No plow zone: The street that may never get scraped
An ambulance made it onto unplowed Roy's Place during a recent light snow, but residents are fearful.PHOTO BY HAWES SPENCER
What if you lived in Charlottesville, paid your taxes, but still found yourself living where public snowplows won't go? Residents of one city neighborhood say that's the situation they're facing because of a dispute between the developer and the city.
After two feet of snow fell in December, residents of the 16-house subdivision known as Roy's Place eagerly awaited snowplows. They heard one scraping on nearby Hartman's Mill Road and Rougemont Avenue. And then it moved on.
And that's when they learned of their legal limbo. According to residents, Roy's Place has never been plowed, and according to the city, it won't be until the dispute ends.
Residents ultimately had to dig themselves out from the two-foot blanket and from all the subsequent snowstorms. But with snow on the roads and more in the forecast, they're growing concerned about health and safety, especially the family with a baby on the way.
"My wife is in her third trimester," says resident Michael Lichtenstein. "I don't have four-wheel drive.
Lichtenstein says he called the Charlottesville Public Works Department during the December snowstorm. "A gentleman told me Roy's Place is on a do-not-plow list."
A what?!
Indeed, Roy's has not been "accepted" by the city for street maintenance, according to city planning manager Missy Creasy, and that means it really does lie in a no-plow-zone.
"A letter has been sent to the developer for the work that needs to be completed," says Creasy "The developer has been put on notice."
Typically with new subdivisions, when a developer thinks a roadway is ready, he requests a final inspection, says Creasy. If that's okayed by the city engineer, the road goes before City Council, which accepts it and agrees to maintain it.
That hasn't happened with Roy's Place, which was carved into 18 lots in 2005 and now serves as home to 16 houses (including one owned by a Hook staffer).
"We're in a tough position because there are residents there," says Creasy, "but we're not in a position to do the work until the street has been accepted."
She says that it is a risk to buy into a subdivision when roads haven't been accepted, and she suggests the residents take up the matter with the developer.
But the developer, Bobby Banks, claims he's received no notice from the city. "Ask them what address they sent it to," he instructs.
Subsequent phone calls to Creasy requesting a copy of the notice were not returned.
Banks says all the work at Roy's Place was completed in good condition by reputable contractors. Any damage, he says, occurred after residents moved– particularly an incident he alleges of a high-speed police chase that sent both a perp and a police vehicle into a curb.
"And they want me to pay for that," he says. "Why am I responsible for the sidewalks?"
Banks says that he posted a bond–- $250,000 according to the city–- to ensure completion of the neighborhood, and he hasn't gotten it back.
One good bit of news for Roy's Place residents needing emergency services: "Typically we don't have too much trouble getting through snow until it's two feet deep," says city Fire Chief Charles Werner.
Uh-oh. That's what happened in December.
It could be worse. Lichtenstein says he was told the city wasn't supposed to be picking up trash on Roy's Place, either, and that residents should be hauling it to an adjacent street themselves.
"It's frustrating and it's disconcerting," says Lichtenstein, "especially when we pay taxes."
The city doesn't seem to think that the situation is affecting property values. While overall city residential assessments fell this year, Lichtenstein said his went up $2,400.
One spot of good news for the small subdivision: Roy's Place has underground electrical wires, so while it may not get plowed this winter, so far the lights have remained on.
101 comments
Why does everybody keep missing the fact that the bond money was for completion of the street, not maintaining it? It may not even be legal for it to be used for any other purpose.
If the developer hasn't completed the job to the basic standards, then there is no reason for the city to maintain the streets. In the matter of pulling the bond, there is a due process involved. Notice must be served, then there is an appeal process, then potential court, and so on. If the residents of Roy's Place have issues and feel that they are paying for services not rendered, then they need to take it up with the developer. They should have also checked into all of the scenarios prior to purchasing a house in a developement that was not yet completed. All of the information is public record and there to see.
AJF -- Due process is a straw man argument. No one disputes that the developer deserves due process before his bond is seized -- the issue is the city's rank incompetence -- they have been sending notices to the developer AT THE WRONG ADDRESS.
When they accepted the transfer taxes and issued an occupancy permit and billed the residents they accepted responsibility for basic city services FOR THE PEOPLE. The agreed to allow their children in the schools, they agreed to offer police and fire services, etc. Plowing snow is a service to the residents. They made the deal. The bond has nothing to do with plowing snow.
But you're not separating the houses from the street. They're different entities owned by different people with different relationships with the city. The problem here isn't that the individual homeowners aren't a part of the city. You're right, they surely are, and they have every right to expect all services due to them by the city. The problem is that the street itself is private property, a strip of asphalt on private land that the city has no control over, just as surely as if one of those parcels hadn't sold yet, and was just a vacant chunk of land that happened to have some asphalt on it. Once that deal is struckââ?¬â?once the city has agreed to accept the land, and a contract has been signed, which has not yet happenedââ?¬â?then the city is on the hook. (So to speak.) But they're not yet. You might as well blame the city for not plowing Kmart's parking lot. Kmart pays property taxes! They have a business license! Well, yes, but it's their parking lot, not the city's. Or the county's, or wherever they are. :)
I think the moral of the story is "know what you're buying." Know your builder. Know your developer. Don't buy a house in a development developed by a bail-bondsman who decided one day he knew how to build roads and develop property. Look at other developments in the City like Huntley, Brookwood, and Carter's View that were mentioned in this article. All of those developers are aware that they have to take care of the roads until the City accepts them, and they seem to be working hard to get the streets accepted-- the proof being that a road from one of those subdivisions is being accepted by the City next week. Thanks for posting that good tidbit CvilleEye. It is Bobby Banks' problem, but the City should go ahead and start spending that bond money.
Lisa, is there any time line on a follow up piece? Has anything changed since this story broke?
Cville Eye:
"Government dependent children?" Come on. Wanting a snow plow to come down your street during the very occasional freak snowstorm, a process that would take three minutes at the most (especially when the plows already drive right past the street anyway), does not equal sucking at the government teat. Curb your comments section hyperbole.
***: "To bad you don't have a lawyer?" Clearly, you're not a lawyer (or not a litigator). And you're not the only one in this comments section who apparently would puff up their chest and file a lawsuit because...well, there's a dispute going on, so why not sue? Don't be taken by those Marks & Harrison commercials: litigation is almost always a last resort form of dispute resolution. It's expensive, time-consuming, generating of bad feelings.
And anyway, who, exactly, would the residents sue, professor? The developer? The city? And what would their claim be, precisely? What are their damages and would you quantify them?
(1) Breach of contract against the developer? A quick check of the public records show that none of the homeowners bought their houses from him, so they have no contractual relationship with him. Bobby Banks sold the lots in Roy's Place to various builders. Those builders built houses on the lots and sold them to Roy's Place residents.
(2) Breach of contract against the city? The homeowners don't have a contractual relationship with the city, either.
(3) Public nuisance? Have you ever litigated a public nuisance claim successfully? Didn't think so. Here's a hint: it takes more than an unplowed street to win (think hog rendering plant next door and things of that ilk).
(4) What damages would the residents allege? So far, the only damage suffered has been the inconvenience of having a snowbound street and the frustration of paying taxes but not receiving city services. Well-reasoned fear of future damages does not give rise to a claim.
This whole controversy is so stupid. The city already provides fire department protection, police protection, and EMS protection to Roy's Place. Sending a plow through on the rare occasions we get heavy snow does not burden the city financially or logistically. If the developer has not lived up to his legal obligations, then the city should seize his bond already, as they apparently have been threatening to do for over a year. Poop or get off the pot.
@Area Man, wouldn't you deem asking Daddy to do something he can not legally do as childish at best? What would you call it?
You have legal questions. Who would you ask? A nurse?
You neighbors need to get busy. Why not talk to the people who live in Burnet Commons or Brookwood? No, it's more childish to complain loudly and hope that Daddy will do what you want rather than be accused of child abuse.
Okay, I know I'm being mean, but I want you residents to start taking care of yourselves. Buying a house on a street like Hartman's Mill Road has different legalities than buying one in a PUD and every PUD has different responsibilities (contracts). I noticed that Area Man didn't consider the legal obligations of Roy's Place LLC. Does anybody in that subdivision know?
CC, you would be surprised to know that the things you don't agree with me on.... I'm still right more often than not. :)
CvilleEye, you bring up some points I have never thought of and are certianly pertinent, thanks
The residents of Roy's Place are the losers in this battle. Because Bobby Banks will not finish his job and because the city will not pull and use the bond he posted in order to finish his job and bill him for it - the exact reason these bonds are posted in the first place - now we just wait for something to happen - our neighbor goes into labor and there are complications, a fire breaks out after we lose power and people are using candles, etc. - and then there will be a lot of policies to back up.
city resident, as we both know, things are never as simple as they seem. I just wish the Belmonters would take it upon themselves to extract night clubs from the restaurant classification in the next go-round of zoning amendments. Perhpas that would be a good time for residents of PUDs to actually read the code so that they will understand the legal ramifications of living in a PUD.
"I guarantee that if this were a private business facing this kind of decision they would not have left customers stranded when it could have been fixed with a phone call."
This IS a private business facing this decision. The developer owns those streets and is responsible for them whether you think it ought to be that way or not. From what Chris C. says, "The residents of RP have contacted the developer (several times)," so it seems that you are mistaken about how a private business would handle things. Call Mr. Baker yourself and see what he says.
Are you serious -"Somebody wants to open a restaurant in a residential area, the City has to put a stop to it.”
Yes, they should, because there are zoning ordinances and people have a right to expect zoning ordinances will be followed. No one living R-1 should expect to have to have a business next door, whether you are in Belmont or you are in Greenbrier or on Park st.
Bad analogy.
another bad analogy:
Cville Eye - "Belmonters would take it upon themselves to extract night clubs from the restaurant classification in the next go-round of zoning amendments."
Well, seeing as the city already has rules about night clubs, which require special use permits, and night clubs are not restaurants, no one in Belmont or anywhere else in the city would expect to need to do that. However, changes are in the works right now to limit the ability of restaurants to masquarade as nightclubs.
If anyone tried this on Park st, the scream would be deafening.
Penelope - n alleyways are not roads, but they are public right of ways. Privately owned roads maybe be public right of ways, but that doesn't make them city or county roads. Take a drive sometime on Rugby, and off of that are some private roads leading to big homes that pay lots of taxes that don't get plowed.
I have sympathy for the resident owners, but I think they have to buck up and get a contractor to pplow until it is resolved, and nail the developer for the cost. It's a pain, but it's a reality.
CC - Nobody is missing the fact you raised above. We all know that the developer's bond was to complete the street and not to maintain it.
The frustration at issue is that the City will not seize the bond to complete the street (by fixing cracked sidewalks and curbs). THEN they can accept the street, at which point they will have to maintain it.
The city has been threatening seize this bond for more than a year. Municipalities require bonds from developers for just this reason. The City's refusal to act is baffling.
RP, Has the developer exceeded any time limit which would cause the city to seize the bond and complete the street? I haven't seen any evidence of that. The law determines when that can happen, not the emotions of the residents.
Either somebody at the city fell asleep at the wheel, or the developer is going broke, there must be a lot more to this story than what you have uncovered.
quote: "Do you expect your children to actually make something of themselves when you teach them that all you have to do is complain about the government on a two-bit so-called news blog?"
The same two-bit blog you take the time to read and actually comment in?
You people crack me up!!! :)
hey, for all of you that think we should shovel out the large mass of ice...come on down and bring your shovel! You said take care of the pregnant mom, well we also have a nurse here and a doctor..let's hope they can make it to work in case one of you needs medical attention. There are also single parent families here who need to take care of their children rather than spending 2 days trying to break out backs to shovel out. Bottom line, Mr. Banks is the shady culprit. He knows the problem exists but cannot be a decent enough business man to fix it. The interesting thing is that Mr. Banks had his driveway plowed the day after the storm but did not provide that service to the neighborhood.
The article did not mention as well maintenance of the common area which Mr. Banks has neglected as well.
And "Rush", I'd like to see you write a better article.
"it was the CITY who did not follow its own rules"
Penelope, please point out which rules those are. City Code is easy to search, I have searched it, and I don't see anything like what you claim to exist.
Just got back from a run over to Roy's Place. They looked like townhouses on TV but they're not. Still, the City does not have to adopt the street for maintenance. Short or Little Oak Street is not maintained and is not even paved. It's supposed to be gravel.
waldo is building a house.. if it catches fire should the fire deparmtnet not come because it hasn’t had the final inspection?
The Stony Point Volunteer Fire Department is in the business of putting out fires wherever they occur. Charlottesville is not in the business of plowing private property. You don't need a metaphor about putting out fires, as we have a perfectly good example of the road. Should Albemarle County plow my half-mile driveway when it snows, or not? My house has an address. I pay my taxes. It's a shared drivewayââ?¬â?there are two houses at the top, and it's considered a 'subdivision" by the county. Why in the world should Roy's Place be plowed, but not Waldo's Place? What's the difference?
Can't be deemed an alley:
"Alley means a thoroughfare, whether dedicated to public use or privately owned, that provides access for persons and vehicles to the rear and/or side lot lines of properties from abutting public streets or private roads." Sec. 34-1200. Definitions.
Although Little Oak Street is in front of the houses, I've been told that the city considers it an alley. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.
Going by what has been posted here the city sent him notices and has a right but also a RESPONSIBILITY to the TAXPAYERS to protect them.
They did not do that.
I will concede that if you went to court to sue the city to get them to plow the street you would probably lose. (but I also think the judge would ask the city "why are we wasting the court times with this technicality?")
I also believe that since the city made a conscience decision to not plow this street, knowing that this is a transitional situation not an alley or hoa, then the city would surely lose in court if a resident died because the ambulance could not get to them in time.
CC you must be a government worker whos motto is "not my job"
It is "not my job" to shovel out my neighbors car but I did it because it was the right thing to do.
Here is a question... if you call an ambulance anywhere in the city, I would presume that if the street has not been plowed they would redirect a plow to that street. So would they stop at this street and tell the person "too bad"?
The city screwed up on this one. A government worker who just got a Christmas bonus played scrooge becuause they could.
If someone buys a home on a street that is undedicated then they should have only had a conditonal occupancy permit. If the city chooses to not look out for its citizens when the permit is issued then they need to step up to the plate and plow the damn road. This is about lazy unresponsivce government . People that want to argue tha technical legal points are the ones not getting it.
Has the Hook followed up on this? I would be curious to hear the Mayors point of view.
@Penelope, "...and has ALREADY agreed to accept maintainance responsibilities for the road upon completion and final inspection." I don't know where you got this. Council does not pre-approve streets. This is just ridiculous. This is eqully ridiulous: "The city is using a technicality to shirk its responsibilities." Why would the city choose this alley to pick on? Is there somebody living there that is particularly dispised or the city just pick a street to torture for its amusement? Can you think of any other unadopted street that the city doesn't plow to cause people to suffer? A few people have given you good, logical advice here and you choose to ignore it like a child. Maybe you shouldn't be owning your own home.
How difficult is it for a snow plow to just sneak in there and take the 10 minutes to plow the damn street? Is there no plow out there that will just help out these people and take a swing down their street??? If I had a plow I'd do it, for free. It's called doing the right thing, helping out your fellow human beings. What has this world come to??
To my surprise, I'm with the city on this.
This isn't city land. This isn't a city street. This is private property, owned by a developer, and the city has no more obligation to plow it than they have to plow your or my driveway. Personally, I'm not a fan of the process as it exists now: developers can build enormous, terribly engineered subdivisions, and VDOT is obliged to accept them and maintain them. (Luckily, Gov. Kaine put a stop to this, ordering VDOT to cease taking over cul-de-sacs. Subdivisions can be built with those awful roads, but they've got to be prepared to maintain them forever.) Here we have this guy, Bobby Banks, who owns a road and he's complaining that the government isn't maintaining it for him. Well, no, of course not.
Lisa, you don't write what the time frame is here: how long ago that he applied to have the city take over the streets and how long ago the city requested that he make changes to those streets. Without those two bits of information, it's tough to assign blame much further. Looking at the assessments, it looks like most of the houses were purchased between 2006-2008, so it's presumably within the last few years that Mr. Banks has applied to have the city take over ownership, meaning that they may have been holding onto his $250,000 bond for a while. I recently had to post a small bond ($10k) relating to building a house (in the county), and you'd best believe that I've been in regular contact with the county about what I need to do to satisfy the conditions to get that bond released. If I'd put up $250k, I don't think I'd just be twiddling my thumbs, waiting for them to get back to me, especially if it meant that I was on the hook to maintain an entire subdivision.
And, FWIW, the notion that they should withhold their property taxes just doesn't hold water. Only a small amount of city taxes go to plowing and trash removal, so even if the city were obligated to be plowing this private roadââ?¬â?and clearly (to me) they are not under the current circumstancesââ?¬â?we'd be looking at a pretty tiny amount of taxes being withheld.
I'm paying to have my own half-mile driveway plowed tomorrow; I paid to have it plowed just last week, too. That's a great deal more road than Roy's Place. Why doesn't Mr. Banks just pay somebody to plow it? If I lived in this subdivision, I'd be angry with the developer for his failure to accomplish this basic task; anger at the city ought to be a distant second.
It may well be true that the city is at some sort of fault hereââ?¬â?maybe they've been too slow in dealing with this application, maybe they failed to send the notice in question to the correct addressââ?¬â?but based on the facts presented here, it sure looks to me like the bulk of the fault lies with Mr. Banks.
This is ridiculous why isn't the city protecting these taxpayers and using the bond, even if they have to go to court !
"Every PUD must have an entity that is legally responsible for the maintenance of the common grounds. I’m through with this."
Therein lies the rub: the term "entity". Chisholm Place, in Woolen Mills, is neither a city-adopted street nor does any entity hold maintenance responsibility, since there literally is no HOA. The residents essentially decided (via inaction) to let the HOA formed by the developer lapse after the requisite percentage of properties sold (from developer to private owners).
Several residents claim that no one - most notably their own lawyers - informed them that they were buying into a PUD, & the implications thereof. The street hovers in legal limbo now that virtually no entity, private or city, has legal responsibility for the common areas.
Chisholm Pace was dug out the hard way, by its residents, with shovels, from one end to the other during both recent storms, and its residents trundle their trash cans to the closest intersection for city pickup.
Not saying that there is or should be a solution, but there appear to be PUD issues in other parts of the city, also.
Why would anyone have a half-mile driveway?
That's a perfectly fair question, once it occurred to me that not everybody lives or has lived in the country. :) (I grew up in Free Union, and I've lived in Stony Point since 2004, and I've known lots of folks with driveways as long or longer than mine. Most of them live(d) on farms.) I recently wrote a long blog entry about siting my house, but the short version is that my house is on the side of a mountain (family land), and to get up a flat spot suitable for building required building a road that switches up the side. As the crow flies, it's rather shorter, but that's about how long the whole road turned out to be. I expect we'll wind up converting some of the land to orchard, and some to grazing land for livestock, but the bulk of the route is and will remain forested (and long).
I think that most people here are missing the point. Understandably, until the city accepts the street, they are not responsible for it. HOWEVER, the city is holding $250,000 of the developers money, which was put in the city's hands in order to ensure that the work was completed as necessary. For two years they have been sending Mr. Banks final notices that they were going to use the bond money, but have yet to actually act on these threats. The residents have no leverage here, believe me, as Roys Place resident if I had that bond in MY hands I would have cashed it in, made the repairs, and settled this some time ago. Why can't the city do this? As far as contacting Mr. Banks, that's laughable. His bond business is about 2 houses away from Roys Place...on a plowed road. Mr. Banks at this point seems to have forfeited his rights to that money, and the city is long over due to put the money to use and fulfill their government obligations to the residents, just as the residents are fulfilling their obligations to the city by shoveling their sidewalks, paying taxes, and complying with other city codes and ordinances.
I think Mr. S gets it just fine.
When the city gave occupancy permits they accepted some responsibility. The level of which is subjective.
If they plowed it would there be Hook article complainging about the waste of 50 dollars?
Do you think they will use more or less than 50 dollars of taxpayer time discussiong this in a meeting?
When Waldo goes for his final occupancy permit will they grant it if the driveway is not 911 ready?
Will they plow it next time?
Will citizens remember this kind of crap the next time the city wants us to "trust" them?
Will the citizens remember this type of things at election time?
If someone is wandering drunk up and down this street can the police arrest him? Do they need permission from Mr. Banks first?
Can Mr. Banks use the street to park cars with no tags on them and leave them there?
Can Mr. Banks speed on hius own road?
Can the city fine the people for not clearing the sidewalks?
When will the city use a little common sense?
I see yu want to get into taking arguments a bit to the edge and hope you can then win a sympathy vote.
"Here is a question”Š if you call an ambulance anywhere in the city, I would presume that if the street has not been plowed they would redirect a plow to that street. So would they stop at this street and tell the person ââ?¬Å?too bad”?"
No, any more than they dn't say that in other difficult places. In the decembr stomr, rscue wrkers were out trying to resuce people, even though the rads were not plowed, and people are taxpayers. the ambulance would have gone as far as it could, and then while others helped with it, the medical techs would have carred their equipment like they always do.
All the rest is speculation and it is entirely possible the judge would have asked where the heck Mr Banlks was.
Cut and paste from your email program Caesonia. It's not hard. You win for the worst spelled post I have ever seen on a blog. :)
OK Cassie suppose you are the city attorney for a moment.
Which of the following scenarios creates more liability for the city:
a) plowing the road and causing damage because a manhole cover is too high, and having to have the developer sue for the 5k in repairs. (even though he has let his bond lapse)
b) not plowing and having an infant die because the ambulance could not get through because the city made a
sorry compuer glitch:
b) not plowing and having an infant die because the city made a CONSCIENCE DECISION to not plow the road even though it was the CITY who did not follow its own rules in protecting the same TAXPAYERS that are snowd in.
It doesn't take Allen and Allen and Allen and Allen and Allen to do that math.
Right or wrong on the written word this was a stupid decision on the citys part. The fact that the city has accepted other services hurts their defense not helps it.
IF THIS IS TRUE:
To answer your question, though: yes, in early April 2008, the city gave the developer 30 days to substantially complete all required improvements (fixing damaged curbs and sidewalks) or before calling the bond subject to the terms of the bond.
THEN THE CITY IS PUNISHING TAXPAYING CITIZENS FOR ITS OWN NEGLIGENCE.
(his 30 days were up in May)
My question is: If you were the person who could decide what to do about the situation IN THE MIDDLE OF A SNOW STORM, and your choices were:
a) say no plow list; no plow, no way, no how.
b)make a phone call to a superior and explain the situations as: "this is not an alley this is a ROAD that is in transition and the developer has not called for the final hearing...but these people need to get out and it WILL be a city road soon.... what do you think...
If I were the Mayor I would FIRE any person that chose "a", for the reason that that person does not possess the intelligence that it takes to look out for not only the citizens but the very reputation of the city.
You folks trotting out regulations regarding maintainance are people who suffer from "not my job" mentality which has ruined many a workplace. You are the same jerks that will reject a 30 day warranty if it is 31 days old even though the city was shut down for a blizzard.
You may be able to find a technicality but that doesn't make you right it just makes you jerk.
Ever notice that these kind of people are the first ones let go in a downturn?
I WAS looking to relocate to Charlottesville WITH a business that would bring 40 to 50 new jobs. Is this really how the city is run? Is Missy Creasy an elected official who stands behind such a thing as "do not plow" lists?
So "Rob" you would rather move to a city where public officials ignore the law?
Deleted by moderator.
Agreed Tracy! Refund the residents for their property taxes if you can't supply the services...Missy you are falling down on the job!
The city needs to refund taxes paid by the residents. Taxes are for services and they aren't receiving any services. Any instance of those in power think they have total "dictator like" control. They need to remember for whom they work.
I know of another new city neighborhood that has to maintain their own storm drains, which could get expensive, and yet they pay the same taxes. If this is a cost saving measure at least their taxes should be adjusted accordingly.
first comment WOOT!
I guess it would be extremely hard for the cop shoppe to issue tickets to people for not shoveling their sidewalks on Roy's Place? After all, the city isn't even plowing their streets! :)
Imagine living in a city or locality where electricity is delivered and the streets are plowed and maintained.
Then face the reality that we live in Charlottesville/Albemarle, Viriginia, in the year 2010.
I meant to say when government is NOT limited we have problems.
Residents should not have to negotiate with the developer, that is the City's job. That's why we have a City Manager. Have you talked with him ?
city resident, thanks for the good laugh on both your posts. The city reasonable? Ask the people who live in Belmont. Live in mixed use distruict? It's treated as commerical. Live R-1 close to a commerical district? You are treated as a commerical district? Are there rules to follow for rezoning? The City Council ignores them when it isn't convenient.
You can ahev the law on your side and still lose.
As for the City Manager, he would be why the city didn't have any snow services anymore. My street used to see a truck within 3 hours of falling white weather. Now we are lucky to see it within 24 hours, or at all if the white isn't very deep.
Frankly I think both Albemarle and the city are run deplorably, due to all the spoiled petty self interests in the community.
The residents should put their taxes into escrow and file a motion for the city to move forward on resolving the issue.
You yada yada yadad over the most important part. The bond is to make sure the road was built to code. It had nothing to do with SNOW. Snow is a service between the residents and the city. When they accepted the transfer taxes and issued an occupancy permit and billed the residents they accepted responsibility for basic city services FOR THE PEOPLE. The agreed to allow their children in the schools, they agreed to offer police and fire services, etc. Plowing snow is a service to the residents. They made the deal. The bond has nothing to do with plowing snow. If they took it out of the bond then they would be getting paid twice. This is a road not a townhome devlopment or a private driveway. I would bet that if a car were parked in front of a fire hydrant the police would write a ticket. The issue with acceptance has to do with asphalt and cement and stormwater runoff.
Why does the city keep getting itself in these PR messes?
Don't make me call Jackie Childs...
Thanks Waldo. This isn't city property and not only does the city not have an obligation to maintain it, they most likely don't even have the right to. City employees and city subcontractors only have the right to enter private property in very limited situations. City Code pretty clearly spells those things out. If you don't like the law, go sign up and speak to City Council. Until then, it's ridiculous to get angry because people are following the law. I for one am glad to know my taxes aren't being spent to clean up after a developer who hasn't finished his job.
http://tinyurl.com/cville-code
ARTICLE VI. COMPLETION OF ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND SURETY
Sec. 29-260. Satisfactory completion of site-related improvements required.
(e) For the purposes of this chapter, a public improvement shall be deemed to be accepted when it is formally accepted by city council and taken over for operation and maintenance by the city, as evidenced by a resolution of city council. Nothing in this chapter, including the approval of a final plat, shall obligate the city to accept and take over for operation and maintenance any improvements completed by a subdivider as required by this chapter. Acceptance or approval of an improvement shall be made only if the improvement satisfies all applicable statutes, regulations, ordinances, guidelines, design and construction standards for acceptance or approval of the improvement, upon completion of inspections by the city.
(f) All site-related improvements required by this chapter shall be completed at the expense of the subdivider, except where the subdivider and the city enter into a cost-sharing or reimbursement agreement prior to final plat approval. The city shall not be obligated to maintain, repair, replace or reconstruct any improvement required by this chapter. Nothing in this chapter obligates the city to pay any costs arising from any improvement, unless the city has a recorded ownership interest in the improvement, evident from an inspection of the city's land records, or has otherwise agreed in writing to maintain, repair, replace or reconstruct the improvement.
The city has an obligation to the residents because they allowed this PUD to be built in the first place. The city has an abysmal record regarding PUDs, a zoning that is flawed in many ways. They allow developers to greatly increase density in exchange for empty promises. Look at the profferred affordable units at the Linden Town Lofts that disappeared when the developer skipped.
This particular article focuses on Roy's Place, but other PUDs in Charlottesville have also been shoveling their streets by hand all winter because the city never followed up. At least Banks is in town. What about the developers who have disappeared? Does anyone at the city care about that?
The city needs to be responsible for 1) their failed zoning policy, and 2) lack of follow-through to see if their New Urbanist experiments were even working.
Snow isn't a "service," it's cold, wet, and often times slippery stuff that falls from the sky. As for the rest, let me help you zero in on it since you seem to have a hard time with this.
"Nothing in this chapter obligates the city to pay any costs arising from any improvement, unless the city has a recorded ownership interest in the improvement, evident from an inspection of the city’s land records, or has otherwise agreed in writing to maintain, repair, replace or reconstruct the improvement."
Until the road is accepted, it isn't the city's and it isn't the city's obligation in any way to maintain it. It's just that plain and simple. If you were buying a house and a tree fell on it two hours before closing, would you agree to pay for the repairs? Not likely I'd guess. The situation is the same here. Until that paperwork is finalized, the developer still owns the property and has all the rights and obligations that come with that.
Tina, that would have been so much more effective in all caps.
Waldo, my question was a fair one. I was obviously referring to paid firefighters. Your inability to understand does not make you right.
The difference?
Because the city has accepted the bond for completion to state standards and has ALREADY agreed to accept maintainance responsibilities for the road upon completion and final inspection. Your driveway is not a street. (however, I suppose if you wanted to make it a road, build it to road widths and standards and allow the public to use it you too could dedicate it to the state and then if they chose to accept it you could have it plowed. Don't know if the math works for you but I suppose you could try it. I also bet that if you added another three houses the county would REQUIRE you to build it to state standards. Once that were done you could dedicate it.
Snow removal is not street maintanance. In the state building code for roads it does not have a subsection for "snow and ice".
The city is using a technicality to shirk its responsibilities.
It is a waste of taxpayer money to even debate the issue. If anyone at the city had a lick of sense they would have said.. it is in the works, plow it, citizens would have gotten what they paid for, the city would not have bad PR, the costs of debating it both politically and financially would not been born. It also would have just been the right thing to do.
Caesonsia
1) allyways are not roads
2) 911 addresses get you to the Driveway. They plow to the driveway.
3)They probably should take your advice since the city is obviously shirking its duties.
4)The sidewalks that must be cleared are on your land, you give the city a " front foot benefit" (easement) It is a deal where they maintain the sidewalk (repair or replace) but you do the snow removal and edging. It was in the original agreement when built.
This is just bad public relations. Once the truck is already to the street another 15 minutes couldn't cost more than 50 bucks.
Even Marion Barry would have solved this problem by now.
C'ville eye, this is why our founding fathers chose a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy.
They were hoping for an "informed citizenry." Instead they got a bunch of government-dependent children. If the residents think they are being discriminated against, why not take the city to court?
@cc"Until the road is accepted, it isn’t the city’s and it isn’t the city’s obligation in any way to maintain it."
This doesn't make any sense these are city residents, paying the same taxes as all of us, there is no reasonable way to argue that their houses are not on a city street. I'll bet if this is the code it could be challenged in court. "
By the time someone decides what to do the snow will be gone (August). Why doesn't someone with a city plow go over and plow the place. Can't be that difficult. Someone has to know someone.
The city was PAID to plow the streets. This is such a no brainer it is not funny. Wheres waldo is building a house.. if it catches fire should the fire deparmtnet not come because it hasn't had the final inspection?
These people are not asking to have the sidewalks fixed or potholes filled, they are asking the city to plow the snow, a basic government service.
Suppose a house is behind on its real estate taxes does that mean that the city should throw his kid out of school? Why not? Thats right because the city has the RIGHT to sell their house for unpaid taxes. The city has a good faith bond of 250K. Do your job.
I can GUARANTEE that if an ambulance is delayed over this petty crap and somebody dies the city will end up paying MILLIONS.
What benefit is it the city to not plow the roads? Leverage? They have 250k of leverage. Do you think a foot on snow that will melt in a week is going to get something done that 250k won't?
The imcomptence of this city Government is becoming overwhelming.
I wonder if a cop were to run over someone in a wheelchair in a crosswalk on this street if it would actually be a crime or not.
Just because the City is in a recession where building is down by 50% can't manage to do its job, does not mean that a citizen should be denied a basic service. We already pay for their incompetence and mismangagement with our tax dollars, should we force people to shovel snow while city workers get the day off with pay and spend their chrismans bonus on ebay?
I cannot believe anybody would side with the city on this.
I'll bet if it were habitat for humanities houses it would have gotten plowed.
This place is getting downright crazy.
Seinfeld, the city has been leaving a lot of people buried in snow even when they aren't on no plow lists. I came back to a street of solid ice in December because the city had never plowed it. I pay taxes too and I was still responsible for clearing public throughway as well.
I'm not ging to get into the non-tax paying thing because right now, there are a lot of people who would rather be fully employed and paying taxes.
I have a novel idea - how about the neighborhood residents get out with snow shovels and take care of their own instead of waiting for the city to do something it's not going to do.
Or even pool their money and hire a snow plow to do it for them - check out the various listings on craigslist for Charlottesville.
I agree that the situation needs to be legally resolved but in the meantime stop the whining and take care of yourselves and especially the soon to be new mom.
PS I have shoveled plenty in the last few snow falls...
Not to completely change the subject, but . . . this is a perfect example of the ultimate weakness in our form of elected City government. The bottom line here is that the folks that live in Roy’s Place do not have their ââ?¬Å?own” directly elected City representative to speak on their behalf.
Since all City Councilors are elected on an ââ?¬Å?at-large” basis, there is no specific City Council person for the geographic area that includes Roy’s Place. No one person within City government specifically tasked to represent these people, and no one that can be held to task (via the electoral process) if they don’t do a good job.
It always comes back to a question of the ââ?¬Å?haves” and ââ?¬Å?have-nots”. If you are ââ?¬Å?lucky” enough to gain the interest and support of one of our ââ?¬Å?at-large” City Councilors, then you are a ââ?¬Å?have”. However, if no City Councilor is willing to champion your issue, then you are a ââ?¬Å?have-not” --> stuck on the outside looking in (just like the folks over at Roy’s Place ââ?¬â?? stuck in ââ?¬Å?limbo” while the City and the developer fight).
Regardless of how you feel about the City plowing or not plowing, or the City using or not using the bond money; the good folks over at Roy’s Place would have been much, much better served in this situation if they had had their own ââ?¬Å?directly” elected City representative for their area (versus the current status quo). A representative that is specifically responsible for looking out for ââ?¬Å?their” issues.
FYI: The same goes for you folks over in Belmont with your issues.
ajf says:Yes - RM, I am suggesting that the residents continue to pay their property taxes. Property taxes are based on the land and improvements on a specific parcel. The street does not have anything to do with property taxes.
Property taxes are BASED on that for billing purposes. Why do they send you a bill? Oh thats right... so they can provide you SERVICES. Doh....
This is just good old fashoned government stupidity. Just like the DMV requiring a picture ID to give you a replacment for a lost license when your picture is right there in front of them on the computer. STUPID.
This problem occurred because the city did not do its job. It should not have issued an occupancy permit unless the road was done. By accepting the bond it allowed the developer to start the road and for people to use it at their own risk until turned over. Snow removal is not street maintanance it is public safety. They took the money yo provide a service and are refusing to provide it on an irrelevant technicality.
wheres waldo cannot get an occupancy permit until his driveway meets code but the ambulance would still drive down there to pick him up.
The city isnot providing service to a paying customer. The taxpayers who live on the street. It is too bad there is not a womens shelter or pet rescue or better yet a solar panel convert used downtown mall bricks into compost facility, then the mayor would have been down there himself sceaming discrimination.
I can't believe that SOMEBODY in thegovernment has not fixed this and called the Hook to let them know.
They will spend more time and money playing pass the buck then they ever would have plowing the friggin street.
By the way.. if the "owner of the road" is still the developer does that mean he can forfeit his bond and charge a toll? NO it means that he has given it to the city and it is in transition until it meets code. The city agreed to use it but not maintain it until that time. So to use your analogy of a tree falling on a house two hours before settlement, it would be more like you moving into a house a month before settlement and agreeing to handle the maintance but not the structure. So if a toilet backed up.. you gotta plunge it.
Plow the road and stop wasting tax dollars getting out of your responsibilities.
1) There are other roads in the city not maintained by the city, including with snow removal. For example, alleyways. These alleyways have to be maintained by the surrounding property owners, and kept open for fireservice. The city does not plow them. The property owners pay city taxes.
2)991 has listing of plenty of farm addresses with farm roads that run half a mile or more. The county does not have to plow those roads anymore than someone's driveway.
3)Hire a contractor to plow the street, and if the city is found in the wrong, bill them for it. Like others here have said, stop complaining and take action.
4) City sidewalks are public, and maintained by the public, but private residents must clear them themselves. Tell me what the difference is.
C in e'ville. The resident's did go out and shovel the street during the Dec 19 storm. Not an easy task and not something they should have to do.
I've shoveled my driveway and sidewalks plenty in the last few snow falls too. Shoveling the entire street is another matter. Moron.
Yes - RM, I am suggesting that the residents continue to pay their property taxes. Property taxes are based on the land and improvements on a specific parcel. The street does not have anything to do with property taxes.
Kramer - would you be saying that due process is a straw man argument if you were at fault for something and property were taken from you? You would most likely fight to the end to protect your property, and any future law student would be able to win your case because the proper due process was not implemented. and by the way, my street is no where near cleared. since this weekend i have been driving on 2" of ice, and have had to dig my car out three times (from the same spot).
Residents need to clear the sidewalks in front of their house so that more money is not wasted by PW and/or Parks doing the work themselves. I have never lived in a city, town, township, or any other locality that has cleared my sidewalks for me it is simply not cost effective, and you would all be crying that the city is wasting your tax dollars if you saw how much money went into snow removal of every city sidewalk.
And yes, my attitude is "too bad for you", information is out there and if you do not obtain it then too bad for you. If the residents of the street have contacted the developer (who is the owner of the road, and the responsible party) and received no response or a finger point toward the city, then they need to gather together and sue the developer for not completing the job that he was contracted for.
Why would anyone have a half-mile driveway?
Ha! What hole have you been living in? Long driveways are all over the county, especially in the rural areas. Waldo, give a link to the description of the process you went through to site your home.
Wild guess here WBF, but maybe it's because their house is a half mile from the road.
quote C'ville Eye- "No, the HOA is not obligated to make the street public. Unfortunately, that’s where your argument falls apart. Where did you get that information? "
I believe you're mistaken there. From Charlottesville City Code:
Chapter 29 SUBDIVISION OF LAND
ARTICLE IV. DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENTS
DIVISION 3. STREETS
Sec. 29-180. Streets; generally.
(a) Private streets. Private streets are prohibited except pursuant to townhouse developments under City Code section 34-388(b).
(4-21-08(1))
Those streets don't automatically become accepted by the city tough. More on that to come.
Here is a Consent Agenda item on Monday's Council agenda:
g. RESOLUTION: Accept Extension of Raymond Road into City System (1st of 1 reading)
It will pass because the road was built to city specifications, not because someone promised. It's been in use by the residents for over a year.
Don't worry, if someone DIES because the ambulance couldn't get there they will have an army of lawyers.
And the Taxpayers will pay... just like the van der lin fiasco
"My understanding of the procedure is that the developer gets approval for the project which includes whether the street is to be public or private." No, the HOA is not obligated to make the street public. Unfortunately, that's where your argument falls apart. Where did you get that information? Call Haluska at 970-3182 and ask him. It just doesn't make sense. If the public didn't pay for it, how can it be automatically public? Again, the road in Brookwood, although it connects Ridge Street with 5th Street SW and underwent city scrutiny as to whether it COULD qualify for eventual city acceptance, is still not a city street. Call the city and ask the question and stop operating with misinformation and impressions.
Caesonia, you're right.
Again, know what you are buying. Lisa, Mr. Banks was at City Hall yesterday for a meeting. Rumor has it that he brought the media with him. Any updates? Thanks
CC -- Thank you for stating the obvious and enlightening us on the primacy of the law over residents emotions.
To answer your question, though: yes, in early April 2008, the city gave the developer 30 days to substantially complete all required improvements (fixing damaged curbs and sidewalks) or before calling the bond subject to the terms of the bond.
The best part about today? Watching five city utility employees break apart the ice on the manhole covers (and sprinkle sand to avoid slippage) in Roy's Place to check on the water. Maybe they did not get the memo.......silly city.
Amen, Mr. Jerry Seinfeld!
Thats what I dont get. If a credit card company(or whatever) sends a bill to the wrong address, YOU'RE still responsible for paying it. If he changed his address and didnt tell the city then shame on him and they should take it to the next step.
Penelope, the city has accepted some level of responsibility. They get fire service, police protection, sewer, and a number of other public services. So far, it seems that roads fit into another category by the rules, and that does not appear to be subjective at all.
The City may well be moving too slowly, and I think residents have a right to be upset about that, but as long as there is limbo, they could have legal liabilities if they plow the streets.
Snow removal in not inprovement or maintainance as outlined in the above quoted laws.
If someone dumped an old diswasher on the sidewalk it would not be called maintanance.
God dumped snow. The city removes snow from the streets.
This could have been fixed with a phone call.
The mayor deserves to be lamblasted for not solving this problem.
This city government is so stupod when it comes to public relations.
The city was negligent for not enforcing the bond.
Dave Norris doesn't care about Roy's Place people.
Have you tried organizing your neighbors and coming to a council meeting to ask that some action be taken. I have found that they are receptive to reasonable requests and this certainly falls into that category.
The city is in the WRONG here. Maintaining (repave etc) the streets is maintiainance but PLOWING SNOW is SNOW REMOVAL.The builder of the road didn't neglectfully put the snow there. This is what people refer to when they point out how INCOMPETENT government workers are. What IDIOT made the decision that it was OK to force these people to pay full taxes and then not even give them snow removal? The person that made that error in judgment should be FIRED. A resident shouldn't have to complain to a council for something so basic. Overpaid government executives should make a phone call and fix this in ONE MINUTE.
How bad does it have to get in this town before someone is actually held accountable to the taxpayers????????
.... and you want to be my latex salesman?
Every PUD must have an entity that is legally responsible for the maintenance of the common grounds. I'm through with this.
I'm still laughing at Kanye. Good one.
The residents of RP have contacted the developer (several times) and are met with the same comments that the Hook reporter received. I would certainly like to see a bill sent to Mr. Banks for the labor put into snow removal and maintenance of a common area which never gets mowed either. I agree, the next action is to go to council meetings and potentially start legal action if that is necessary.
So AJF, you're suggesting that the residents should continue to pay taxes, and legally be held Hostage by the City's inability to get developers to complete their responsibilities? If the issue is with an incompletion of a Check-Off list for the city to assume responsibility, and said developers non-compliance, then why isn't the City directly dealing with Mr. Banks? Instead of telling Tax paying residents to basically go get screwed and take it up with someone who obviously isn't going to complete the job he was supposed to. Being a resident of this neighborhood, i take offense to your "too bad for you" attitude. I'm sure if the situation was in your neighborhood, you'd be just as upset. If the city is not going to provide services based on the fact that the street is not "accepted" by the city council yet, then the Residents should not be required to pay full city taxes so YOU can enjoy clear roads.
Does mail get delivered to the homeowners at Roy's Place? Does elecricity and water get supplied to the homes? Do the homeowners pay their taxes? And yet, the people that live there are being punished because of some sidewalk cracks??? Once the homeowners got physical 911 addresses, the street became legal!!! It appears that the town has some issues with the builder and in return the residents are having to pay the cost. Doesn't seem fair, because it's not.
I also don't understand why people have to shovel sidewalks that belong to the town. The sidewalks don't belong to the residents. If a sidewalk needs repair, do the residents fix them? NO!! The town does.
GSOE, that's the third time I've had to agree with you in under a week.
cc and Waldo, thanks for your comments. city resident, I an actually surprised on your stance. ou are usually right on the dollar. I am getting the impression that the residents in Roy's Place are not aware of the fact that their property is controlled by Roy's Place LLC and all common areas are the responsibility of that legal entity. Do you even have a HOA? What structure have you set up to govern the PUD? And, of course, the city shouldn't be cleaning your streets until the street is adopted. Ask the residents of Burnet Commons. Actually ask the people in Brookwood who's cleaning their streets. When the city invades privately-owned properties it becomes subject to a variety of liabilites. It may well be, in the future, that the residents of Roy's Place may decide they do not want the street dedicated to the city for safety reasons. As long as it's private the HOA can bar people from trespass. It can also stop the city from one day connecting Roy's Place to Carter's View. Right now, your HOA (maybe still legally the LLC) is repsonsible for exterior maintenance of common areas and, yes, trash pick up. You may want it to stay that way. CRHA prefers that relationship with the city. As several people on this thread have said, "Know what you're buying."
The problem here isn't the City's lack of doing something, or the developer's lack of doing something. The problem is that everyone in this City has this overinflated sense of entitlement. "Oh, my street wasn't plowed. It's the City's fault!" "There's a homeless guy drunk on the downtown mall. The City should build homeless shelters." "My neighbor's yard is a breeding ground for mosquitoes, the city should make them clean it up." "Somebody wants to open a restaurant in a residential area, the City has to put a stop to it."
It's always someone else's fault, and no one can take responsibility for themselves. Get the spoons out of your mouth, get off of your soap box, and go do something. Do you expect your children to actually make something of themselves when you teach them that all you have to do is complain about the government on a two-bit so-called news blog?
Get off of your Arse and do something.
It is always a good idea to know what you are buying. Based on the lack of research, ridiculous claims and statements and all around bad reporting from that "one Hook staffer" it's not really shocking they didn't see this coming.
The city had hoped that Brookwood would have come before Council for adoption over a year and a half ago. Why don't people ask how they get their street scraped?
Once the City sends plows into this neighborhood and they damage the road and maybe hit a curb or two, the developer is going to say "you broke it, you fix it." whether true or not. I don't want my taxes going to bail out a developer who has failed to live up to his obligations.
You said take care of the pregnant mom, well we also have a nurse here and a doctor..
Too bad you don't have a lawyer...
Cville eye
My understanding of the procedure is that the developer gets approval for the project which includes whether the street is to be public or private. He then posts a bond, gets a permit and commences work. When the street is ready for final inspection he requests it and the city takes it over and it becomes the city's property.
So it seems to me that since the city agreed to issue the permit and accept the bond to guarantee completion then they accepted some responsiblity to make sure it gets done in a timely and adequate faction.
That same city gave the houses occupancy permits that were (to my knowledge) not conditional. The residents had a reasonable presumption that the city would do its job and see that the road was finished properly and in a timely fashion.
So, but for the city's negligence the road would have been completed and turned over. Since they didn't do that the least they could do is plow the street. The onus is not on the residents to make sure the developer fulfills his agreement with the city.
I don't have a problem with the "no plow" list which I presume is for private roads that appear to be public, but I do with someone seeing the "why" of this problem and not correcting it for the benefit of the taxpayers.
This city takes money from taxpayers and gives it to non taxpayers in the name of Government charity yet cannot even fix one little problem.
The least they could have done is plow it and then send them a notice that there is an issue and they may not be plowed next time.
You can keep arguing technicalities but the bottom line still remains that the city took taxpayer money and left people buried in snow.
I guarantee that if this were a private business facing this kind of decision they would not have left customers stranded when it could have been fixed with a phone call.
But at least we recognised the Tibetans, apologised to dead people and gave out Christmans bonuses.... that is after all what the city charter mandates.... or not.
Cville Eye:
Roy's Place LLC = the developer. It's the LLC he formed when he developed the land. He owns it. It is not an HOA. Talking about the developer's obligations is synonymous with talking about the obligation's of Roy's Place LLC.
Not surprisingly, you have completely missed the point.
The reason why Roy's Place residents are talking about their situation is so that the city will get off its ass and seize the developer's bond AS IT HAS BEEN SAYING IT WILL DO FOR MORE THAN A YEAR. That's why they require developers to post bonds. There's no special treatment for anyone involved.
But, I suspect that your comments here are aimed more at winding people up and getting off on being patronizing than any interest local development controversies.
Information overload warning.
We do have a City Code. It enumerates both powers and limitations of our local government. It is good to have limitations on government, because when they are limited, then we have much bigger problems than dealing with snow.
No doubt there are other relevant sections, but this is what I've found. If you read it, you should then know why the city isn't plowing.
Chapter 29 SUBDIVISION OF LAND*
Sec. 29-6. Relation of chapter to other laws and private contracts.
The requirements of this chapter are:
(3) Separate from the requirements, terms or conditions of any private easement, covenant, agreement or restriction. Neither the city nor any of its officers, employees or agents shall have any duty to enforce a private easement, covenant, agreement or restriction. When an applicable requirement of this chapter is more restrictive than a similar applicable requirement of a private easement, covenant, agreement or restriction, the requirements of this chapter shall apply.
Sec. 29-11. City not obligated to maintain or construct improvements.
Nothing herein shall be construed as creating an obligation on the City to construct or pay for any improvements required by this chapter.
Sec. 29-37. Period of validity.
(a) Preliminary plat. Once a preliminary subdivision plat is approved, it shall be valid for a period of five (5) years, as specified within Va. Code § 15.2-2260(F), and subject to the provisions thereof.
(b) Final plat. Once a final subdivision plat is approved and the subdivider has recorded the plat, it shall be valid for not less than five (5) years, as specified within Va. Code § 15.2-2261, and subject to the provisions thereof. Unless a plat is recorded within the city's land records within six (6) months after final approval, such approval shall be deemed withdrawn and the plat shall be marked void and returned to the agent; however, if construction of any facilities to be dedicated for public use has commenced pursuant to an approved plan or permit with surety approved by the city, the time for plat recordation shall be extended to one (1) year after final approval, or the time limit specified in the approved surety agreement, whichever is greater.
Sec. 29-231. Dedication of streets, curb and gutter, water and sewer facilities, etc. for public use.
(a) The agent or commission shall require a subdivider to dedicate to the city for public use each public street (including each non-constructed street extension, and each required curb, gutter, sidewalk, bicycle trail, stormwater management facility and drainage improvement for the public street) and the agent or commission may require a subdivider to dedicate to the city for public use any stormwater management facility, bicycle trail or pedestrian trail within a subdivision or section thereof, as follows:
(1) The city council shall not be required to compensate the subdivider for any such dedicated land or improvements.
Sec. 29-234. Effect of recordation of plat on dedications and certain easements.
The recording of a final plat shall transfer dedicated land and improvements and shall establish certain easements, as follows:
(1) Recordation shall operate to transfer, in fee simple, to the city that portion of the land set apart on the plat and dedicated for public use.
(5) Recordation shall not constitute acceptance of any improvement by the city. Acceptance shall occur pursuant to Article VI, section 29-260, subsection (e) below.
Sec. 29-260. Satisfactory completion of site-related improvements required.
(b) Upon completion of required site-related improvements, a subdivider shall submit to the agent a certificate of completion prepared by a professional engineer or a land surveyor, and the subdivider shall also submit his own certification to the agent that all of the construction costs for the improvements, including those for materials and labor, have been paid to the person(s) constructing the improvements.
(e) For the purposes of this chapter, a public improvement shall be deemed to be accepted when it is formally accepted by city council and taken over for operation and maintenance by the city, as evidenced by a resolution of city council. Nothing in this chapter, including the approval of a final plat, shall obligate the city to accept and take over for operation and maintenance any improvements completed by a subdivider as required by this chapter. Acceptance or approval of an improvement shall be made only if the improvement satisfies all applicable statutes, regulations, ordinances, guidelines, design and construction standards for acceptance or approval of the improvement, upon completion of inspections by the city.
(f) All site-related improvements required by this chapter shall be completed at the expense of the subdivider, except where the subdivider and the city enter into a cost-sharing or reimbursement agreement prior to final plat approval. The city shall not be obligated to maintain, repair, replace or reconstruct any improvement required by this chapter. Nothing in this chapter obligates the city to pay any costs arising from any improvement, unless the city has a recorded ownership interest in the improvement, evident from an inspection of the city's land records, or has otherwise agreed in writing to maintain, repair, replace or reconstruct the improvement.
Sec. 29-261. Inspections; right of entry.
(a) Submittal of a preliminary or final plat by a subdivider shall constitute consent by the subdivider to all officers and employees of the city, and any state department or agency, to enter upon the property at all reasonable times for the purpose of making periodic inspections related to the review of the preliminary and final plat for compliance with this chapter and applicable state laws and regulations.
(c) Any inspection of public improvements shall be conducted solely to determine compliance with the requirements and specifications provided by law and the approved plat.
No problem helping out with the obvious. I'm just a little disappointed that you needed that help. Your friend Mr. Seinfeld still isn't getting it.