04-06-1983 MinutesBOARD (DF SUPERVISORS
MINUTES
April 6, ].983
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mr. J. Royall Robertson, Chairman
Mr. R. Garland Dodd, Vice Chairman
Mr. C. L. Bookman
Mr. Harry G. Daniel
Mrs. Joan Girone
Mr. Richard L. Hedrick
County Administrator
Staff in Attendance:
Chief Robert L. Eanes,
Fire Department
Mr. Elmer Hodge, Asst.
County Admin.
Mr. Robert Masden, Dir.
of Human Services
Mr. Steve Micas, County
Attorney
Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir. of
Budqet and Accounting
Mr. John Tye, Act. Rea].
Estate Assessor
Mr. David Welchons, Act.
Dir. of Utilities
Mr. Robertson cal.!ed the meet.lng ho order at the Courthouse at
7:05 p.m. (EST).
Mr. Dodd gave the invocation.
Mr. Hedr~ck stated the purpose of this meeting was to adopt an
ordinance establishing t]'~e annual tax levy on various classes of
property for the County. He stated the public hearings on the
budget, the tax levy and the use of revenue sharing funds had
been held on March 30, 1983 as required by law.
Mr. Jimmy Martin, representinq the Richmond Area Municipal
Contractors Association, was present. Mr. Martin stated that he
and other contractors in the County were opposed to the tax on
their heavy equipment be.~.ng hi~bez than the same type of
machinery used in manufacturing. He stated that their
organization had lobbied for the adoption of House Bill %1699
which was approved giving local jurisdictions the option to
reduce the tax on heavy equipment for contractors. He stated, his
comments represented the sentiments of 61 contractors and
suppliers. He stated that with economic times as they are, their
equipment is not used as much~ web weather prevents its usage;
manufacturers such as Allied, DuPont, etc. use their equipment 24
hours a day; that contractors legally can relocate their
equipment and pay taxes in the area J n which the equipment is
physically located on January 1st where taxes could be much less
which prevents Chesterfield from realizing any taxes on that
machinery; etc. He stated they were seeking equality on the
taxes for the same pieces cf equipment. Mr. Dodd inquired if the
heavy equipment was well defined in House Bill #1699. Mr. Martin
indicated it was. Mrs. Girone inquired what Henrico does. Mr.
Martin stated they have not yet approached Henrico but he fe]t
they as well as the City of Richmond are similar to Chesterfield.
Mrs. Girone inquired what the reveDue loss would be to reduce
this tax to that of manufacturers. Mr. Ramsey estimated the loss
of revenue at $800,000. Mrs. G:[rone stah.~d that would be an
enormous amount to reduce the budget at this time.
Mr. Bookman stated he felt th'is was an unfair tax levy in the
County and he did not :~.eel one bull.dozer should be taxed any
differently than another. He s~ated he agreed that it would be
difficult to reduce revenues by $80f),000 but he felt something
should be done to ''~ this mo~e equi~:ab].e.
8 ]-.'1 '72
Mr. Hedrick stated that there was a study prepared for the Board
last year regarding the taxes in the County and with regard to
this particular tax there were other aspects which made the tax
more equitable such as depreciation, etc. but he was not sure of
the exact figures. He stated he would recommend the Board review
this report and also discuss the matter with the manufacturers
who have a strong feeling regarding this issue prior to taking
any action. He stated he understood the contractors feelings and
they did have a good point but there are other aspects to be
considered.
Mr. Daniel stated he did not fee]. the use of similar equipment by
two different groups warranted a d~fferent tax rate. He stated
the use should not be involved. He added that if this rate
needed to be adjusted then the Board would have to deal with
budgetary problems separately. Mr. Hedrick again emphasized the
fact that assessment, depreciation of equipment, etc. is handled
differently in order that the disparity is not as great as it
appears and it is a complex issue.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
requested the County Administrator to meet with representatives
of the contractor's organization and any other interested parties
to discuss this matter and present a recommendation to the Board
on July 13, 1983.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Stamie Lyttle stated that some contractors in the County are
both manufacturers and contractors, l~e stated they are sometimes
prevented from using the~.r equipment because of wet weather and
that legally they can move their equipment for a job they are
performing in another jurisdiction. He stated he had even known
some contractors to place their equipment in yards for sale to
prevent their having to pay taxes. He stated he felt the County
would not loose $800,000 as they would pick up the tax on
equipment which would not be relocated at tax time.
The Board thanked those present for coming to the meeting and
stated they would consider the recommendations of the committee
to make the tax more equitable.
On motion of the Board, the following ordinance was adopted:
AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY ON VARIlOUS
CLASSES OF PROPERTY FOR THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD
Be It Ordained by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Chesterfield that for the year beginning on the first day of
January, 1983, and ending on the thirty-first day of December,
1983, the taxes on property in all the Magisterial Districts of
the County of Chesterfield shall be as follows:
Sec. 1. Real Property z~nd MobJ. le Homes.
On tracts of land, lots or improvements thereon and on
mobile homes the tax shall be $0.98 on every $100 of
assessed value thereof.
Sec. 2. Personal Property.
On automobiles, trailers, boats, boat trailers, airplanes,
other motor vehicles; and on ali tangible personal property
used or held in connection with any mining, manufacturing or
other business, trade, occupation or profession, including
~!urnishings, furniture and appliances in rental units, the
tax shall be $3.60 on every $100 of the assessed value
thereof.
Sec. 3. Public Service Corporation Property.
2. & 3.
(a) On that portion of real estate and tangible personal
property of public service corporations which has been
equalized as provided in Sec. 58-512.1 of the Code of
Virginia, as amended~ the tax shall be $0.98 on every $100
of the assessed value thereof determined by the State
Corporation Co~lission.
(b) On that portion of the real estate and tangible
personal property of public service corporations which has
not been equalized as provided in Sec. 58-512.1 of the Code
of Virginia, as amended, the tax shall, be $3.20 on every
SlO0 of assessed value thereof determined by the State
Corporation Commission.
(c) The foregoing subsections to the contrary
notwithstanding, on automobiles and trucks belonging to
such public service corporations the tax shall be $3.60 on
every $100 of assessed value thereof.
Sec. 4. Machinery and Tools.
On machinery and tools used in a manufacturing or mining
business the tax shall be $1.00 on every $100 assessed value
thereof.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Micas presented the Board with 'two utility items regarding
the awarding of a water line contract for the Buford Road Bridge
project and a sewer contract for the Falling Creek Farms Sewer
project which had previously been awarded to Best Backhoe and
Excavating. He stated due to the inability of the contractor to
obtain a performance bond, staff was requesting that one be
accomplished as a joint venture with another contractor and the
other be awarded to the second lowest bidder with Best Backhoe
and Excavating paying the difference between the two bids. He
stated the contracts would not cost the Countv any additional
funding. He stated that there were some time constraints
involved in the projects and they were being recommended to the
Board for approval at this time. He stated this type of
situation had been approved in the past.
Mrs. Girone inquired why the contractor was unable to obtain a
performance bond. Mr. Micas indicated that contractors are
allowed only a certain amount of work at one time, and this
contractor is over that limit. Mr. Bookman stated that if the
contractor were paying the difference between the two bids he did
not see a problem with awarding the projects. Mr. Hedrick stated
the Board could authorize the rebidding of the projects or award
'the contract to the ne~t lowest bidder. Mr. Welchons indicated
that the Buford Road project is in conjunction with the bridge
repair and if a line were not constructed, the line on the bridge
will be gone. Mr. Bot~kmsn inquired i f the County could be liable
for holding up the contrmctor. Mr. Micas stated this request was
not unusual mnd did not set a precedent. After further
discussion, the Board indicated they would not approve this
request at this time.
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board went
into Execdtive Session to discuss legal matters as relating to
the awarding of tlhe contract for the Buford Road Bridge Water
Line project and the contract for the Falling Creek Farms sewer
project as permitted by Section 2.1-3~4 (a) (6) of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
Reconvening:
fl3-174
On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it was resolved
that the Board would defer further consideration of awarding
contracts for the Buford Road Bridge water line installation
project and the Falling Creek Farms sewer line project until
April 13, 1983.
Vote: Unanimous
It was generally agreed that the Board would recess to travel to
Room 502 where a meeting was scheduled with the Volunteer
District Fire Chiefs.
Reconvening:
The District Volunteer Fire Chiefs introduced themselves to the
Board. The Board welcomed them to the meeting.
Chief Van Bowen stated that the volunteer chiefs had prepared a
list of items which they felt were very important and were not
included in the proposed 1983-84 budget. He stated in priority
order they were:
Tactics simulator for training purposes - $12,000
Three additional conm,unications dispatchers - $45,100
Increase in operational money from $2,000 to $3,000 per
Company per year - $]2,000
The formulation of a policy which would allow volunteer
District Chiefs to get cars with approximately 30,000
serviceable miles remainin§ - $25,500. Specifically, they
requested that three fire cars be retired early for this
purpose·
That communications be e×panded between the Board and the
District Chiefs--that they hold their two meetings with the
Board a year.
Chief Eanes explained that durinq heavy traffic, the two
dispatchers were not enough and that they normally hire off-~uty
firemen to work as dispatchers. He stated the budget allows for
one additional dispatcher to be hired and funds were not cut for
Ipart-time personnel. When g~sked how many dispatchers were on
duty in the communications ~'~enter at one' time, Chief Eanes stated
he thought 5 for police and 2 fo~ fire. The Board inquired about
cross training. Chief Eanes stated he felt there has been a good
working relationship in the center but that he felt police
handled police calls and dispatchs better, as did fire and rescue
handle their types of situations better.
Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd stated the Board had aqreed to the
additional $1,000 per department for this year and future years
and they were not certain why these funds had not been
distributed.
There was some discussion regardinq the refurbishing of County
cars for the Volunteer District Chiefs which had high mileage and
needed repainting, etc. Chief Bowen indicated if retired Fire
Department vehicles could be retired early, they would not need
repainting ~or the repairs that are bein~ ~xperienced at this
time· Chief Eanes stated a stong and good policy had been
lestablished by the Chiefs which allow their men to utilize the
cars when necessary and there have been no problems.
Chief Bowen expressed appreciation for the refurbishing of Unit
#49.
Chief Bowen stated one other concern of the Chiefs is the high
turnover rate of volunteers which is ap]>roximately 30+%. He
stated that it was felt that perhaps an incen'tive plan could be
initiated which would help build up ~.he memberships in the
departments such as a retirement plan. }[e stated that there were
lots of options which need to be considered such as
grandfatherJng, ].enq~ of service, etc. and they would like to
oresent the Board with a proposal ~n the near future.
83-175
Chief Bowen state¢i that there had been some problems experienced
with solicitations in the County last year with the solicitors
giving wrong or misleading information reqarding their
association with the Fire Department. He stated he would like
some assistance and advice from the County as to proper methods
for solicitations, etc.
Mr. Daniel stated this year wJ. li be a tight financial one for the
County and he did not feel the Board could make a commitment to
the requests at-this time other than the $1,000 for each company
which was approved last year. lie stated that these requests will
have to be weighed against ali. other needs in the County.
Mr. Dodd stated that he could not commit to additional personnel.
He stated that he felt the economy should begin picking up and
maybe things will be better next year.
Chief Doug Anderson stated that he would like the Board to
finance the installation of a multi-channel radio in the Police
Helicopter as they aid the Rescue Squads, and the Police and Fire
Departments consistently. He stated that the radio
conununications at this time are very poor and this installation
would be of a great help durin~ emergencies.
Mr. Bookman stated that he felt if the simulator unit could be
donated, perhaps something could be worked out at the County
level. He stated that he would be hesitant on the dispatchers
but did agree with the additional $1,000 per company. He stated
that he felt the policy regarding the cars could be worked out
administratively. He stated that he felt the Chiefs should work
out a proposal regarding the ~.ncentive plan for volunteers for
presentation to the Board.
Mr. Dodd stated that he fel~ a d~nner meeting with the Chiefs
should be scheduled for September.
Mr. Daniel suggested that ~he idea of including the rescue squad
volunteers in a proposal for incentives, either separately or
together, but not to the point of hurting this possibility for
the Fire Department.
Mr. Robertson stated he would consider the requests submitted.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board went
into Executive Session to discuss the disposition of publicly
held property as permitted by Section 2.1-344(a) (2) of the Code
of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
Reconvening:
There was some discussion regarding the setting of a work session
to discuss the proposed budget. The Board indicated they were
not interested in having the individual departments present
their budgets but more on the iss'~es of things such as the Hay
Study, the landfill rates, the Volunteer Fire Department
requests, raises for County employees, the $5 license tax
increase, etc. Mr. Hedric~ distributed a list of the issues
which staff had prepared to possibly help in this regard. It was
generally agreed that the Board would 'meet for a work session on
the budget on April 1!, 1983 at 10:00 a.m.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adjourne
at 9:45 p.m. until 10:00 a.m. on April 11, 1983.
Vote: Unanimous ~" //
~ich '~ /'
/,"i.~~ Robertsz~-~)
County Administratcr ~/~.~i~m~n ~._ -- i