilmembers. The following email attracted my attention last week. I am not criticizing people who organize protests nor am I choosing sides on any of the issues, but I do concur with the writers' pleas to focus those protests on the right targets -- the people who actually make those policy decisions.
From: Moore, Thomas Lt Col 337 RCS/CC
To: North and South Carolina Civic Leaders
Subject: Editorial on Protests at US Armed Forces Military Recruiting Offices
Good morning,
I am Air Force Lt. Col. TC Moore, commander of the 337th Recruiting Squadron, which covers portions of both North and South Carolina. I'm requesting your assistance in getting the word out on a very important issue - increasing protests, some verging on violence, at our recruiting offices throughout the United States. The Armed Forces Recruiters who live and work in your neighborhood are your connection to the US Armed Services. Their mission is to inform the young adults of your communities on the possibilities of serving their country, and to enlist those who make the decision to become tomorrow’s military.
During recent months there have been instances across the country where people publicly disagree with the Global War on Terror and the elected officials who make decisions for the military - and that's a right I wear the uniform to protect. However, some of these people even take it far enough to stage protests in front of the Armed Forces Recruiting Offices. These protests may start off peaceful, but it can never be predicted when someone will go too far, possibly putting the recruiters or other protesters in danger.
Unfortunately as time goes on, the number of these protests is increasing, putting recruiters in unnecessary harm while they are just trying to do their job. With that in mind, the Commander of the US Air Force Recruiting Service (AFRS), Brigadier General Suzanne Vautrinot, has authored a short editorial article on this subject and I have attached for your reading below. I think you will find it is a powerful message that simultaneously reiterates the rights of US citizens to peacefully protest, but also asks the reader to consider whether these protests can be misdirected or inappropriate, such as they are when directed at recruiting offices. While I have sent this editorial out to newspapers in your communities for publication, I am also requesting your assistance as leaders in the community in getting this message out to the people of North and South Carolina. Though this has not yet been a significant issue in the Carolinas, it may very well be in the future and we'd like to get this information out to head off potential conflicts, if at all possible.
In closing, allow me to thank you for your time on this matter. If you would like a personal presentation on this issue, and/or recruiting in general, at your organizational meetings, I am always available for a speaking engagement, and would be more than happy to speak at your next event.
Please contact me at numbers below, or e-mail at thomas.moore@shaw.af.mil .
// signed, tcm, 10 May 07//
Lt Col Thomas C. "T.C." Moore Commander,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protesters should focus on policymakers, not recruiters (Editorial)
Air Force Times
April 16, 2007
By Brig Gen. Suzanne Vautrinot
Several recent confrontations have put some of our airmen in harm’s way. These conflicts didn’t occur on the streets of Baghdad or in the skies over Afghanistan but right in America’s backyard.
Over the past few weeks, protesters in several U.S. communities have shown their displeasure over the war in Iraq and the Defense Department’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy by targeting military recruiting stations. While some protest peacefully, others resort to setting off smoke bombs, tossing paint onto buildings, vandalizing vehicles, breaking windows and shouting profanity at recruiters. Even more troubling is protesters picketing and vandalizing recruiters’ homes, placing their families in danger.
Subjecting military recruiters to a public stoning when citizens are unhappy with public policy is like smacking a dog because his owner put an ugly sweater on him. It’s misdirected anger at best and criminal at worst.
The dark days of Vietnam when many citizens openly vilified and harassed young service members returning from Southeast Asia should have served as a harsh lesson as to what happens when Americans turn their frustrations on fellow countrymen. The physical display of frustration builds contempt and anger on both sides.
Recent protests in New York City; Milwaukee; Syracuse, N.Y.; Winona, Minn., and other American communities have subjected our young soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to real danger. These junior troops are not villains, not decision-makers and certainly not targets. But that’s what they’re being made out to be.
Recruiters come from the operational Air Force. They are security forces, mechanics and medical technicians. Many have returned from deployments in the Middle East as well as humanitarian missions in Indonesia and Africa. Respect for their contributions and a little “humanitarian” response in their hometowns seems a small thanks to request.
We live in a complex world, one where terrorists ignore compassion, perspective and humanity. Your Air Force will continue to deter them and defend America.
Recruiters are often the only military members in the communities they serve. In each of them, you’ll find a patriot who holds integrity, service and excellence as core values. They are someone’s parent and child, someone you’d like to have as a neighbor.
When these honorable men and women volunteered for military service, they understood the potential dangers that lay ahead. None expected to come under fire on the streets of America.
Recruiters don’t hide behind tall fences or security guards. They can be found at the mall, in the school cafeteria and on neighborhood streets, talking to parents, teachers and prospective recruits. They are highly visible members in America’s communities. However, this doesn’t mean they should bear the brunt of the public’s dissatisfaction with decisions made by officials in Washington.
While many Americans may grow increasingly frustrated with the situation in the Middle East, support for our troops is strong. We all take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, which allows the privilege of free speech. All we ask is that citizens speak to those with an ability to change policy, rather than insult or attack those who defend their rights to speech as well as their homeland.
It’s time to stop the harassment of recruiters and heed the lessons of a generation ago. After all, we are all one team. We are all Americans.
The writer, a brigadier general, is commander of the Air Force Recruiting Service.
From: Moore, Thomas Lt Col 337 RCS/CC
To: North and South Carolina Civic Leaders
Subject: Editorial on Protests at US Armed Forces Military Recruiting Offices
Good morning,
I am Air Force Lt. Col. TC Moore, commander of the 337th Recruiting Squadron, which covers portions of both North and South Carolina. I'm requesting your assistance in getting the word out on a very important issue - increasing protests, some verging on violence, at our recruiting offices throughout the United States. The Armed Forces Recruiters who live and work in your neighborhood are your connection to the US Armed Services. Their mission is to inform the young adults of your communities on the possibilities of serving their country, and to enlist those who make the decision to become tomorrow’s military.
During recent months there have been instances across the country where people publicly disagree with the Global War on Terror and the elected officials who make decisions for the military - and that's a right I wear the uniform to protect. However, some of these people even take it far enough to stage protests in front of the Armed Forces Recruiting Offices. These protests may start off peaceful, but it can never be predicted when someone will go too far, possibly putting the recruiters or other protesters in danger.
Unfortunately as time goes on, the number of these protests is increasing, putting recruiters in unnecessary harm while they are just trying to do their job. With that in mind, the Commander of the US Air Force Recruiting Service (AFRS), Brigadier General Suzanne Vautrinot, has authored a short editorial article on this subject and I have attached for your reading below. I think you will find it is a powerful message that simultaneously reiterates the rights of US citizens to peacefully protest, but also asks the reader to consider whether these protests can be misdirected or inappropriate, such as they are when directed at recruiting offices. While I have sent this editorial out to newspapers in your communities for publication, I am also requesting your assistance as leaders in the community in getting this message out to the people of North and South Carolina. Though this has not yet been a significant issue in the Carolinas, it may very well be in the future and we'd like to get this information out to head off potential conflicts, if at all possible.
In closing, allow me to thank you for your time on this matter. If you would like a personal presentation on this issue, and/or recruiting in general, at your organizational meetings, I am always available for a speaking engagement, and would be more than happy to speak at your next event.
Please contact me at numbers below, or e-mail at thomas.moore@shaw.af.mil .
// signed, tcm, 10 May 07//
Lt Col Thomas C. "T.C." Moore Commander,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protesters should focus on policymakers, not recruiters (Editorial)
Air Force Times
April 16, 2007
By Brig Gen. Suzanne Vautrinot
Several recent confrontations have put some of our airmen in harm’s way. These conflicts didn’t occur on the streets of Baghdad or in the skies over Afghanistan but right in America’s backyard.
Over the past few weeks, protesters in several U.S. communities have shown their displeasure over the war in Iraq and the Defense Department’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy by targeting military recruiting stations. While some protest peacefully, others resort to setting off smoke bombs, tossing paint onto buildings, vandalizing vehicles, breaking windows and shouting profanity at recruiters. Even more troubling is protesters picketing and vandalizing recruiters’ homes, placing their families in danger.
Subjecting military recruiters to a public stoning when citizens are unhappy with public policy is like smacking a dog because his owner put an ugly sweater on him. It’s misdirected anger at best and criminal at worst.
The dark days of Vietnam when many citizens openly vilified and harassed young service members returning from Southeast Asia should have served as a harsh lesson as to what happens when Americans turn their frustrations on fellow countrymen. The physical display of frustration builds contempt and anger on both sides.
Recent protests in New York City; Milwaukee; Syracuse, N.Y.; Winona, Minn., and other American communities have subjected our young soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to real danger. These junior troops are not villains, not decision-makers and certainly not targets. But that’s what they’re being made out to be.
Recruiters come from the operational Air Force. They are security forces, mechanics and medical technicians. Many have returned from deployments in the Middle East as well as humanitarian missions in Indonesia and Africa. Respect for their contributions and a little “humanitarian” response in their hometowns seems a small thanks to request.
We live in a complex world, one where terrorists ignore compassion, perspective and humanity. Your Air Force will continue to deter them and defend America.
Recruiters are often the only military members in the communities they serve. In each of them, you’ll find a patriot who holds integrity, service and excellence as core values. They are someone’s parent and child, someone you’d like to have as a neighbor.
When these honorable men and women volunteered for military service, they understood the potential dangers that lay ahead. None expected to come under fire on the streets of America.
Recruiters don’t hide behind tall fences or security guards. They can be found at the mall, in the school cafeteria and on neighborhood streets, talking to parents, teachers and prospective recruits. They are highly visible members in America’s communities. However, this doesn’t mean they should bear the brunt of the public’s dissatisfaction with decisions made by officials in Washington.
While many Americans may grow increasingly frustrated with the situation in the Middle East, support for our troops is strong. We all take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, which allows the privilege of free speech. All we ask is that citizens speak to those with an ability to change policy, rather than insult or attack those who defend their rights to speech as well as their homeland.
It’s time to stop the harassment of recruiters and heed the lessons of a generation ago. After all, we are all one team. We are all Americans.
The writer, a brigadier general, is commander of the Air Force Recruiting Service.
Friday, May 11, 2007
New blog
I now administer another blog with a very specific focus -- the 4oth year reunion of the Southeast Guilford High School Class of 1967. The planning committee wanted a website and I foolishly said, "Oh, we can do that with a blog!" Guess who got asked to do it...
Hunter Elementary School Park ribbon-cutting
Hunter Elementary School's motto -- Together we can! -- was especially fitting today as it related to the official ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Hunter School Park.
Commissioner Kay Cashion confers with Hunter principal Michelle Thompson and Guilford County Parks and Recreation chair Bernie Meyers.
Commissioner Kay Cashion confers with Hunter principal Michelle Thompson and Guilford County Parks and Recreation chair Bernie Meyers.This project is a result of a project-based learning effort where two students identified a need for additional play spaces and equipment on the school campus and wrote letters describing that need. Their plea was heard by the right people, and the rest is history -- a new park! These two young students learned that speaking up can indeed make a difference!
The two student activists are recognized and thanked for their idea.
This new neighborhood park consists of two soccer fields, a quarter-mile walking track (on which I have already logged several miles -- I live right behind the school), a basketball court, an all-purpose cement slab, and several areas equipped with play equipment suitable for various ages of children.
The new fun and secure pre-K play area
The as-yet unnamed "critter" climber -- consensus among guests was that it resembles a spider.
The new park is a cooperative effort among Guilford County schools (which supplied the land -- various spaces on the Hunter School premises), Guilford County (which supplied the funding through a Parks and Recreation bond), and the City of Greensboro (which will program playing time on the soccer fields and be responsible for maintenance of the facility). The three entities pooled resources to provide a wonderful enhancement for the school and neighborhood as well as creating badly-needed additional soccer fields for practice and play. Students will use the park facilities during the school day and after-school program, and the neighbors and community-at-large will have access after-hours and on weekends.
The most important dignitaries who attended the event were, of course, the Hunter students
who were quite appreciative and very well-behaved.
Guilford County officials who attended included Comissioner Kay Cashion, County Manager David McNeil, County Planner Roger Bardsley (who was the main person responsible for the planning of the park), and Rob Bencini, among others.
School board member Dot Kearns and numerous members of the Guilford County staff were there, including former Hunter principal Rob Gasperello.
Dianne Bellamy-Small and I represented the city along with numerous proud members of our Parks and Recreation staff including Bonnie Kuester, Dan Maxon, John Hughes, and Candice Bruton.
A wonderful morning was had by all!
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Chamber of Commerce transportation briefing
I was not able to attend, but it sounds like there was an excellent update on transportation issues at the Greensboro Chamber of Commerce's "Best Business Briefing Ever" during today's Piedmont Triad Business Showcase.
Monday, May 07, 2007
City Connections
Learn about the Bassmasters tournament to be held on Lake Townsend later this month in the lastest edition of City Connections.
Lamrocton oral history
The monthly meeting the Lamrocton neighborhood association last Thursday at the Hemphill branch library was particularly interesting and informative. This area covers the neighborhood in the South Holden Road/Cypress Park/Darden Road/Pine Lake/Pinecroft Road vicinity.
After a bit of routine business and a review of the crime statistics for the area, several longtime residents who live in the neighborhood, some since the 1930's, shared their insights and memories of how things used to be there (way outside the city limits at the time, dirt roads, several lakes, few homes, resort log cabins for vacationing folks, no locked doors, etc.) I encouraged them to share this information and their stories with the Bicentennial Commission for inclusion in the city neighborhood's history that is being compiled.
All I can say is, "My, how things have changed!"
After a bit of routine business and a review of the crime statistics for the area, several longtime residents who live in the neighborhood, some since the 1930's, shared their insights and memories of how things used to be there (way outside the city limits at the time, dirt roads, several lakes, few homes, resort log cabins for vacationing folks, no locked doors, etc.) I encouraged them to share this information and their stories with the Bicentennial Commission for inclusion in the city neighborhood's history that is being compiled.
All I can say is, "My, how things have changed!"
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Planning a reunion
I spent a pleasant afternoon with several former classmates of the Southeast Guilford High School Class of 1967 making plans for our 40th reunion in October. (We can't possibly be THAT old!) We commiserated over our age-related health challenges, shared a few laughs over "remember when..." and still managed to get a significant amount of planning done.
Tentatively, we are hoping to attend the October 12 Friday night football game, host a breakfast on Saturday morning, arrange a golf outing for those who play that afternoon, ending with a late-afternoon tour of the school followed by dinner and dancing at Forest Oaks Country Club.
Special thanks go to classmate Susan Holt (Brooks) who jump-started this reunion effort and has been driving up from South Carolina to get everything moving.
Tentatively, we are hoping to attend the October 12 Friday night football game, host a breakfast on Saturday morning, arrange a golf outing for those who play that afternoon, ending with a late-afternoon tour of the school followed by dinner and dancing at Forest Oaks Country Club.
Special thanks go to classmate Susan Holt (Brooks) who jump-started this reunion effort and has been driving up from South Carolina to get everything moving.
Weekly schedule
It's a good thing my husband is out of town this week receiving training for his new position. I have obligations for just about every evening this week, and he sure would have been stuck with frozen dinners or sandwiches if he were home. Sometimes, things just work out well!
I plan to attend the Rolling Roads Community Watch on Monday evening, May 7. This neighborhood watch is well-organized and is keeping the city on its toes about mowing and maintenance of the stream that runs through the park there.
On Tuesday morning, May 8 the City Council will have its rescheduled April briefing session, and it should be a lively one. Items on the agenda include a presentation on the possible acquisition of the Canada Dry Building (there has been progress with the site since the city council last considered -- and declined -- this proposal), an update on progress with the city-county water and sewer agreement, a recommendation on capacity use fees, and presentations on the Cool Cities campaign, Guilford Battleground Company plans, and the Heart of the Triad project (we'll see how the recent agreement reached between High Point and Kernersville may affect this effort). Sounds like a BUSY morning!
We councilmembers will be together again in the evening at the Community Foundation of Greater Greensboro to review and discuss the 2006 Social Capital Benchmark Survey.
The PART Board of Trustees will meet Wednesday morning, May 9. Items on that agenda include a continuation on the public hearing for Randolph County's preferred local funding source for PART services and a vote to select that funding method as well as presentation of the 2008-12 Capital Improvement Plan and the fiscal year 2008 operating budget.
Information included in Executive Director Brent McKinney's report show that monthly and yearly ridership have more than doubled since the beginning of service in September, 2002. PART Express ridership for the first full year of operation in 2003 was 118,791 with a monthly average of 9,899. Total boardings for 2006 were 247,810 with a monthly average of 20,651.
In the evening, I will be attending the executive committee meeting of the Piedmont Triad Council of Governments where we will be reviewing a variety of issues and requests. Once that meeting is finished, it's off to my "Wacky Wednesday" bridge group for a bit of fun.
Thursday, May 10 begins with an interview with the consultant working on the High Point Road/West Lee Street corridor study. This day will conclude with cocktails, dinner and entertainment at the Carolina Theatre celebrating donors to their Independence and Enhancement Funds.
I've been asked to participate in the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Hunter Elementary School Park opening on Friday morning, May 11. A joint effort between Guilford County, the city's Parks and Recreation Department, and Guilford County Schools has produced a beautifully landscaped play area and walking track on the large lawn in front of the school. Students will have use of the park during the school day and community members can use if after hours. (I live directly behind the school and have already clocked quite a few miles on that oval.)
As you can see, attending our twice-monthly business meetings are only a small part of the duties of a city councilmember.
I plan to attend the Rolling Roads Community Watch on Monday evening, May 7. This neighborhood watch is well-organized and is keeping the city on its toes about mowing and maintenance of the stream that runs through the park there.
On Tuesday morning, May 8 the City Council will have its rescheduled April briefing session, and it should be a lively one. Items on the agenda include a presentation on the possible acquisition of the Canada Dry Building (there has been progress with the site since the city council last considered -- and declined -- this proposal), an update on progress with the city-county water and sewer agreement, a recommendation on capacity use fees, and presentations on the Cool Cities campaign, Guilford Battleground Company plans, and the Heart of the Triad project (we'll see how the recent agreement reached between High Point and Kernersville may affect this effort). Sounds like a BUSY morning!
We councilmembers will be together again in the evening at the Community Foundation of Greater Greensboro to review and discuss the 2006 Social Capital Benchmark Survey.
The PART Board of Trustees will meet Wednesday morning, May 9. Items on that agenda include a continuation on the public hearing for Randolph County's preferred local funding source for PART services and a vote to select that funding method as well as presentation of the 2008-12 Capital Improvement Plan and the fiscal year 2008 operating budget.
Information included in Executive Director Brent McKinney's report show that monthly and yearly ridership have more than doubled since the beginning of service in September, 2002. PART Express ridership for the first full year of operation in 2003 was 118,791 with a monthly average of 9,899. Total boardings for 2006 were 247,810 with a monthly average of 20,651.
In the evening, I will be attending the executive committee meeting of the Piedmont Triad Council of Governments where we will be reviewing a variety of issues and requests. Once that meeting is finished, it's off to my "Wacky Wednesday" bridge group for a bit of fun.
Thursday, May 10 begins with an interview with the consultant working on the High Point Road/West Lee Street corridor study. This day will conclude with cocktails, dinner and entertainment at the Carolina Theatre celebrating donors to their Independence and Enhancement Funds.
I've been asked to participate in the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Hunter Elementary School Park opening on Friday morning, May 11. A joint effort between Guilford County, the city's Parks and Recreation Department, and Guilford County Schools has produced a beautifully landscaped play area and walking track on the large lawn in front of the school. Students will have use of the park during the school day and community members can use if after hours. (I live directly behind the school and have already clocked quite a few miles on that oval.)
As you can see, attending our twice-monthly business meetings are only a small part of the duties of a city councilmember.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
An embarassment of good luck (and skill?)
My bridge partner Margaret and I really enjoyed this morning's finale at the Cardinal Country Club (nicely redone!) to the Charity League bridge marathon that raises money for a scholarship for a young woman in the Greensboro area.
* She and I won the team prize for the highest score accumulated over the last seven months of bridge matches, winning this honor for four out of the last five years.
* I won the prize for the highest total score in this morning's series of games.
* Both she and I won door prizes (gorgeous deep pink geraniums) in the drawing, two out of the three prizes.
Other attendees joked that while we they would allow us to participate next year, they were going to declare us ineligible to win anything.
* She and I won the team prize for the highest score accumulated over the last seven months of bridge matches, winning this honor for four out of the last five years.
* I won the prize for the highest total score in this morning's series of games.
* Both she and I won door prizes (gorgeous deep pink geraniums) in the drawing, two out of the three prizes.
Other attendees joked that while we they would allow us to participate next year, they were going to declare us ineligible to win anything.
Southwest Recreation Center update
I received the following late-April email update about progress on the new Southwest Recreation Center that is currently in the planning stages but have just been too busy to do much blogging lately. I finally have the time to share it with you --
Hello all,
Southwest Recreation Center planning has been in full swing this week. An internal staff team met with the architects of the recreation center this morning. In addition, we received a schedule from Engineering for the necessary road improvements associated with Shimer Drive earlier in the week.
To keep you informed I wanted to provide you with outcomes of the meeting with the architects. First, the project schedule has been edited to reflect the lull over the winter associated with Shimer Drive coordination issues. The project schedule now projects construction to begin in spring 2008 with completion projected for spring 2009. Also, the next public meeting for the master plan presentation/potential adoption will occur Wednesday June 13th at the regular monthly meeting of the Greensboro Parks & Recreation Commission. You will receive more information regarding this meeting next week. In addition, meeting invitations will be mailed out to you and other neighbors prior to the meeting.
Please feel free to forward this message to other neighbors, neighborhood associations and interested parties or respond with the e-mail addresses or physical addresses of such so that I may add them to this distribution list. As always, should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly.
Candice Bruton, CPRP
Strategic Planning Administrator
Greensboro Parks & Recreation Department
336.433.7360
Hello all,
Southwest Recreation Center planning has been in full swing this week. An internal staff team met with the architects of the recreation center this morning. In addition, we received a schedule from Engineering for the necessary road improvements associated with Shimer Drive earlier in the week.
To keep you informed I wanted to provide you with outcomes of the meeting with the architects. First, the project schedule has been edited to reflect the lull over the winter associated with Shimer Drive coordination issues. The project schedule now projects construction to begin in spring 2008 with completion projected for spring 2009. Also, the next public meeting for the master plan presentation/potential adoption will occur Wednesday June 13th at the regular monthly meeting of the Greensboro Parks & Recreation Commission. You will receive more information regarding this meeting next week. In addition, meeting invitations will be mailed out to you and other neighbors prior to the meeting.
Please feel free to forward this message to other neighbors, neighborhood associations and interested parties or respond with the e-mail addresses or physical addresses of such so that I may add them to this distribution list. As always, should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly.
Candice Bruton, CPRP
Strategic Planning Administrator
Greensboro Parks & Recreation Department
336.433.7360
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
