06-11-1973 PacketV2RG=N=As At an adjourned meeting of
theBoard of Supervisors of CYFesterPleld
County• rield at the Courthouse on
June 11. 1973, at sc00 P.M•
Presents
A15o Present:
NLr . Srvin G � Homes , Chairman
Nir .
Oliver D . Rudy, Comm. Atty -
[J. Burnett, Co• Administrator
Mr. Leo Myers, Vide -Chairman
Mr.
Mr•
Fri.
C.G Asst. Co• Admin.
Mr. J•RvP£in AppersOn
Nir. A. J. Krepe la
Mr.
•Manuel,
Micriaei Ritz, Co. Planner
Mr. E•I�terlin O•Nei11
Nir.
Niack Spencer
Mr.
PL - Limerick, Jr.
Mr •
John Henson
Mr .
Herbert Tyler
Mr•
Craig S. Bryant
NIr .
E 1ber� Howard
N.r.
Richard Price
Nir.
Charles E• Hawkins
Mr
Lawrence R. Belcher
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman to discuss sewerage
treatment Paciiities, lagoons and their capabilities, a progress of
engineering of new projects and trie eng ina er ing problems in certain
areas -
At 7r 30 P•Ni• the Planning Commission met with the Board to discuss
the possibilities of Forging a dry sewer or future sewer policy
that would be acceptable to all toric erred•.
The County Administrator described a proposal suggested by the
County Engineer, the County Planner, trie Commonwealth• s Attorney,
and the County Administrator , and expressed the idea that the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors should at least
investigate all aspects of the problem•
A general discussion was Yield with the consensus ba ing that there
would ba no immediate action ori the Board• s part to irFitiate a policy
of this kind and the Planning Commission would continue to encourage
the use of sewers but would not Force the issue
On motion of Mr. Apperson, seconded by Mr. Myers, it is resolved that
this meeting be ad jou read at 10 o OS P .Ni. to 9 c 00 A.Ni. Wednesday,
.Tune 13 , 1973
Ayers¢ Mr. F-Iorner> Mr. Myers, Mr. Apperson> Mr. Krepela and NIr• O•Nei11.
ENGINEERING AND UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD
COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA
JUNE 11, 1973
I. Consideration of Dry Sewer Policy.
II. Recommendations concerning sewer connection charges for
vacant lots.
III. Consideration of sewer extension to serve E1 Rancho Trailer
Park.
IV. Approval of revised certificates for sewage treatment facilities.
V. Report on lagoons:
(a) Loading
(b) Upgrading
VI. Review of sewer projects assigned to each consultant.
VII. Review of letters dated May 31, 1973 from Reynolds, Smith & Hills
concerning sewerage facilities for Swift Creek Company.
VIII. Review of alternate routes to pump the Swift Creek sewage
to the Falling Creek system.
IX. Review recommendations of consultants concerning soil and rock
borings for the following projects:
1. Swift Creek trunk sewers.
2. Beaver Pond Branch trunk sewer.
X. (a) Review of request for sewer service to serve the Wil -Car
property on Route 10.
(b) Review of request for sewer service to serve Castle Park
Systems, Inc. in the Enon Lagoon.
XI. (a) Request by Petersburg Mutual for sewer connection.
(b) Request for sewer connection at 9117 Germont Road.
(c) Requests of Realty Industries, Incorporated as follows:
1. Refund on temporary pumping station on
Beaver Creek.
2. Trunk sewer on creek through Lake Crystal Farms.
n
C'i
J. K. TIMMONS & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS
1314 WEST MAIN STREET • RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23220 • (703) 363-8887
J. K, TIMMONS
J. H. HENSON
W. R. KLUGE
C. R. WARREN
Mr. R. A. Painter
County Engineer
Chesterfield Court House
Virginia
Dear Bob ,
June 6, 1973
Re:County Sewer Program - General
Accompanying this letter is a list of the various projects for which
we have been assigned design responsibility. In addition, we are sending
composited USGS quad sheets showing the location of each project. This
information is sent with the intent of keeping you apprised of the general
scope of each separate contract.
With respect to the Ashton Creek Trunk and Force Main ( Co. Contract
S73 -24T ) the present pump station site is proposed at a point on Ashton
Creek directly downstream from the Old Stage Motel sand filter. When in
your office last week,you asked me to check out the relativemerits of
moving the pump station downstream to intercept the rather large drainage
area which could be served there.
Shifting the station further down would involve about 2500 more feet
of 33" trunk sewer and the same amount of 20" force main at a combined
estimated cost of $180,000. This would put the station in the position
to serve an additional 450 acres at an average density of 13 people per
acre. This would be equivalent to 5900 persons or about 1680. potential
dwelling units. When converted to possible income from connection fees
this translates to about $670,000 ( assuming an average connection fee
of $400, to allow for some apartment and mobile home connections.)
To reach this potential income inside the 450 acre drainage area
the County would still need to install 50001 of subtrunks ranging in size
from 21" down to 10" . This would add another $150,000 to the cost of
providing service to the area.
a
COUNTY SEWER PROTECTS
ASSIGNED TO T.K. TIMMONS & ASSOCIATES
S73 -20T
- Upper Swift
S73 -21T
- Middle Falling - Stonehenge to Powhite Expressway
S73 -22T
- Powhite Expressway - Terminus ( Middle Falling )
9
S73 -23T
r
- Timsbury P.S.
S73 -24T
- Ashton Trunk & Force Main
S73 -25T
- Ashton P.S.
S73 -26T
- Redwater Trunk - Proctors Outfall
i
1
` S73 -27T
- Lower Swift Creek Trunk ---
S73 -28T
- Swift Force Main
S73 -29T
- Fuqua Farms
S73 -30T
- Timsbury Trunk & Force Main ( Rt. 1 )
S73 -31T
- Upper Timsbury - Rt. 1 up.
S72-54CD-10 - Upper Upper Falling
S72-54CD-9
- Lower Upper Falling
S73 -1T
- Trampling Farms Trunks
S73 -2T
- Trampling Farms Collectors
t
r,
Ak
5TA`I°EMENT OF THE BOARD.OE 3"UPERVISDRS
RELATIVE TO U.1 SEWER
'I.
The Board of, Supervisors, is advised by competent engineering
authorities thaU the cost of sewer construction and treatment
has progressively increased over the past few years at the.
rate of 12 per Gent per year.
1
II.
This means that the ccst of installing sewers in previously
developed areas in general and in subdivisions specifically,
is becoming progressively more expensive and at the present`
rate, if allowed to continue, will soon reach a prohibitory
.eve , that will seriously curtail the much needed expansion
Of the present sewar system.
III.
In an effort to
(l) Provide adequate: sewerage disposal for all citizens
(2) Minimize health hazzards on margina"a! properties
(3) Expand :public sanitary sewer systems throughout the
county to as many people as pessible,
the Board is,,.obliged to take: into consideration the rising
installation costs.
IV.
In order to 4sinimize thege costs, one policy under consideration'
by the Board is a poiicy"c.f requiring the installation of
sewer Eines in subdivisions, whether or not existing trunk
sewers are available to these subdivisirns a These 'sewers are
commonly called "dry sewers."
V.
This poli,,y would offer the advantage of holding down the
arising costs and would eliminate the expense, disruption and
unpleasantness of construction in developed areas,
`I.
Since this is a relatively new concept as far as Chesterfield
County is concerned, and since the geographical area of.the
County is so vast,the Board does not feel it is in a
position to adopt such a policy without a comprehensive study
of its _ implications as well as a study of other alternatives.
This study should intrude input from developers, engineers
and lay 'citizens through conferences and public hearings.
VII.'The
purpose of this statement at this time is to advise
voters that the adoption of a "dry sewer" program is a ' distinct"
possibility and is in no way connected with the upcoming'
sewer bond referendum and the Board intends to adopt policies
in the future that: will provide as many citizens as possible
with a method of' sewage disposal which kill'benefit them the
most, at,the least expense and, inconvenience possible.
Adopted:
March 28, 1973
m
m
SUBDIVISIONS IJITHOUT CURRENT TENTATIVE APPROVAL
NUMBER #
OF LOTS AT
RECORDED h
16
0
0
65 I
i
0
3
21
,8 9
PROVEll MAGIS DIST
SOT REC . WATER SEWER DRAIN AREA
10
LAST
S**
TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION NAME
APPROVAL
HALLIE
2/72 i
FARMINGDALE
1
1 i
2/72 �
ENDERLY FARMS
I
2/72
CHESTERBROOK
i
FARMS
2/72
i
LAKEWOOD FARMS
s
3/72
i
r
LORA LYNN HEIGHTS
5/72
43 ;
i
i
1
NUMBER #
OF LOTS AT
RECORDED h
16
0
0
65 I
i
0
3
21
,8 9
PROVEll MAGIS DIST
SOT REC . WATER SEWER DRAIN AREA
10
C
S**
C.H./FALLING
131
i
S
i
! Mat/S[-.LIFT
i
t
16
�
S
�
( C . H . /APPOMATTOX
I
5
i
C
S**
i
Ber/PROCTORS
119
C
S**
�
Ber/PROCTORS
1
43 ;
i
C
S**
i
r
Ber/ASHTON
4
SUBDIVISIONS 1lITH CURRENT TENTATIVE APPROVAL
LAST NUMBER # OF LCIS
TENTATIVE OF LOTS APPROV% MAG_IS DIST.
SUBDIVISION NAME APPROVAL RECORDED NOT REC. 11ATER SEWER DRAIN AREA
IVEY TRACT 6/72
I
5
42
C
S**
Ber/ASHTON
SHENANDOAH i 7/72
81
94
C
C
C.H./POCOSHOC:
KINGSWOOD 6/72
0
334
C
C
C.H./FALLING
PLANTATION
'
ESTATES 6/72
j 0
20
W
S
C.H./SVTIFT
PHYSIC HILL 6/72
145
35
W
S
C.H./APPGTAATTi
HIDDEN VALLEY
ESTATES 6/72
173
61
C
C
Ber/ASHTON
GREENFIELD 6/72
346
142
C
C
Mid/POWHITE
GENITO ESTATES 6/72
' 90
42
Tj
S**
C.H./SWIFT
OTTERDALE 7/72
26
62
w
S
l4id/S1lIFT
FOREST HEIGHTS 7/72
0
30
w
S
Mat/APPOMATTO
WHALEROCK 7/72
0
95
C
C
C.H./FALLTNr,
Ll
)X
A
0
m
LAST NUMBIR # OF L07,
TENTATIVE Or LOTS APPROVHD -1AGIS DIST.
SUBDIVISION NAME APPROVAL RECORDED NOT REC. WATER SEWER DRAIN AR -,A
GARDEN CITY
HEIGHTS
8/72
0
14
I
C
S
Ber/ASHTON
WESTON
8/72
0
33
C
C
Tlid/POWHITE
BRIARCLIFF
9/72
0
270
C
C
C.H./FALLING
STURBRIDGE
VILLAGE
8/72
62
89
C
C
C.H./POCOSHOC
BEVERLY ACRES
9/72
0
89
C
S**
Mat/APPOVATTO
NEWBERRY TOWNE
9/72
113
106
C
C
C.H./POCOSHOC
POCOSHOCK T.H
5/73
39
223
C
C
C.H./POCOSHOC
POCONO
9/72
110
79
C
C
C.H./POCOSHOC
CLARENDON
10/72
0
222
C
S**
C.H./FALLING
STAFFORD PLACE
10/72
0
86
C
S
Mat/SWIFT
MOUNT BLANCO
10/72
63
113
C
S
Ber/JAPES
PENNlrTOOD ACRES
11/72
0
154
C
,S
C.H./FALLING
2
rd
K
m
m
LAST NUMBER # OF L075
TENTATIVE OF LOTS APPROVBI NAGIS DIST
SUBDIVISION NAME APPROVAL RECORDED NOT REC. WATER SEWER DRAIN AREA
MONTPELIER
12/72
0
20
C
S
C.H./FALL
STONEHENGE
12/72
266
160
C
�DS
C.H./FALL
OLDE COACH
VILLAGE
1/73
177
208
C
C
TZid/FALLI
SCOTTINGHAM
1/73
86
217
C
C
Mid/POCOE
BECKENHAM
1/73
14
24
111
S**
C.H./SIJIF
RIVER OAKS
1/73
44
7
C
S
llid/JAMES
SALISBURY
1/73
NONE SINCE
THIS T/A
588
C
C/S**
T,Zid/FALL:
BRUCE FARPZS
2/73
80
8
C
S**
Ber/ASHT(
FAN COURT
2/73
49
14
C
S**
Ber/PROC',
EDGEHILL T.H.
2/73
40
61
C
C
Mid/POWH:
MARDICK
3/73
0
51
C
C
Mid/POWH
CAMERON HILLS
3/73
14
119
C
O
Ber/JOHN
ING
ING
NG
HOCK
T
NG
)N
'ORS
CTE
CTE
30NS
m
LAST
NUMBFR.
# OF LOIS
SUBDIVISION NAME
TENTATIVE
APPROVAL
3/73
OF LOIS
RECORDED
APPROVH>
NOT REC.
WATER
SEWER
MAGIS DIST
DRAIN AREA
INDIAN SPRINGS
0
148
C
O
Dale/KINGSLANI
MELODY HILLS
3/73
0
58
C
S**
Mat/OLDTOWN
LOCH BRAEMAR
3/73
0
135
C
lD
C.H./FALLING
TERJO VILLAGE
3/73
0
23
C
O
Ber/PROCTORS
COURTHOUSE GREEN
3/73
150
91
C
C
Dale/PROCTORS
SURREY1,100D NORTH
4/73
65
123
C
C
C . H . /POCOSHOCI
KENDALE ACRES
4/?3
0
200
C
C
C.H./POCOSHOCF
MATOKA MANOR
4/73
0
78
C
C
Mat/OLDTOWN
TAYLOR HALL
ESTATES
4/73
0
36
[t
S
Mat/St1IFT
BRITTONI°JOOD
5/73
19
28
C
SO
Dale/PROCTORS
QUALLA FARMS
5/73
86
76
C
S
C . Ii . /SIWIFT
CLIFTON FARMS
5/73
0
83
C
C
C.H./SIJIFT
4
n
n
LAST NUMBER # OF L095
TENTATIVE OF LOTS APPROVED, 1AGIS DIST.
SUBDIVISION NAME APPROVAL RECORDED NOT REC. TJATER SEWER DRAIN AREA
SURREYt400D
5/73
185
115
C
C
C.H./POCOSHOCI�
RUNNYMEDE
5/73
0
138
C
C/(S
C.H./FALLING
POWHITE VILLAGE
5/73
0
493
C
C
T1id/POWHITE
CONCORD
5/73
0
18
CoIjits.
CciHts.
I1at/OLDTOWN
FOX HILLS ESTATES
5/73
0
12
i•?
S
Ber/ASHTON
OAKTON
5/73
19
70
C
S
Dale/SIJIFT
BOTANY WOODS
5/73
0
121
C
C
Ber/FALLING
OAKVIEW
5/73
0
53
C
C
Dale/hINGSLAN]
LEGEND
WATER
C - Public system, either County line or central well
W _a Individual wells
SEWER
C -- County system
S Individual septic systems
** - Denotes Subdivisions potentially affected by dry sewer policy
- Denotes Subdivisions building dry sewer lines
5
C
June 11, 1973
PROPOSED DRY SEWER POLICY
Section A. After the date of approval of this policy, every
owner and/or developer of a subdivision shall in-
stall, at his expense, sanitary sewers to serve
every lot in his subdivision which has never had
tentative approval by the Planning Commission and
in every lot of a subdivision, or part thereof, for
which a final plat has not been or will not be sub-
mitted to the Planning Department under current
tentative approval. The sanitary sewers shall be
installed regardless of whether or not public
sewerage is available to the lot(s) at the time of
installation. This policy will not apply in (a)
the Appomattox River drainage area west of the
Braswell Dam, (b) the Swift Creek drainage area
from Branders Bridge Road to Bailey's Bridge Road,
or (c) the Swift Creek drainage area north and
west of Genito Road, Woolridge Road and Otterdale
Road when subdivisions in these drainage areas
have a minimum lot size of two acres and a minimum
lot frontage of one hundred forty (140) feet.
This policy will also not apply to any subdivision
in the County which have a minimum lot size of two
acres and a minimum lot frontage of one hundred
forty (140) feet.
M
M
Section B. Existing residences in dry sewer subdivisions
shall connect to the public system within 120
days of notice of availability.
Section C. Subdivisions without public or dry sewer shall
be zoned R-25 or R--•40.
Section D. Change connection fees as follows:
1. New residence, in a subdivision, where the
lot will not pass a Health Department soil
evaluation, connected to sewer installed by
county - from $600 to $2000.
2. New residence, in a subdivision, where the
lot will pass a Health Department soil
evaluation, connected to sewer installed by
county - $600.
3. New residence, not in a subdivision, connected
to sewer installed by County - $600.
4. New residence connected to sewer installed by
developer - $300.
5. Existing residence, with existing septic tank
system, when connected to public sewer within
one hundred twenty (1?0) days of notice of
availability:
a. When county installs public sewer - $300,
thereafter - $600,
b. When the developer installs public sewer -
from $300 to $10, thereafter - $600.
-2-
DRY SEWERS - SOME CONSIDERATIONS
1. Either make ordinance as County - wide or establish a reasonable
time period for:.extension of County sewers to an area under consideration by
a Developer for subdividing. If sewers will be extended within 4 years then
dry sewers would be required. If the time for extension is over 4 years, septic
tanks alone would be approved.
2. The County should increase its lot requirements, for septic tanks
alone, to 1 acre with public water and 2 acres with individual wells.
3. In all subdivisions the Developer should be required to prepare sewer
plans to ascertain easement requirements such that they can be dedicated on
the subdivision map.
4. With reference to item 1, if the subdivider plans 'to develop immediately,
when sewers will not be extended for 4 years, he should be given the option
of prepaying his connection fees to have the. sewer extended now, and avoid
installation of septic tanks and sewers. ( Assuming that the connection fees
ggual or exceed ) .
5. If dry sewers are required, the County should help to balance this
extra expense by guaranteeing a free connection to the lot owner when sewers
are finally extended.
6. The County should also allow the developer who installs dry sewers to
incorporate in his planning the smaller lot size allowable with public sewer.
This may require that only alternate lots be built -on ( with septic tank &
drain field on other lot ) .
7. In the case of County sewer extension to a subdivision which has
developed without dry sewers, and certain lots in the development were not
built upon because that particular lot wouldn't percolate, the County should
investigate the legalities of charging an increased rate more commensurate
with value received by the lot owner.
8. In previously developed subdivisions that were approved without dry
sewers, the County should have stated in the restrictive covenants ( recorded
with the subdivision plat ) that future extension d: County sewers would be -
done with the aggregate property owners paying the direct cost thereof. (The
total cost of such sewer extension would be divided equally among all participants ) .
9. With reference to item 1, if the Developer has not recorded any portion
of the subdivision %vithin 4 years, or has not paved the streets of any recorded
portion, then these portions will be subject to review for dry sewers each
year thereafter.
10. An alternative to dry sewers and septic tanks ( applicable to areas
a long distance from projected pewer extensions ) would still be the instal* -
lation of local central sewage facilities. These should be designed to meet
.stream requirements and should be dedicated to the County for maintenance.
11. In the case of County sewer extension to a subdivision which has devel-
oped without dry sewer the County connection fee for lots that were not built
upon because of poor percolation conditions should be the normal connection
fee plus the cost of a septic tank and drain field. This would raise the
standard fee for this type lot to around $1500 ($300 + $1200 ).
12. The foregoing points are presented as possible means of gaining max-
imum utilization from bond monies expended for sewer extensions. It would
seem that the implementation of some of these policies would represent the
fact that the County is exercising its responsibility to assure that the greatest
possible number of people benefit from the bond issue income.
.:i
M
M
DATA AND CONI ENTS ON DRY SEWERS
1. Determine whether policy will be dependent on when sewers can
be made available or will it apply in all cases.
2. Will geographical location or location within a particular
drainage basin have an influence on whether dry sewer is
required or not? (Is policy Countywide?)
3. Should it be compulsory to disconnect a septic tank and connect
to the County sewerage system, when sewer service is made
available to a dry sewer system.
4. Will the County retain its present policy of having the developer
install off-site sewers, when possible, and be reimbursed from
connection charges or will County be responsible for bringing
sewers to the developer's subdivision.
5. If the County extends the sewer to the developer, what funds
will be used?
6. Will or can lots over a certain size be exempt from the dry
sewer policy?
7. If dry sewers are not installed, can a provision be recorded
on the subdivision plat at the time of recordation, advising
the owner that sewer service is not anticipated for the area
and that the County assumes no responsibility to provide
sewer service at a later date.
8. What are some typical situations concerning a dry sewer policy?
What should be the connection charges?
(a) Septic Tank - What will be the charge if the connection
is made when sewer service becomes available? $10 to 425
(b) Septic Tank - What should the charge be if the party
does not connect when sewer service is made available.
($600 to $1000)
(c) Vacant Lot - When dry sewer system is installed by
developer and:
1. Sewer service becomes available within
two (2) years - $300.00
2. Sewer service becomes available after
two (2) years - $200.00
Page 2
9. General Comments
1. If a new tap or service line is required to a lot, the
owner shall pay the actual cost plus the normal connection
fee.
2. No substandard septic tanks should be installed unless
sewer service is known to be on the way.
3. When the County installs a sewer system in an existing
subdivision, the lots that could not be served by septic
tanks should be charged a larger connection fee than those.
that could be served by septic tanks. The Health Department
should classify and certify these lots.
Robert A. Painter
County Engineer
June 8, 1973
° SEWER POLICY : �R NEW SUBDIVISIONS IN CHEST. "' IELD COUNTY
1. Each tentative subdivision plan should be submitted by the Planning
Office to the Engineer's Office immediately upon receipt. The County
Engineer should then determine whether the County is in a position to
extend sewers to the property line of this development within a two-year
period, a five-year period or some time in the distant future. Each sub-
division would fall in one of three categories: 1) two-year sewer program
2) five-year sewer program; or 3) no sewer program. Some of the factors
that will be important in analyzing which sewer program the developer will
fall under are the location of existing County trunks, the availability of
County funds to be used in the extension if required, and the amount of
prepaid connections that could be required of the developer.
2. Two-year sewer program: If the County Engineer has determined that
this would be a two-year sewer project, the developer would be authorized
to proceed on that basis installing the necessary collection system in the
subdivision and recording the plat with the notation that all lots will be
served with public sewer. The developer should be required to prepay
when sewer is available the connection fees for one-half of all lots shown
on the tentative plan or all lots recorded, whichever is greater. If he
wishes to proceed with construction and occupancy prior to the -two-year
period, he must assume the responsibility of installing septic tanks if
soil conditions warrant, and further obligating himself to connect to the
County sewer at the end of two years. In the event the County has not
extended sewers to this property line at the end of two years, the County
assumes responsibility of pumping the system and allowing the developer
to proceed.
3. Five-year sewer program: In the event the County Engineer determines
that this would be a five-year sewer project, the developer would be author-
ized to proceed on that basis, installing the necessary collection system in
the subdivision and recording the plat with the notation that all.lots will be
served with public sewers by a given time. The houses that are constructed
in a subdivision in this category with septic tanks would be allowed to
connect to the County system when sewer is available witho`onnection fees.
In the event the County has not extended sewers to this property at the end
of five years, the County would assume responsibility of pumping the system
and allowing the developer to proceed.
4. In the event the County Engineer determines that it is not practical to
sewer the subdivision, the developer should be allowed to proceed using
septic tanks, provided soil conditions are satisfactory. The County should
consider requiring lots that are recorded with septic tanks as a means of
sewage disposal to be 30,000 or more square feet provided public water is
available. If public water is not available and the lots are to be serviced
by wells and septic tanks, the square footage requirement should be increased
to 75, 000 square feet.
SEWER POLICY, cont.
5. Subdivisions that have tentative approval for use of septic tanks and
are recorded prior to that tentative approval expiring should be allowed to
proceed in the normal fashion. The County would have an opportunity to
encourage the developer to put sewers in these particular subdivisions by
working out appropriate arrangements, but to demand that sewers be put
in these subdivisions is morally wrong.
,, j w � viae //
1' 7 ..
JIF
G�c SRIAOItG✓
�� to
411'
tt1K t d' vG2
,r. AI
7—:.30 /✓/Jt✓tJION Dry Ap A1/9113
�(rt t
lhrl%l�s�� : � �-�,�e w�// l�•we � ��..1y �z°� _ �Sw,.e�f'
!NJ
iii/. �rt 6 �, : P C• kcf o,,4 oc e 414;0 /+ 04v -e-- iipvie `orM.4y / 4 _�� --