03-08-1988 MinutesMarch 8, 1988
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mr. G. ~. Apple~ate, Chairman
Mr. M, D. Sullivan, Vice Chairman
Mr. C. F. Currin, Jr.
Fir. Marry G. Daniel
Mr. Jesse J. Mayas
mr. Lane B. Ramsay
county Administrator
6tall in Attendance~
Mr. Ed Beck~ A~St. DiE.
of Utilities
MS. Joa~ Dolezal,
Clerk to the ~oard
Mr. Bradford S, ~armner,
Deputy co. Ad~i~.,
Management Services
Mr. Robert Masden,
Deputy Co. Admin.,
Attorney
Mrs. Pauline Kitehell,
Dir. of News/Info.
Services
~r. Richard Sale,
bupu=y Co. Admin.,
Develot~ment
Principal Ut&lilies
Engineer
Dir. of Budqet
~Z. David Welchons,
Dir. o~ Utilities
The Boa~d met at th~ Courthouse at 1~00 ~Oon (EST) and
traveled to L~'a Restaurant for lun=h.
Mr. Applegate Called the mastin~ ~o order at 1:00 p.m. (EST) in
the Administration ~uilding Conference Room (Room 502). He
stete~ ~he purpose cf the work s~ssion wa~ to provide the ~oard
with data zelaulve to the Utility Rate Study, the Utilti~s
Capital Improvement Pro,ram and the proposed 19~9-~4 County
Capital Improvement Program.
2. WO~KSE$$10N - U~TLI~ATE STUDY
Mr. ~ale stated the fir~ Of Camp, Dresser and MeK~e was
employed to perform a water and sewer rate study, r~view
ancillary chargen a~d exteasion poll=Jer. ~ i~troduoed M~.
Mark Pritchard, Mr. Larry Adams and Mr. Dan Ander~e~ who were
present to describe the methodology used ia the Rate study and
present the f~in~ and recc~endation=.
Mr. Pritohard explained that, in un~r=aking this study, the
Utilities Department was striving for a rate structure which
would establish equity amonq system users, provide a rational
framework for estaDlishin~ charqes and investigate various
iaaues including water Conservation, fire ~roteetisn support,
in-fill development and encouragement of economic development,
He presented a summary of in~ormatio~ relative to th~
comparison between mxisting feez and rate~ with the proposed
~S-127
fees, rates with no increase in total revenue, the comparison
with increased revenue to meet the syste~ n~ed~,
Discussion, questions and comente argued r~lative to
profitability, equitability aRd manageability of the system,
growth rate of eUstomers~ FY89 revenue prcjec~ion~ using
existing and proposed wa~er za=~s and wastewater user char~es~
sufficiency of reserves, inflation factors,
current and/or antieipate~ expansion, etc.
Mr. Sale requested Board authorization to be~in diecu~Eion~ of
the Rate Study recommendations with the ~ome Builders
Association of Richmond and to prepare amendment~ to the water
and ~ewer ordinance incorporating the proposed recon~endations.
The Boa~d generally accepted thc concept of the pxapo~ed Wa=er
and Wastewater Rate Study, authorized discussion~ of the Study
recommen~ation~ with ~ke ~ome Builders Asaoclation of Richmond,
appointed Mr. Sullivan and ~r. Maye~ a~ the Board Committee to
work with staff and brin~ back recommendations to the full
Board on May 15, 1988, SO that an appropriate date iora publis
hearing could be se% ~o consider the said study.
Mr. Applegate State~ ~o 9el= the presentation was well prepared
and commended those involved for a job well doge.
It was generally agreed to recess for two (2) minutes.
Reconveni~g:
~. WO~K SESSION - L~ILiTIZS CAPITAL I~H~%U%g~ENT PRO~RA~
Mr, Sale introduced Mr. Ed Beck, A~istant Director of
Utilities, and Mr. Bernard ~Chmelz, Principal Utili~ie~
Engineur~ who presented sur~arization~ of ~he proposed
Utilities Capital Improvement Program which contained few
=hanses from the previous CID; the new water prejactz which
included improvements a~oclatad with highway prajeets~ new
sewer projects which included the ~±ddl~ Swift Creek Trunk
System, Falling Creek Treatment Plant Upgrade and the UDDer
Swift creek Collection System; and ethers.
~ervioe areas, project listings, ~qnitability of the water
contracts with other jurisdictions, proposed expenditures,
It was generally agreed to recess for five (5) minutes.
4. WORK SESSION - COUNTY CAPITAL I~ kROG~A~
~r. ~$ey introduced Mr. Stegmaier who preeented a su~m~sry of
the county's proposed 19~9-94 Capital Improvemen~ Program,
which included alternative CID's deDcndin~ upon a maintain
current tax rate for debt scenario, a scenario assuming aR
in=tease in the tax rate for debt, pro3ects needing additional
~t~dy, otc.
After a brief discussion, ~r. Applegate rec!~es~ad tha~ the
Budget conu~ittee ~orward a recommendation to the Board D~ior to
April !3, 1988 so =ha= an appropriate date ~or a public hearing
could be set in May, 1988 to conmider the proposed Capital
Improvement Pro~ram. Mr. Daniel stated he felt such a
recommendation woul~ be available to the Board prior to April
1, 1988.
On motion a~ Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegater the Board
~djourns4 ag 4:05 p.m, (EST} until 2:00 p.m. (EST) on ~ar=h 9,
1988.
Lan~ B. Ramsay % /_
County Ad. lllinis t r ator ff,k'~
~$-129