The URL can be used to link to this page

07-13-77 Packet ~iE. HARWOOD. COMMISSIONER ~NARD R HALL, BRISTOL,,BRISTOL DISTRICT /~)RACE G. FRALIN, ROANOKE. SALEM DI,~TR[CT THOMAS R. GLASS. LYNCHBURG, LYNCHBURG DI,~;TRICT MQRRI LL M. CROWE. RICHMOND, RICHMOND DISTR.rCT W~ LLIAM T. ROOS, YQRKTOWN, f/UFFOLK DISTRICT DOUGLAS G. JANNEY, FREDERICKSI~URG, FREDERICK~RURG DISTRfCT RALPH A. BEETON, FALLS CHURCH. CULPEPER D]STRICT ROBERT S. LANDES. STA UNTON, ~'T/J UNTO~V DISTRICT T. RAY HASSELL, IH. CHESAPEAKE, AT LARGE-URB.4N CHARLES S. HOOPER. JR., CREWE,A TL,4RGE-RURAL COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 3une 28, 1977 W. S. G. BRITTON DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHIEF ENGINEER LEO E. BUSSER III IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO Secondary System Additions Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County Chesterfield Ceurt House, Virginia 23832 Gentlemen: As requested in resolutions by your Board on April 13, 1977 and May 11, 1977, the following additions to the Secondary System are hereby approved, effective June 1, 1977 and July 1, 1977, in Chesterfield County. ADDITIONS WEDGEWOOD, SECTIONS TWO AND THREE (Effective June 1, 1977) Abingdon Road - Beginning at its intersection with Lucks Lane southerly 0.19 mile to its intersection with Pennway Drive, thence southerly 0.17 mile to a temporary turnaround. Pennway Drive - Beginning at its intersection with Abingdon Road easterly 0.12 mile to state maintenance. TRUEHEART HEIGHTS (Effective July 1, 1977) Wood Dale Road - Extension of Route 1587 (Wood Dale Road) northerly 0.02 mile to a dead end. LENGTH 0.36 Mi. 0.12 Mi. O. 02 Mi. Copies: Mr. W. P. Tucker Mr. J. P. Mills, Jr. Mr. A. S. Brown Mr. L. E. Brett, Jr. Mr. L. H. Dawson, Jr. Mr. E. L. Covington, Jr. - Chesterfield Sincerely, W. S. G, Britton, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer TRANSPORTATION -- AMERICA'S LIFELINES CHESTERFIELD CENTRAL ACCOUNTING STATEMENT. OF WATER CONSTRUCTION FUND BALANCES 'June 30, 1977 Assets: Cash Total Assets Liabilities: Projects under Contract Refunds due Developers for Oversize Mains Total Liabilities Cash Available Anticipated Income From Revenue Fund From Connection Fees $6811103 '''655;500 Anticipated Expenses Salaries and ,Other Fixed Costs Total Salaries & Fixed Costs Anticipated Surplus (Deficit) 6-30-77 $ 948,069 '$' 94{5,069 $ 423,695 44,150 $ 467,845 $. 480,224 * $ 1,336,603 $ 593,035 $ 593,035 $ 1,223,792 ** * .Same as Engineering Report ** Cash Plus Anticipated Revenue Less Anticipated Expenses Surplus (Deficit) $ 480,224 1,336,603 593,035 ~-~', 22a, 792 UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING.OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JULY 13, 1977 ~znanczal Reports - Water and Sewer Approval of water contracts: w/1. W77-20CD Crescent Park Developer: Landmark Builders, Inc. Contractor: Bookman Construction Company County Cost: $2,100.00 Code: 66-260-807.1 v/3. ,/4. /5. 6. $11,762.50 Recommend approval W77-54D Southport - Southlake Court Developer: Southport Corporation' Contractor: William M. Harman Recommend approval W77-52D Surreywood North, Section "D" Developer.: Surreywood North Corporation Contractor: Bookman Construction Company Recommend approval Bermuda $4,500.00 Clover Hill $5,447.50 Clover Hill Recommend approval W77-58D Shady Creek, Section 2 Developer: Realty Industries Contractor: Stamie E. Lyttle Company, Inc. Reconm~end approval Matoaca $15,159.50 Bermuda $1,160.00 Dale $11,975.00 Dale W77-47D Forest Acres Lane Developer: J & J Homes, Incorporated Contractor: County of Chesterfield Recommend approval W77-53D Lakewood Farms, Section "D" Developer: L & P Land Corporation Contractor: Hawkins & Dettor, Inc. Recommend approval W77-50CD Matoaca Manor $41,518.70 Developer: W. T. Henshaw & Edward E. Moring Contractor: I.P.K. Excavating Company, Inc. County Cost: $7,065.00 Code: 66-260-807.1 Agenda - Utilities Department Page 2 July 13, 1977 III. IV. VI. W77-57CD Briarcliff, Section A, Phase II Developer: Realty Industries, Inc. Contractor: Stamie E. Lyttle Company, Inc. County Cost: $5,609.25 Code: 66-260-807.1 Recommend approval $28,111.50 Clover Hill W77-60CD Phase II Developer: Realty Industries, Inc. Contractor: Van Doren Bros., Inc. County Cost: $1,284.00 Code: 66-260-807.1 Rollingwood Estates, Section B&C, $11,385.00 Recommend approval Dale W77-55D Congress Road Developer: Hubco Construction Inc. Contractor: Laney Contruction Company Recommend approval $650.00 Bermuda Consideration of letter of June 17, 1977 from Richard V. Grantham concerning water connection fee at 5300 Beulah R0ad'~' ~'F Dale ~ Recommend denial Consideration of refund for additional fittings on Contract W76-55CD, Fox Chase, Brandermill in the amount of $3,750.00. Clover Hill Recommend approval Award of contract' for installation of fire hydrants at the Airport Industrial Park, W77-59C, to Fred W. Barnes Construction Company in the amount of $10,542.50. 4~" D~e Recommend approval ~'~ , Award of Contra6t W77-37C, Shawonodasee Road, and Contract W77-83C, Courthouse Road. Bid opening July 7, 1977. '~' ~%. Dale and ~u ~?-~ Clover Hill Agenda - Utilities Department Page 3 July 13, 1977 Approval of sewer contracts: S77-39D Tremont, Section "A", Phase I Developer: Tremont Corporation Contractor: Stamie E. Lyttle Company~ Inc. Recommend approval S77-41D Brentwood, Section "A: Developer: John E. Dodson Contractor: Hawkins & Dettor, Inc. Recommend approval $95,866.40 Dale $91,747.60 Dale VIII. /4. S77-43D McTyres Cove, Phase I Developer: Brandermill Contractor: R. M. C. Contractors, Inc. Recommend approval S77-42D Loc~ Haven Developer: James M. Reynolds, Jr. Contractor: Bookman Construction Company Recommend approval S77-37D Harvest Hill Developer: Brandermill Contractor: R. M. C. Contractors, Inc. Recommend approval $44,357.00 Clover Hill $18,028.50 Clover Hill $34,367~75 Clover Hill Consideration of request of L. O. Scott for sewer connection on Wells-Road. Matoaca Recommend denial until capacity is available. Consideration of. request from Wesley T. Partin, Jr., 3526 West Hundred Road, for reduced sewer connection fee of Bermuda Recommend approval in the amount of $600.00 Request from Mr. & Mrs. Thomas E. Rieves, 21304 Jefferson Street, for sewer connection fee at $300.00. Matoaca Recommend approval in the amount of $750.00 Agenda - Utilities Department Page 4 July 13, 1977 XII. /XIII. Request from Mr. & Mrs. William'H. Guyther, 16101 Jeffersonj Davis Highway, for a sewer connection fee of $~. ~ Matoaca Recommend approval in the amount of $600.00 Discuss request from Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, dated June 21, 1977, for sewer connection to serve the Residency Shop' on Route 60. Midlothian Recommend approval based on acreage used Consideration of request from Stamie Lyttle, dated June 15, 1977 for a 30-day extension of time on Contract S76-2T/1, Deerfield Pump Station. Dale Recommend denial Resolution requesting our representatives in Congress to support the appropriation of funds for sewerage facilities construction. Resolution authorizing vacation of 16 foot sewer easement in Brandermill, adjacent to Fox Chase. Clover Hill Recommend approval Acceptance of deed dedicating road right of way as an extension of Walden Road adjacent to Pocahontas Acres. XVIII. XIX. Clover Hill Recommend approval Vacation of easement across Lot 25, Block I, Section E-l, Settlers Landing. Midlothian Recommend approval Vacation of easement across property of Robert O. Davis, Jr. and Daniel A. Keane. Clover Hill Recommend approval Consideration of a counter-offer from Mr. C. W. Cunningham in the amount of $1,000.00 for a Sewer Easement across property on Cliff Lawn Drive in Chester. Bermuda Agenda - Utilities Department Page 5 July 13, 1977 XX. Miscellaneous -o>! >o gg ggg~ oo oo §ggg~ ~o oo ggggg g~gg ggo'& o 0 0 ~> o 2 STATEMENT OF SEWER CONSTRUCTION BALANCE June 30, 1977 ASSETS a. Cash b. Accounts Receivable-Federal Projects c. HUD Grant d. Federal & State Aid e. Developers Contributions Total Funds Available CONTRACTS & COMMITMENTS f. Federal & State Aid Under Contract g. HUD Projects Under Contract or Committed Revenue Sharing Projects Under Contract Other Projects Under Contract Escrow Projects under Contract Reserved Dale & Bermuda Districts: Cash Escrowed per Treasurer $1,957,613 Less Escrowed Projects -1,152,729 under Contract Reserved Midlothian, Clover Hill, and Matoaca Districts Reserved for Interest Payable Projects on-site, off-site Lean Payable-Insurance Fund Temporary Ldans Payable Total Contracts & Commitments SUB TOTAL Sewer Imp. Sewer Bond Fund (73) Fund (77) 762,726 $1,582,089 35,500 --0-- 6,712,730 261,340 $ 7,772,296 $1,582,089 6,320,262 8,776 8,901 264,984 1,152,729 449,946 154,923 --0-- 500,000 --0-- 354,938 71,830 $7,707,792 $1,579,497 $ 64,504. $ 2,592 Revenue Sharing Fund (12) $ -0- $ Total 2,344,815 35,500 --0-- 6,712,730 261,340 $ -0- $ 9,354,385 -0- 6,320,262 8,776 8,901 264,984 1,152,729 804,884 154,923 71., 830 --0-- 500,000 --0-- $ 9,287,289 $ 67,096 Anticipated Connection Fees(Revised) Salaries & other fixed costs Contracts &Commitments in Excess of ~unds Avallabl. g.~~--~- $1,289,500 ($ 443,711) $ 910,293 2,592 1,289,500 ($ 443,711) $ 912,885 SUM~L~RY - MAJOR SE~WER PROJECTS Showing Projects by Classification and Financial Status Funds Available 6/30/77 as per Treas, Office Reimbursement from Developers Additional Federal and State Aid Due HUD Funds Due Revenue Sharing Funds Total Available Funds FUNDS COb~ITTED (*) Projects(other than Fed.Aid) under contract (X)(*) Federal & State Aid Projects under contract (=) Projects under contract from Escrow Fund (.) Projects Held in Escrow (***) Projects on-site off-site (HUD) HUD Contracts (X*) Revenue Sharing Projects Page 14 Additional Projects Authorized Difference Amount Escrowed and Cost Loan Insurance Fund Reserve for Interest Payable June 30, 1977 $2,344,815 261,340 6,748,230 $9,354,385 $ 264,984(1) 6,320,262 1,152,729 419,243 8,776 8,901 154,923 385,641 500,000 71,830 ~9,2s7,289 $ $ 9,354,385 67,096 OBLIGATED PROJECTS 7032-18A Kingsland Creek Trunk from Bellwood Lagoon to Rt.1 Colonial Heights Pumping ~tation Petersburg %reatment Plant S73-1T Gravel Brook PROMISED BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 7032-2B Crestwood Farms - Jahnke Place $ 236,337 117,000 125,000 293,775 $ 772,112 ($ 705,016) $ 160,939 $ 160,939 ($ 865,955) OTHER PROJECTS $73-44C Lake Crystal Trunk $ 285,073 Old Town Trunk West of Matoaca 450,000 Upgrade Lagoons 250,000 S73-20T Trunk on Southside of Reservoir 1,017,809 7032-1C Burrough Street, Bon Air 155,731 Bon Air 278,000 Ruthers Road 33,000 Lake Crystal Farms 262,127 Jessup Farms (Old Coach Hills) 203,472 S73-2T Rock Springs Farms 441,016 Land O Pines 649,574 Sherbourne Road 127,200 Indian Springs 77,835 Victoria Hills ~ Bruc~ ~arms 671,043 Johnson Creek - Remainder 527,136 Walthall 145,191 Fuqua Farms, etc. 248,886 $5,823,093(2) TOTAL PROJECTS $16,043,433 ADDITIONAL FUNDS ($ 6,689~048) (1) Includes $27,306 for Sunnybrook Acres Pumoing Station (County Share of $18,377, and Cash from Robert & Bobbie Edwards of $8,929.) (2) Does not include Falling Creek Treatment Plant. Revised Estimated Fed. & State Aid (See attached sheet for details) Grant Approved Amount Received Balance Due $ 13,368,130 $ 6,619,900 $ 6,748,230 SUMMARY FEDERAL AND STATE AID - June 30, 1977 FEDERAL AID Project C510-462 Old Town Step II 102,300 Step III 449,700 C510-487 Kingsland (Bellwood Manor) Step II 85,120 C510-466 Proctors Step II 529,050 Step III 5,336,620 Approved Grant Sub Total 6,502,790 C510-466-03 Proctors 4MGDSTP Step III 6,217,500 C510-484-0i I & I Falling Creek Step I C510-215 Sec. 206(A) C510-350 Sec. 206(A) C510-277 Sec. 206(A) C510-307 Sec. 206(A) C510-255 Sec. 206(A) TOTAL FEDERAL AID 161,770 38,900 58,600 1,600 23,400 24,400 13,028,960 STATE AID C510-462 Old Town Step II 4,500 Step III 29,150 C510-487 Kingsland (Bellwood Manor) Step II 9,420 C510-466 Proctors Step II S~ep III TOTAL STATE AID 58,5OO 237,600 339,170 TOTAL FEDERAL & STATE $13,368,130 Received 30,500 359,700 76,400 390,200 4,269,200 5,126,000 988,300 91,900 38,900 58,600 1,600 23,400 24,4OO 6,353,100 2,000 23,300 8,400 43,100 190,000 266,800 $6,619,900 Balance 71,800 90,0O0 8,720 138,850 1,067,420 1,376,790 5,229,200 69,870 0 0 0 0 0 6,675,860 2,500 5,850 1,020 15,400 47,600~ 72,370 $6,748,230 < < iI' '1 i I oS .> mC> 0 16 REIMBURSemENT FROM DEVELOPERS (Obligated) June 30, 1977 S72-54CD-3 S73-25T S74-35T S75-45CD S76-4CD S72-28CD S73-10CD Roxshire Land Investment Ashton Creek (1) Allen & Company (2) W. Spilman Short Portion Brickhouse (Mr. Porter) Kendale Acres (Miles & Spinner) Gam Hong Woo (2 equal payments) G. M. Development Corp. Bailey Bridge $ 30,000 37,500 87,500 75,000 4,000 3,512 11,624 ~2,264 $261,340 Prepaid Conn. Prepaid Conn. Prepaid Conn. Prepaid Conn. Developers Share Developers Share Developers Share Approx. Int. ENGINEERING AND. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JULY 13, 1977 ITEM NO. II(1) Contract Number: W77-20CD Location: Crescent Park District: Bermuda Developer: Contractor: Landmark Builders~ Inc. Bookman Construction Co. Cost: Estimated Developer Cost: Estimated County Cost: (through connection's) Total Contract Cost:. Code: 66-260-807.1 $ 9,662.50 $ 2~100.00 $11,762.50 VICINITY SKETCH UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE b~ETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JULY 13, 1977 ITEM NO. II(2) Contract Number: W77-54D District Location: SOUTHPORT - SOUTHLAKE COURT Developer: SOUTHPORT CORPORATION CLOVER HILL Contractor: WILLIAM M. HARMAN Cost: $4,500.00 Code: VICINITY SKETCH UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE b~ETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JULY 13, 1977 ITEM NO. II(3)' Contract Number: W77-52D Location: SURREYWOOD NORTH Developer: District: ~CLOVER HILL ~ SECTION "D" SURREYWOOD NORTH CORPORATION Contractor: BOOKMAN CONSTRUCTION CO. Cost: $5,447.50 VICINITY SKETCH Code: ENGINEERING AND UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ~ULY 13, 1977 ITEM NO. II(4) Contract Number: W77-50CD District: Matoaca Location: MATOACA MANOR Developer: W. T. HENSHAW & EDWARD E. MORING Contractor: I.' P. K. EXCAVATING CO., INC. Cost: TOTAL CONTRACT COST: $41~518.70 ESTIMATED COUNTY COST: $7,065.00 (through connections) ESTIMATED DEVELOPER COST: $34,453.70· Code: 66-260-807.1 VICINITY SKETCH UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JULY 13, 1977 ITEM NO. II(5) Contract Number: W77-53D District: Location: LAKEWOOD FARMS, SECTION "D" BERMUDA Developer: L & P LAND CORPORATION Contractor: HAWKINS & DETTOR~. INC. Cost: $15,159.50 Code: VICINITY SKETCH UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE b~ETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JULY 13, 1977 ITEM NO. I1(6) Contract Number: W77-47D Location: FOREST ACRES LANE District: DALE Developer: Contractor: J & J HOMES~ INC. COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD Cost: $1,160.00 Code: VICINITY SKETCH Chesterfield County C.H. This Project. FORESTAC RES RO AD LOS]' FOREST SUBDIVISION VICINITY MAP (no scale ) UTILITIEg DEPARTPLENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE PfEETING OF THE BOAPd) OF SUPERVISORS JULY 13, 1977 ITEM NO. II(7) Contract Number: Location: Developer: Contractor: W77-58D District: SHADY~CREEK~ SECTION "2" REALTY INDUSTRIES, INC. STAMIE E. LYTTLE CO., INC. DALE Cost: $11,975.00 Code: VICINITY SKETCH UTILITIES DEPAR~fENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE b~ETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JULY 13, 1977 ITEM NO. II(8) Contract Number: W77-57CD District: Location: BRIARCLIFF, ~ECTION "A" PHASE II CLOVER HILL Developer: REALTY INDUSTRIES, INC. Contractor: STAMIE E. LYTTLE CO., INC. Est. Dev. Cost: Est. County $5~609.25 Code: Total Cost $28,111.50 66-260-807.1 VICINITY SKETCH Sg:C"F~ON UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JULY 13, 1977 ITEM NO'. II(9) Contract Number: W77-60CD District: DALE Location: ROLLINGWOOD~ SECTIONS B & C PHASE II Developer: REALTY INDUSTRIES, INC. Contractor: VAN DOREN BROTHERS~ INC. Cost: Total Contract Cost: Estimated County Cost: (through connections) Estimated Developer Cost: $11,385.00 $1,284.00 $10,101.00 Code: 66-260-807.1 VICINITY SKETCH -FILS UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE ~IEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JULY 13, 1977 ITEM NO. II(10) Contract Number: Location: W77-55D District:' BERMUDA CONGRESS ROjD HUBCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. Developer: Contractor: LANEY CONSTRUCTION CO. Cost: $650.00 Code: .VICINITY SKETCH LL ~IROOK P~Od E c"r' ENGINEERING AND UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COTJNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ~ULY 13, 1977 ITEM NO. III Request for a reduced water connection fee from Richard V. Grantham, 5300 Beulah Road. (See attached letter) District: Dale March 3, 1977 March 14, 1977 April 27, 1977 Contacted property owner for water easement across property on Beulah Road Easement for water line signed Connection fee changed County paid property owner $156.00 for easement and J.J.H. Corporation paid owner $600.00 for this easement. The owner received a total of $756.00 for the water easement across their Property. RECOMMEND DENIAL J. Ruffin Apperson Dale District, Supervisor Chesterfield, Va. 3300 ~eulah Eoad Eichmond, Va. 23234 June i?, 1977 Dear Mr. Apperson; In February and March of this year, I' negotiated with the County for them to obtain a right-of-way across my property at ~300 B~ulah Road in ~rder to install water for the 0rchaz~i Hill Subdivision developement. In the course of the settlement with Mr. Harmon, representing the County and John J. Hankey's representative, I called the Utilities Dept. to find out the cost of a water connection, and was informed by Raymond Birdsong that the cost would be $330.00. Using this amount, I made the settlement giving them the right-of-way on my property. Row that I'm ready to put in the water connection, I'm informed by the County that the connection~s $300.00. Would it be possible for you to review this case, and see if ~n adjustment can be made? Thanking you for you~ help. Sincerely, Richard V. Grantha~ ENGINEERING AND UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JULY 13, 1977 ITEM NO. IV Request for refund on 24" bends added to contract W76-55CD, Brandermill - Fox Chase. (See attached letter) District: Clover Hill 5 - 24" 22~% bends @ $950.00 ea. Less 5 - 12" 22½% bends @ $200.00 ea. Additional refund due $4750.00 $1ooo.o0 $3750.00 RECOMMEND APPROVAL P.O.- -'A-~ ~i'~~-' .... 23113 ~,,~ _,<,,~,..~,//' Marketing & Sales (804) 745-1 Administration (804) 276-0330 June 9, 1977 Mr. Robert A. Painter Director of Utilities County of Chesterfield Chesterfield, VirgJria 23832 RE: Water Contract No. W76-55cD Dear Mr. Painter: This letter is written in response to a recent conversation with you and a request by me for a reconsideration of the reimbursement covering the above referenced project. At the time when this project was designed and bid, an omission was made by the Designing Engineer of five 24 inch M.J. 22½ degree bends from the original quantities for this project. During the course of construction it was determined that these bends were indeed needed to complete the work. Unfortunately, the reimbursement calculations were based on the total quantity which did not include these bends. As a result of this development, and reflected by my recent request to you we are formally asking that a reconsideration be made by your department and the Board of Supervisors to include the reimbursement for this omitted quantity. For your information I include a copy of the actual cost statement and a copy of my letter of November 1st which was submitted at the completion of the project and gives a breakdown on cost relating to the reimbursement due. Thank you for your consideration and help and if you should require any additional information please do not hesitate to let me know. Land Development Manager l~/bsh Enclosure UTILITIES DZPARTi~NT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE ~ETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JULY 13, 1977 ITEM NO. V Contract Number: Location: W77-59C District: CHESTERFIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK DALE Developer: COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD Contractor: FRED W. BARNES CONSTRUCTION CO. Cost: ___$1__~0 542.50 Code: 11-000-811.0 VICINITY SKETCH ENGINEERING AlqD UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JULY 13, 1977 ITEM: VI Award contract for Project W77-37C, Shawonodasee Road, and W76-83C, Courthouse Road. ( See attached tabulation ) District: Dale (Shawonodasee Road) Clover Hill (Courthouse Road) Code: 63-230-234.0 PROJECT NO. W77-3~C, ~WATER MAINS FOR SHAWONODASEE ROAD PROJECT NO. W76-83C, WATER MAINS FOR COURTHOUSE ROAD JULY 7, 1977 TIME DAYS .ITEM INSTALL UNIT 1 12" asbestos cement water pipe 125 L.F. 2 6" asbestos cement water pipe 1,100 L.F. 3 6" R.T. valve, valve box and 1 ea. 5 fire hydrant, 6" x $" R.T. Tee, 1 ea. --8 2" blow-off (complete) 1 ea. TOTAL ITEMS 1 - 8 SHAWONODASEE ROAD .ITEM ..INSTALL UNIT 9 8" asbestos cement water pipe 446 L.F. Class 150 with adapters ~+~, ~.. /~,~.~ 1I 8" R.T. valve~ box and marker 1 ea. 1~5 16" steel casing by borin~ 26 L.F. TOTAL ITEMS 9 - 15 COURTHOUSE ROAD //, rUrAL ITEMS 1 - 15 SHAWONODASEE ROAD & COURTHOUSE ROAD UTILITIES DEPARTi*~NT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGEi~DA FOR THE I,~ETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS July 13, 1977 ITEM NO. VII(l) Contract Number: S77-39D District: Location: TREMONT - SECTION "A" - PHASE I DALE Developer: TREMONT CORPORATION Contractor: STYMIE E. LYTTLE CO.~ INC' Cost: $95~866:40 Code. j~ I ~.~o I KING~L~ I 1.0' -- i RD CT. I Tt~ORN INGTON OR UTILITIES DEPARTi.ZNT COUi~;YY .OF CHZSTERFiELD AGEi'~DA~.,rnP THE ?.~'>,o,,~,,~ OF TIlE BOA?aD OF SUPERVISORS July 13, 1977' ITEH biO. VII(2) Contract Number: S77-41D District: DALE Location: BRENTWOOD - SECTION "A" Developer: JOHN E. DODSON HA~INS & DETTOR, INC. Contractor: COSt: $91,747.60 Code: I I RiN GJ, SL UTILITIES DEPARTI,fENT C~U~TY Of~ CHEoTE~,,~IELD A~E~D=~ FOR THE i'~ETING OF THE BOARD OF oUPERVISORS July 13, 1977' ITEM NO. VII(3) Contract Number: S77-43D Location: MCTYRES COVE District: CLOVER HILL - PHASE I BRANDERMILL Developer: Contragtor: R.M.C. CONTRACTORS~ INC. Cost: .. ~44~357.00 Code: AGE,',DA FOR THE ~ETING OF THE ~-~) C7 SUPERVISORS July 13, 1977 ~I_TEM NO. VII(4) Contract Number: S77-42D Location: LOCH HAVEN District: CLOVER HILL Developer: JAMES M. REYNOLDS, JR. Contractor: BOOKMAN CONSTRUCTION COMP.~\T Cost: $18,028.50 Code: V/C/A// ?-.mTTTm-r-r:,o .m r~,,~., ?- COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGEi'~DA FOR THE F~ETIi,;G OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS July . 13, 1977 ~Tm.~ NO. V~(5) Contract Number: S77-37D District: Location: HARVEST HILL - BRANDER>fILL CLOVER HILL Developer: BRANDERMILL Contractor: R.M. C. CONTRACTORS, INC. Cost: $34,367.75 Code: UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Jul~ 13, 1977 ITEM NO: VIII Request from Mr. L. O. Scott for a sewer connection on Wells Road. We recommend that this connection not be allowed until the Old Town Creek System is tied in. District: Matoaca UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS July 13, 1977 ITEM NO: XIX Request for reduced connection fee at tbe old $300.00 rate from Mr. Wesley T. Partin, Jr., for Tax Map 115-4 (1), parcel 6 The original survey was not made of the property owned by Mr. Partin or of the other lots west along Route 10 at tbe inter- section of Osborne~Road at Route 10. This sewer was added later by Mr. Myers. Since the Board approved $600.00 connection fee for Mr. Burke and Mr. Hagu~ on 6/20/77, we recommend $600.00 for Mr. Partin. District: Bermuda UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE P~ETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS July 13, 1977 ITEM NO: X Request from Mr. and Mrs. Rieves who live at 21304 Jefferson Street for a sewer connection and fee of $300.00. Mr. and Mrs. Reives own lots 3 & 4, Blk, G, Ratcliff Sub- division. In 1969, they submitted a letter stating that they would connect onto public sewer when it becomes available, and in return the Health Department allowed them to connect the new house on lot 3 to the existing septic tank located on lot 4. This office recommends that a $750.00 connection fee be paid because these two locations were among our survey and our records show no response to the survey. District: Matoaca UTILITIES DEPARTmeNT COUNTY OF CHESTE_~IELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS July 13, 1977 ITEM NO.: XI A .request from Mr. & Mrs. William H. Guyther for the old $300.00 sanitary sewer connection fee. Mr. & Mrs. Guyther reside at 16101 Jefferson Davis Highway. This property was not included in the original survey, but this portion of the sewers was added at a later date. Since the Board of Supervisors on June 20, 1977 approved two sewer connections at the old rate of $600.00 for similar circumstances, this office recommends that this request also be approved for the $600.00 fee. See attached letter. District: Matoaca. UTILITIES DEPARTb~NT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOAP~ OF SUPERVISORS July 13, 1977 ITEM NO.: XII Request from the Virginia Department of Highwayg located at Route 60 and Turner Road, for special permission to connect into the private sanitary sewer lines on the Virginia State Police Headquarters property. Also, the Virginia Department of Highways is requesting to pay a $2,400.00 sanitary sewer connection fee ($1,200/acre for 2 acres) instead of the connection fee based on the entire property being utilized. This office recommends that the Virginia Department of Highways pay a sanitary sewer connection fee based on their entire property presently being used for the Chesterfield Residency Shop, and we recommend that .they be allowed to hook on to the sewer lirm s on.the Virginia State Police Headquarters property. District: Midlothian UTILITIES DEPARTt~NT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE ~ETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS July 13, 1977 ITEM NO. XIII Contract Number:S76-2T/1 Location: Deerfield Pump Station Developer: County of Chesterfield District: Dale Contractor: Stamie E. Lyttle Company, Inc. Cost: Code: Request for an extension of time from Stamie E. Lyttle Company, Inc., for thirty (30) days on the above contract. The-time extension is from June 15 to July~15, 1977. The contractor is requesting this extension due to VEPCO not being able to provide electrical service to the pump station. This office recommends that no time extension be approved because VEPCO had service to this site prior to June 15, 1977. The contractor was given a previous time extension from June 1, 1977 to June 15, 1977. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS July 13, 1977 ITEM NO. XV SUBJECT: Resolution approving an agreement to vacate a portion of a 16' sewer easement in Brandermill, adjacent to Fox Chase Subdivision in exchange for the dedication of an easement in the proper location, Clover Hill District. There was dedicated by Brandermill a 16' easement for sewer dated 8/19/76 recorded 11/8/76, which was in the wrong location. Brandermill has dedicated a new easement by an agreement dated May 10, 1977 which contains a condition that the Board, by resolution would vacate the agreement dated 8/19/76. We, therefore, request a resolution by the Board authorizing the Chairman of the Board and County Administrator sign the agreement, thereby quit claiming the County's interest in the previous agreement. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS July 13, 1977 ITEM NO. Subject: Acceptance of deeds dedicating a 50 foot road Right of Way as an extension of Walden Road adjacent to Pocahontas Acres subdivision in Clover Hill District. In February of this year the Board ~ranted a variance to build to Mr. Donald Braswell on a parcel of land east of Pocahontas Acres Subdivision on the condition that a 50 foot wide right of way be dedicated from the end of Walden Road to the property. (See attached plat). We request a resolution from the Board allowing the deeds from the following owners to be signed by the County Administrator, accept them on behalf of the County: (1) Francis A. & Ruby E. Culliton (2) Roy N. Jr., & Barbara G. Woodlief (3) Joseph Taylor & Isabelle Bates Culliton UTILITIE~ DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS July 13, 1977 ITEM NO: XVII SUBJECT: Vacation of easement across Lot 25, Block I, Section E-I, Settlers Landing; Midlothian District. We have received a petition from Commonwealth Development Corporation requesting the vacation of an 8' Drainage easement in Settlers Landing. This has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE ~ETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS July 13, 1977 ITEM NO. XVIII Subject: Vacation of easement across the property of Robert O. Davis, Jr., and Daniel A. Keane; Clover Hill District. Previously there was executed by Curtis L. and Alice M. Rudolph an easement agreement dated October 3, 1974 that contained a plat which was inaccurate. Since that time R. O. Davis, Jr., & D. A. Keane have executed a new agreement dated April 28, 1977 making the previously dedicated easement unnecessary. We are requesting a resolution vacating the easement of October 3, 1974 and authorizing that the Deed of Vacation be signed by E. Merlin O'Neill, Sr., Chairman, Board of Supervisors, and County Administrator. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS July 13, 1977 ITEM NO. XIX SUBJECT: Consideration of a counter-offer for Mr. C. W. Cunningham in the amount of $1,000.00 for a Sewer Easement across property on Cliff Lawn Drive in Chester - Bermuda District. On July 7, 1977, Mr. Cunningham made a counter-offer to our original offer of $192.00. The counter-offer was in 'the amount of $1,000.00. I believe this offer is excessive and recommend that the Board make a counter-offer or authorize condemnation based on the original offer. Should the Board approve the counter-offer, the money would be paid from the Bermuda Escrow Account. L! LOT.'~ eL/FF UTILITIES DEPART~L. · COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS July 13, 1977 ITEM NO: Subject: Request for authorization of condemnation of an easement across J. W. and Miriam G. Heintzman at 3508 W. Hundred Road, in Chester. - Contract'S76-1CB/4. On May 16, 1977, the County Board of Supervisors authorized' condemnation against the above referenced owners and the County Administrator was authorized to send a letter to the owner notifying them of the Countys intention to take possession of the property after thirty days. The amount offered in this letter was $200.00. Since that time, we have increased the offer to the Heintzman s to $500.00 in an effort to persuade them to sign the easement without proceeding through the courts. Since that offer was also refused, it is necessary that we obtain a new resolution authorizing condemnation and a new letter from the County Administrator notifying the owner of the County's intent to take possession of the easement showing the new offer of $50O.0O. The County Administrator's letter to be sent on Wednesday, July 13, 1977. ~' PLAN' OF .--AN iTAP.¥ 5£Wtit LC:)CATE. D ikl '1',-I~ BEI~..I~IIJ,~',~ ~I~Tf,~.:CT (.-HE.~,Ts~R-~'.=-.-D CC~I~IT~r'. ~,'A. VIRGINIA: At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, held at the Courthouse on July 13, 1977, at 9:00 a.m. WHEREAS, Captain W. E. Martin retired from the Chesterfield County Police Department on April 30, 1977 after serving the Department and the County since March 1, 1947; WHEREAS, Captain Martin has rendered a valuable service to the people of Chesterfield County and has given his time, efforts, and abilities to his position and the County of Chesterfield has benefited thereby; WHEREAS, it has been to the credit of the County and its citizens to have Captain Martin as an employee of the Chesterfield County Police Department; WHEREAS, on April 30, 1977 Captain Martin retired from the Chesterfield County Police Department after thirty years of distinguished service; and, WHEREAS, it is the desire of this Board to recognize his faithful service to the County and to spread this recognition upon the minute book of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board publicly recognizes the long and diligent service of Captain W. E. Martin and this Board extends on behalf of its members and the people of Chesterfield County their appreciation and gratitude to Captain W. E. Martin for thirty years of distinguished service to the County and hopes that his retirement shall be long and rewarding. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to Captain Martin and that this ~esolution be permanently recorded among the papers of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. E. Merlin 0'Neill, Chairmah Garland Dodd ~ -~ A Copy: Teste - C. L. Bookman-- C. G. ~ManWel _ v Interim County Administrator VIRGINIA: At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County held at the Courthouse on July 13, 1977 at 9:00 a.m. WHEREAS, Lieutenant R. C. Phillips retired from the Chester- field County Police Department on June 15, 1977 after serving the Department and the County since ~December 16, 19457 WHEREAS, Lieutenant Phillips has rendered a valuable service to the people of Chesterfield County and has given his time, efforts, and abilities to his position and the County of Chesterfield has benefited thereby; WHEREAS, it has been to the credit of the County and its citizens to have Lieutenant Phillips as an employee of the Chesterfield County Police Department; WHEREAS, on June 15, 1977 Lieutenant Phillips retired from the Chesterfield County Police Department after thirty-one and one-half years of distinguished service; and, WHEREAS, it is the desire of this Board to recognize his faith- ful service to the County and to spread this recogni- tion upon~ the minute book of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board publicly recog- nizes the long and diligent service of Lieutenant R. C. Phillips and this Board extends on behalf of its members and the people of Chesterfield County their appreciation and gratitude to Lieutenant R. C. Phillips for thirty-one and one-half years of distin- guished service to the. County and hopes that his retirement shall be long and rewarding. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to Lieutenant Phillips and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. E. Merlin O'Neill, Jc~"Gir6ne, Vice-Chairman, ' J. R~$fin A~p~on ' C. L. Bookman Gar 1 A Copy: Teste - C G Manuel Interim County Administrator VIRGINIA: At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Chester- field County, held at the Courthouse on July 13, 1977, at 9:00 a.m. WHEREAS, Sergeant B, C, Furman retired from the Chesterfield County Police Department on April 30, 1977 after serving the Department and the County since July 15, 1946; WHEREAS, Sergeant Furman has rendered a valuable service to the people of Chesterfield County and has given his time, efforts, and abilities to his position and 'the County of Chesterfield has benefited thereby; WHEREAS, it has been to the credit of the County and its citizens to have Sergeant Furman as an employee of the Chesterfield County Police Department; WHEREAS, on April 30, 1977 Sergeant Furman retired from the Chesterfield County Police Department after 30 years distinguished service; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of this Board to recognize his faithful service to the County and to spread this recognition upon the minute book of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board publicly recognizes the long and diligent service of Sergeant B. C, Furman and this Board extends on behalf of its members and the people of Chesterfield County their appreciation and gratitude to Sergeant B. C. Furman for 30 years of distinguished service to the County and hopes that his retirement shall be long and rewarding. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to Sergeant Furman and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, E. Merlin O'Neill, Chairman'~ ' J. Ru~in App~o~' - · Garland Do~ A Copy: Teste- Interim County Administrator VIRGINIA: At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Chester- field County, held at the Courthouse on July 13, 1977, at 9:00 a.m. WHEREAS, Trooper E, A, Austin will retire from the V%rginia State Police on July 16, 1977 after being employed by the State Police for over 30 years since October 1, 1946; WHEREAS, E. A. Austin has been stationed as a Trooper in Chesterfield County since December 20, 1948; WHEREAS, E. A. Austin has given unselfishly of his time, efforts, and abilities to his position with the Virginia State Police and has rendered a valuable service to the citizens of Chesterfield County for over 28 years; WHEREAS, the citizens of the County have greatly benefited from the service of E. A. Austin; WHEREAS, it is the desir.e of this Board to recognize his faithful service and contribution to the citizens of the County and to spread this recognition upon the minute book of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board publicly recognizes the long and diligent service of Trooper E. A. Austin to the citizens of Chesterfield County and this Board extends on behalf of its members and on behalf of the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation and gratitude to Trooper E. A. Austin for over 28 years of service to the County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to Trooper E. A0 Austin and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Merlin O'Neill, ChaI~ma~ ~ .--Ruf f~ Appers~r~ Garland Girone, Vice-Chairman C~. L. B6okman A Copy: Teste- C. G~ Manuel '-~ Interim County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS E. I~IERLIN O'NEILL. CHAIRMAN I~IATOACA DISTRICT JOAN G]IRONE. VICE CHAIRMAN MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT C. L. BOOKMAN CLOVER HILL DISTRICT J. RUFFIN APPERSON DALE DISTRICT GARLAND DODO BERMUDA DISTRICT COUNTY AOI'~I N tSTR ATION C, G MANUEL ~NTE[RIM COUNTY ADMIN~STR~,TOR OF CHESTERFIELD CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832 May 20, 1977 Mr. C.G. Manuel Interim County Administrator County of Chesterfield Dear Mr. Manuel: Would you please add to the Agenda of the Board Meeting for June 8, 1977, a suggested resolution notifying Card- well Machine Company that the County of Chesterfield no longer sanctions their Mutual Aid Agreement with the City of Richmond which was negotiated in 1963. As you recall, May 1, 1976, the counties of Chester- field and Henrico and the City of Richmond signed a Mutual Aid Agreement for fire protection, however, management at Cardwell will not respond to our noti- fications that the Mutual Aid Agreement supersedes all previous Richmond fire protection contracts. Attached is a letter from Bruce Kimble, Assistant County Attorney, along with a suggested Board Reso- lution. Thank you for your interest and if you need further explanation, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, cR~'blee~ b~' DeE;anre~ment CHESTERFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT CC: Bruce A. Kimble Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF SUPERVISORS £. NIERLIN O'NEILL. CHAIRMAN MATOACA DISTRICT JOAN GIRONE. VICE CHAIRMAN MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT C. L, BOOKMAN CLOVER HILL DISTRICT J. RUFFIN APPERSON DALE DISTRICT GARLAND DODD COUNTY ADMINISTRATION C. G MANUEL OF CHESTERFIELD CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832 MEMORANDUM May 19, 1977 TO: Chief Robert L. Eanes FROM: Bruce A. Kimble, Assistant~County Attorney ~-- SUBJECT: Fire Protection for Cardwell Machine Company This is in response to your letter of March 7 to the County Attorney wherein you request assistance in persuading Cardwell Machine Company to rely upon the Chesterfield County Fire Department for fire protection. It is my understanding that on May 8, 1963, the Board of Supervisors resolved that the County enter into an agreement with Cardwell whereby the County would assist the latter in obtaining fire apparatus and equipment from the City of Richmond to aid in extinguish- ing fires on Cardwell's premises located in the County. In July, 1963, Cardwell entered into a contract with the County and agreed to reimburse it for fees which the County was obligated to pay to the City in requesting fire protection from the City. The effect of this contract was to allow Cardwell to have the City respond to fires on Cardwell's premises and for Cardwell to pay a nominal fee for the cost of fire protection while enjoying preferential insurance rates. Since 1963, the Chesterfield County Fire Department has developed to a point where it is quite capable of providing fire protection to all County residents and businesses. Accordingly, in May 1976, the Counties of Chesterfield and Henrico and the City of Richmond entered into a Mutual Aid Agreement whereby each jurisdiction, recognizing its ability to provide independent fire protection to serve its citizens, agreed to provide firefighting support to the other jurisdic- tions only upon request and within the capabilities available at the time of such request. Mothing in this Agreement com- pels any political subdivision to respond to a request for support from another jurisdiction on a first call basis. Chief Robert L. Eanes Page 2 May 19, 1977 Since the Richmond Fire Department will not respond to a call directly from Cardwell for fire protection but, rather, may respond to a call from the Chesterfield County Fire Department under the Mutual Aid'Agreement, the effect of this Agreement is to nullify our contract with Cardwell. It is my understanding that Card.well does not have a contract with the City for fire protection. The City Manager has indicated that such contracts would not be the best interests of either the City or the County. After reviewing correspondence sent to me from the City of Richmond and after discussing this situation with Richmond Fire Chief John Finnegan, W. Waddey Costin of the Richmond Department of Public Safety, and you, it is clear that we should resolve any misunderstanding by Cardwell Machine Com- pany as to which Fire Department should be called and will respond in the event of a fire. In view of Cardwell's failure to respond to your numerous efforts to clear up this situation, I advise that you bring the attached resolution to the atten- tion of the Board. This resolution unilaterally cancels the 1963 contract between the County and.Cardwell for fire protec- tion from Richmond. Please note that the resolution requires that a copy be sent to the City of Richmond and that a certified copy be sent by registered mail to the President of the Cardwell Machine Company. BAK/j lb Attachment COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD At a regular meeting of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors held in the Board Room at the Chesterfield County Courthouse, Chesterfield County, Virginia on , 1977 at . RESOLUTION WHEREAS, by resolution of this Board On May 8, '1963, it was resolved that an agreement between the Cardwell Machine Com- pany and the County of Chesterfield requesting fire protec- tion from the City of Richmond to the property of the Card- well Machine Company within the County be approved; WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Fire'Department is fully capable of providing independent fire protection service to serve the citizens of the County;~ ~'~. WHEREAS, in view of a Mutual Aid Agreement effective May 1, 1976 between the Counties of Henrico-and Chesterfield and the City of Richmond, the fire protection services of Henrico and Richmond are available to County residents upon request of certain specified County officials; and, WHEREAS, the Mutual Aid Agreement negates a necessity for the aforementioned 1963 agreement between the Cardwell Machine Company and the County of Chesterfield. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, as of this date, the contract approved by this Board in May, 1963 between the County of Chester- field, Virginia and the Cardwell Machine Company for fire protection from the City of Richmond is hereby cancelled. The County of Chesterfield now provides fire protection to its citizens and the County shall no longer bear the expense for fire equipment from the City of Richmond to respond on a first call basis to the Cardwell Machine Company. When outside assistance is needed to suppress a fire within the County, such assistance will be obtained pursuant to the provisions of the Mutual Aid Agreement, effective May 1, 1976, between the Counties of Chesterfield and Henrico and the City of Richmond. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the City of Richmond and a certified copy shall be sent by registered mail to the President of the Cardwell Machine Company. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS E. MERLIN O'NEILl CHAIRMAN I~ATOACA DISTRICT JOAN GIRONE. VICE CHAIRMAN MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT C. L. BOOKMAN CLOVER HILL DISTRICT J. RUFFIN APPERSON DALE DISTRICT GARLAND DODD COUNTY A Dt-,ll N JSTRATION C. G MANUEL INTERIM COUNTY A~h~{N~STRATOR OF CHESTERFIELD CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832 June 29, 1977 Mr. C.G. Manuel Interim County Administrator County of Chesterfield Dear Mr. Manuel: I would appreciate you bringing up the following items during the Board Meeting of July 13, 1977. Item #1 - Mutual Aid Agreement regarding Cardwell Machine Company (deferred from Board of Supervisor's meeting of June 8, 1977) Item #2 - Request Board of Supervisors to approve Memoran- dum of Understanding between Defense General Supply Center and the Chesterfield County Fire Department It is time to renew this agreement and since we have a new County Attorney I have let him review same. His comments are attached. Item #3 Report back to Board of Supervisors about renting office space for Fire Prevention I will get with you on the cost per square foot. Thank you for your interest on the above matters. Sincerely, Chief of Department CHESTERFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT ST COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD VIRGINIA MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert L. Eanes, Fire Chief Bruce A. Kimble, Assistant County Attorney June 27, 1977 Memorandum of Understanding between the Defense Logistic Agency and the Chesterfield Fire Department I have reviewed the attached Memorandum of Understanding and accompanying Operating Procedure and I agree with your assessment that this type of mutual aid arrangement can be quite beneficial to the County. Nevertheless, since only the Board of Supervisors is empowered to enter into legally bind- ing contracts on behalf of the County, I advise that you bring this Memorandum of Understanding to the attention of the Board for their approval and signature. The alternative, of course, is to let this document serve as an informal agreement which simply clarifies operating procedures and which neither binds the County nor the Defense General Supply Center and could not be enforced against either party. If you decide to bring this Memorandum to the Board's attention, I would suggest that you incorporate by reference the operating procedures into paragraph 3e. BAK/j lb Attachment OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY DEFENSE GENERAL SUPPLY CNETER RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23297 AND THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT CHESTERFIELD~ VIRGINIA 1. PURPOSE: TO set forth and define the firefighting support which the Defense General Supply Center will provide the County of Chesterfield and the firefighting support which the County of Chesterfield will provide the Defense General Supply Center. 2. PROVISIONS: a. The Defense General Supply Center agrees to provide firefighting support to the CheSterfield County~ within the capabilities available at the time of the request and will be limited to the immediate vicinity (within one (1) mile radius) of the Center property line~ subject to the terms and conditions outlined below. b. The Chesterfield County Fire Department agrees to provide firefighting support to the Defense General Supply Center~ within the capabilities available at the time of the request~ subject to the terms and conditions outlined below. 3. TE~S AND CONDITIONS: a. Firefighting support provided by either party will be without reimbursement for costs or compensation for s~ervices. b. The Government will not be liable for any loss~ damage~ personal injury or death occurring to the County or County firefighting units or firefighting personnel in consequence of the performance of this Agreement. c. The County will not be liable for any loss, damage, personal injury or death occurring to the Defense General Supply Center or its firefighting personnel in consequence of the performance of this Agreement. d. Firefighting support may be requested by an authorized representative designated by the Fire Marshal, Defense General Supply Center~ or by a County representative designated by the Chief, Chesterfield County Fire Department. e. Operating procedures to implement this Agreement will be developed concurrently by the Fire Chief, Defense General Supply C.enter, and the Fire Chief, Chesterfield County. £. This Agreement will be reviewed annually by both parties prior to 50 September and may be amended or re-negotiated by mutual written consent or may be terminated by either party upon 180 days written notice. 1 October is established as the anniversary date for this agreement. ~. EFFECTIVE DATE: The provisions of this agreement shall be effective on the date signed by both parties and shall remain in effect until 50 September 1979. FOR DEFENSE GENERAL SUPPLY CENTER FOR COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD BRUCE H. WILLIAMS Lt Col, USA Director, Installation Services Date ROBERT L. EANES Chief of Department CHESTERFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT Date OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR IMPLEM]FNTATION OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEFENSE GENERAL SUPPLY CENTER AND THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY FIHE DEPARTMEI~T A. When it becomes apparent that additional £irefighting capability is required at the Defense General Supply Center~ the following procedures will be implemented: 1. The Fire Chief or his assistant on duty will request assistance by calling the Chesterfield County emergency number~ 748-2291, and furnish information as to number of crews and type of equipment needed. 2. The security policeman on duty at the main gate will instruct incoming firefighting crews as to location of the fire or if necessary provide escort to the scene. 3. The DGSC Fire Chief on duty at the scene will direct the utilization of the equipment and personnel. 4. The Fire Chief will release the County firefighting equipment as soon as it is determined that the fire is under control and can be handled by ,in-house forces. B. Upon receipt of a request for assistance from the Chesterfield County Fire Chief or his authorized representative~ the following will be implemented: 1. The Fire Chief or his assistant will dispatch one pumper and crew, if available, to the scene of the fire not to exceed one (1) mile from the Center property line. (The individual calling will be informed immediately in the event fire£ighting support is not available from DGSC.) 2. The County Fire Chief at the scene will direct the utilization of DGSC equipment responding. 3. The County Fire Chief will release DGSC equipment as soon as the -ffire is under control and can be handled by the local forces. D. Upon receipt of a request for fire£ighting assistance from the Defense General Supp~ Center~ the following will be implemented: 1. The operator on duty at the County emergency center will dispatch the requested firefighting equipment from the station or stations located nearest the center at which the equipment is available. 2. Direct that all equipment dispatched report to the main gate (on Route 1, 301) for instructions and guidance. 3. Upon arrival at the scene, report to the DGSC Chief on duty for instructions and utilization. 4. County firefighting equipment will depart by way of the main gate when dismissed by DGSC Fire Chief. E. Any changes to the above operating procedure will be concurred in by the. Fire Chief~ DGSC and the Fire Chie£, Chesterfield County. Change in telephone number of either party will be reported to the other party as soon as the change is made and the new phone is operational. FIRE CHIEF~ DGSC DATE FIRE CHIEF~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY DATE TO: FROM: SUBJECT: COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD INTRACOUNTY CORRESPONDENCE June 15, 1977 Jack Manuel Lane B. Ramsey Fire Hydrant Installation On May 11, 1977 the Board rescended the policy of reimbursing to developers $125 per fire hydrant installed. This policy is to become effective on July 1, 1977. There is currently $22,000.00 outstanding on contracts that were approved and awarded before the policy change takes effect. The Board also suggested on May 11, 1977 that we bring back'at a later date the policy of the General Fund assuming the cost of fire hydrant installation when a developer is not involved. Please ask the Board on June 20, 1977 to consider this policy and it is my recommendation that the General Fund continue paying this cost of fire hydrant installation because the Utilities is an Enterprise operation and a fire hydrant serves no purpose to the Utilities system. On May 11, 1977 I also indicated that we would bring back a budget amendment for the Fire Department for the amount charged to them that was not budgeted. We have reviewed that budget and ask for the following change: Decrease Planned Budget Expense: 11-071-106.0 Firemen $35,000 11-071-400.1 Repl. Motor Vehicles 5~000 Total $40,000 Increase Planned Budget Expense: 11-071-292.0 Fire Hydrant Installation $40,000 This requires no additional appropriation. Jack Manuel June 15, 1977 Page 2 We will also work out procedures where the Fire Department can maintain records of hydrants approved and the estimated cost so they will always know how much the budget is committed for. Also, please ask the Board to increase the 1977-78 Fire Department Budget as follows: ~.~.~p.~. ~'7-1~-q~ 11-075-000.0 FIRE HYDRANT INSTALLATION 11-075-292.0 Fire Hydrant Installation $35,000 LBR/lga cc: Bob Painter Bob Eanes BOARD WILLIA~ H. KING, Bmke~ille WILLIAM H. ST~AG~, F~ls ~xurch Vi~ ~JOR T. B~, S~folk A. R. D~a, ~fillw~ ~ U. Hom~ J. H. JOHN$ON, We~ point DEPARTMENT OF' CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RoB,:,R'r p~r~so~, ~tI~DI~RIC S. ~E:D. DIVISION OF FORESTRY 509 E. Nine Mile Road, Snndston, Virginia, 2:1150 Telephone 737-4-791 GENE W. AUGSBURGER, District Forester June 22, 1977 FIRE General Hr. Robert L. Eanes, Fire Chief Chesterfield County Fire Administrator Chesterfield County Fire Department Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Chief Eanes: Again, we have reached the end of a spring forest fire season. As the Richmond District Administrator of the Virginia Division of Forestry, I want to express our appreciation for your excellent co-operation in our fire suppression, investigation and prevention efforts. Chief Forest Warden Howard F. Hancock of Chesterfield County, Unit Super- visor Mr. Crockett Morris, Jr., and myself want to commend the men in your department for their concern and the ability to meet the situation in the prompt and efficient manner they have exhibited. The training and the fire behavior knowledge shown by your men within the individual companies speaks well of your organization. It is indeed our plea- sure to have been associated with your men and we look forward to a continued effort in our common endeavor to protect life and property. If I, or any of the personnel under my supervision can assist you in any way, please feel free to contact me at the District Office in Sandston. Sincerely yours, District Forester GWA:sc cc: Mr. Crockett Morris, Jr. Mr. H.F. Hancoc~°u MrelVelcome in Virginia--Help Keep It Green MOBELEY' HENING AIS6OCIATES, INC. ARCHITECTS · I~LANNERE · INTERIOR OESlI~NERa 80180UTHLA~EE BLVO.· RICHMOND. VA 23235 · 804/7~4-7~55 7 July 1977 RE:: Chesterfield Juvenile & Domestic Relations Courts and Probation Building Chesterfield County, Virginia Board of Supervisors Chesterfield Count~j Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 M-1 Details Corridor, Courtroom and Add Alterna~ N°ffli~[ ~,- 9 Plan Mechanical cost of $55 ~ 600. bid O~ WILLIAM WARD MOSELEY. AIA, President l JAMES H. HENING. JR., AIA. ~]lloretar~-Treaeurer RE: ChestePfietd JDR and P Buitdtng Board of Supervisors, Chesterfield County Page 2 7 Jut 77 market conditions, or competitive bidding, we cannot guarantee the accuracy of this statement of probabte construction cost, Two (2) sets of the Design Devetopment Documents are enctosed. Ptease sign and return one oopy of this fetter For our records. Sincerely, W[lliam W. M°se' . gjh Encls: As stated CC: Dunbar, Milby & Wittiams Witliam G. Brandt, Jr. & Associates, Inc. APPROVED: COUNTY OF CHESTERFfELD, VA date TRANSMITTAL MHA_ LETTER MOSW-w¥..E...Q ^ssoc,^ ws. ,.c. ~lA DOC/.J/~/ENT C~0 ARCHITECT8 = PLANNERS , INTERIOR DBBIONBRB 601 SOUTHL~6 BLVD. I RICHMOND, V~ 2~2~ I B~/~-~555 PROJECT: Chesterfield Juvenile & Domestic ARCHITECT'S (name, address) Relations Courts & Probation Bldg. PROJECT NO: 1670 Chesterfield, Virginia F Mr. C. G. Manuel -1 TO: Interim County Administrator Chesterfield County Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 ATTN: L WE TRANSMIT: _1 DATE: ,30 June 1977 If enclosures are not as noted, please inform us immediately. If checked below, please: ( ) Acknowledge receipt of enclosures. ( ) Return enclosures to us. (x) herewith ( ) under separate cover via ( ) in accordance with your request FOR YOUR: (x) approval ( ~ distribution to parties ( ) review & comment ( ) record ( )use ( ) THE FOLLOWING: ( ) Drawings ( ) Specifications ( ) Change Order ( ) information ( ) Shop Drawing Prints ( ) Samples ( ) Shop Drawing Reproducibles ( ) Product Literature (x) Cost proposals COPIES DATE REV. NO. DESCRIPTION ACTION CODE I 23 June 77 Sayre & Sutherland, Inc., proposa! EE I 27 June 77 d.K. Ttmmons & Associates, ;[nc. proposal E ACTION A. Action indicated on item transmitted D. For signature and forwarding as noted below under REMARKS CODE B. No action required E. See REMARKS below C. For signature and return to this office REMARKS These written proposals incorporate the prices I gave you by phone on 24 June. If they are satisfactory to the County, please Ret in touch with the Firms so that the site preparation work can commence. Thank you very much. COPIES TO: Sayre & Sutherland~ Inc. Timmons & Associates (with enclosures) BY: clbc Richard Halle Project Manager AIA DOCUMENT G810 · TRANSMITTAL LETTER · APRIL 1970 EDITION · AIA® ' COPYRIGHT © 1970 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1785 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 ONE PAGE J. K. TIMMONS & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS · SURVEYORS · PLANNERS 1314 WEST MAIN STREET · RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23220 · (804) 353-6687 June 27, 1977 J. H. HENSON, Vice-President Mr. Jack Manuel Acting County Administrator Chesterfield County c/o Moseley-Hening Associates, Inc. 601 Southlake Boulevard Richmond, Virginia 23235 Attn: Richard Halle Re: Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts Building Dear Mr. Manuel: The following proposal is made relative to survey services for site preparation at the subject facility. The proposal is Based on requirements as outlined in the "Project }4anual" prepared by Moseley-Hening Associates, Inc. SCOPE OF WORK 1. Establish control references, both horizontal and vertical, as required for accuracy of other survey work. 2. After clearing and stripping of topsoil is complete, determine elevations of existing ground to use as a basis for calculation of earth removed By later operations. 3. After excavation to proper depth is done by contractor, determine elevations at low point of excavation. 4. After controlled fill is in place, again determine new elevations and calculate extent and quantity of fill that has been placed. 5. Maintain records of site conditions and forward reports and comments to the Architect. This work is to be done by our Construction Engineer. 6. Prepare an as-built survey map after site preparation is complete. One reproducible and two black-line prints will Be submitted to the Architect. Fees for the above-outlined work, listed in relation to the numbers given is as follows: Mr. Jack Manuel Page Two June 27, 1977 Item 1 $ 280 Item 2 $ 200 Item 3 $ 200 Item 4 $ 300. Item 5 $ 300 Item 6 $ 300 TOTAL $1,500 We appreciate the opportunity of rendering this proposal for participation in this important County work. We look forward to hearing from you shortly. JHH:mhf Sincerely, J. ,~. TIMMONS & A$SOCIATF, S,INC. John H. Henson cc: Mr. Howard West June 23, 1977 County of Chesterfield c/o Mosely-Hening Associates, Inc. 601Southlake Blvd. Richmond, Virginia 23235 Controlled Fill Chesterfield Juvenile & Domestic Relations Courts & Probation Building Chesterfield County, Virginia Gentlemen: At the request of Mr. Richard Halle, we are submitting the follow- ing proposal for soil and foundation engineering services for the referenced project on Krause Road, Chesterfield County, Virginia. The services will include full-time observation and tests of the construction of the controlled fill and professional advice, opinions and recommendations concerning the preparation of the area and construction of the controlled fill. We will provide the services of a soil engineer to provide continu- ing advice and recommendations during construction, of'the controlled fill. We will provide the services of a soil technician to conduct on- site observations and tests of the undercutting of unacceptable materials and of the quality, placing, spreading and compacting of the fill. He shall assist in determining that construction of the controlled fill is proceeding in accordance with the Contract Documents. The soil technician will perform field density tests in the com- pacted fill to determine compliance with the Contract Documents. He will also obtain samples of the fill material for laboratory tests when required. The soil technician will be present at all times that the contractor is removing unacceptable materials, placing, spreading or compacting the fill. The soil engineer will visit the job periodically to observe the earthwork operation and to supervise the work of the technician. The soil technician will report to the soil engineer whenever he believes that any work is unsatisfactory, faulty or defective or does not conform to the requirements of the Contract Documents, or does not meet the requirements of any tests and will advise when he believes work should be corrected or rejected or should be uncovered for observation or requires special testing. June 23, 1977 The soil technician will not (1) authorize any deviation from the Contract Documents or approve any substitute materials, (2) undertake 'any of the responsibilites of the contractor, subcontractors or contractor's super- intendent, (3) expedite work for the contractor, (4) advise on or issue directions relative to any aspect of the means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction, or (5) advise or issue directions as to safety precautions and programs in connection with the work. We will provide written reports each week indicating the results of the field tests and a summary of the observations of the earthwork. A soil engineer will be available for consultation and advice regarding pro- gress and any problems arising from this work. Under no circumstances is it the intent of this firm to directly control the physical activities of the contractor or the contractor's work- men's accomplishment of work on this project. The presence of the Soil and Foundation Engineer, his employes or representatives at the site is for-the purpose of providing the Owner with a continuing source of professional advice, opinions and recommendations baSed opon observations and te~ts of the con~ tractor's work and does not include any superintending, supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor or the contractor's safety measures in, on, or near the construction site. prices: Our charges for the services will be bas6d on the following unit Soil Technician with field density equipment Overtime ............... $104.00/8 hour day $19.50/hour Senior Engineer ............... $35.00/hour Laboratory Testing Moisture-density Relation (ASTM D-1557) . $50.00 Moisture-density Relation (ASTM D- 698) $45.00 Gradation and Atterberg Limits ......... $30.00 Expenses (at cost) The total cost of our services will depend upon the contractor's rate of work and weather conditions. For budget and planning purposes, we assumed that the work would be performed in 6 weeks. Based on a 6-week June 23, 1977 period, our estimated total charge will be $6,000. We wish to re-emphasize that this total amount is beyond our control and will increase or decrease as the contractor's rate and weather conditions dictate. We will no~ exceed this amount without your prior approval. If you have any questions concerning this proposal, please contact me at this office. Sincerely, SAYRE & SUTHERLAND, INC. ACCEPTED: Cowry of Chesterfield Date: 7-i3-77 COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD VIRGINIA MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Board of Supervisors Steven L. Micas, County Attorney ~ July 1, 1977 Supplementation of the County Code Attached for your review is a contract with Michie Company to provide the necessary services to update the County Code. Please consider a resolution authorizing the Chairman to execute the contract. The consideration of $3,750 has been budgeted and appropriated. SLM/j lb Att a chmen t ThoRichrnond S;/rnphony July 5, 1977 The tlonorable E. Merlin O'Neill, Sr. 4517 Windward Drive Chester, Virginia 23851 Dear Mr. O'Neill: On behalf of The Richmond Symphony and as Chairman of its Finance Committee, I want to express our appreciation for the continuing interest of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County in helping to make possible services of the Symphony to the County school children and its residents. We are aware that $1S,000 has already been budgeted to help defray part of this cost during the forthcoming season. However, this action by the Board was taken before 'representatives of the Symphony had an oppor- tunity to present the financial facts applicable to the 1977-78 Symphony Season. Please allow me to review briefly the history of this item in the Chesterfield County Budget. In August 1974 the Symphony requested the County to enter into a contract to pay $15,000 to cover part of the $21,500 cost of the Symphony's services to the approximately 15,000 school children of Chesterfield County. Attached is a copy of the memorandum we submitted at that time. The Board of Supervisors responded favorably. In August 1975 we pointed out that the cost of these services was rising rapidly, and we requested a new contractual agreement calling for a County appropriation of $16,500. This was granted. Despite increasing costs, in the spring of 1976 we sought from the County a "no increase" appropriation of $16,500 for the Symphony's services to be rendered under contract during the 1976-77 school year. The Board approved only $15,000. This amount was carried forward earlier this year for inclusion in the budget for the current 1977-78 season. Except for the costs involved, the facts and figures concerning number of performances, in-school programs and concerts, symphony youth activities and the number of students participating are approximately the same today as those described in the attached 1974 memorandum. The cost of the Ensemble In-School Teaching Programs, attended last year by approximately 6,000 Chesterfield school children, has risen from $2,704 to $5,120. The cost of Sinfonia In-School Concerts, attended by 3,435 students, has risen from $5,250 to'$5,750. Chesterfield's share of the cost of the Youth Concerts at the Mosque remains at about $11,000. These were attended by about 7,500 Chesterfield students. JACQUES HOUTMANN, MUSIC DIRECTOR JOAN T, BRICCETTI, MANAGER I$ SOUTH FIFTH STREET RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219 (804) 788-1212 The Honorable E. Merlin O'Neill, Sr. July 5, 1977 Page Two The pro rata cost of participation by the youth of Chesterfield County in the Symphony's Youn~ Performer's Program, Youth Orchestra, Youth Wind Ensemble, Youth Chorus and Youth Scholarships is now approximately $$,500. It can thus be seen that the services rendered by the Symphony to the school children of Chesterfield now carry a direct cost to the Symphony of about $23,000. This does not include indirect costs covering work in the Sy~phon¥'s office to arrange these services. We suspect that the actual total cost exceeds $26,000 which enured to the benefit of about 17,000 Chesterfield students all told. It is worthy of note that more students from Chesterfield County par- ticipate in the Young Performer's Program than from any other segment of our metropolitan area. A brief glance at the attached program from the recent Spring Concert will show that over 41% of our young instrumentalists come from Chesterfield County and that an additional 200 young chorusters from three Chesterfield schools participated in this extraordinary event. You may be interested in knowing that the American Symphony Orchestra League recently designated The Richmond Symphony as one of 18 Regional Or- chestras in the United States. Ne are no~ the largest performing arts organi- zation in the State of Virginia. Because of the far reaching extent of its services throughout the Commonwealth, it enjoys support from the Virginia Comission for the Arts and Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, a $40,000 grant from the City of Richmond and contracts with the neighboring counties in our metropolitan area. .It.enrico County has agreed to a $18,000. contract for services during the next school year similar to those here de- scribed for Chesterfield. In further recognition of the excellent standing of our Symphony, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has awarded us a $150,000 Challenge Grant. Though there were 383 applicants for this federal support, The Richmond Symphony was chosen to be one of only a handful of major, regional and metro- politan orchestras to be recipients of this help. We were one of only two non-major orchestras in the country to be so honored. This grant must be matched on the basis of at least three new or increased local dollars for every federal dollar. The first $150,000 in local money must~ be reported by August 1, 1977 if our Symphony is to become fully eligible for the entire grant. This initial money need not be paid by that date but must be reported as pledged or appropriated. Toward this inu~ediate goal the Symphony has already received approximately $130,000 in .new money. We urgently request, in light o£ the Symphony's rising costs for the services it renders to the Chesterfield County school children, that the County add $2,500 to the $15,000 already budgeted for the current fiscal year. The Honorable E. Merlin O~Neill~ Sr. July 5~ 1977 Page Three We £urther ask that action to this end be taken promptl¥~ hopefully at the next meeting of the Board of Supervisors to be held on Wednesday, July 13, so that the additional amount can be reported be£ore August 1. We ask that you make whatever arrangements need be necessary to get The Richmond Symphony on the Board's July 13 agenda so that a formal presen- tation of this request can be made. Thomas P. Bryan Chairman, Finance Committee TPB/br~ enclosures cc: Members of the Board of Supervisors The County Administrator Background information on proposal concerning The Richmond Symphony to be presented to the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors on August 14, 1974 In order to assure continuance of services made avail- able by The Richmond Symphony to the citizens of Chesterfield County and especially to the school children of the County, it is essen- tial that the County provide support for these, services through a contractual arrangement. During most of the seventeen years existence of this com- munity-wide orchestra which has gained national recognition, it has included (in addition to its regular community-wide concerts at the Mosque) several programs conducted for the musical education and cultural enlightenment of students in the area. As is the situa- tion for practically every Symphony in the country, the expenses of its operation simply cannot be sustained through the sale of tickets alone. Because of the importance of the Symphony as a valued com- munity asset in the attraction of business and industry and for the cultural enjoyment of all citizens of the area, and in order to maintain its existence, the Symphony annually conducts a Maintenance Fund Drive through which contributions are sought from private sources as well as grants from governmental agencies. To thfs end the Symphony will receive for the 1974-75 season a grant of $40,000 from the City of Richmond,~..$21,000 from the Old Dominion Symphony Council (a substantial portion of whose funds come from the State of Virginia), $6,000 from the Virginia Commission on Arts and Humanities, and $32,500 from the National Endowment (a federal agency in. Washington). Through its Maintenance Fund Drive recently com- pleted, the Symphony will receive $117,000 from private individuals and corporations in the community. These, together with receipts from the sale of tickets, a few grants from private foundations and other sources of modest income, will still leave the Symphony with a deficit of $107,000 for the coming season -- a figure which the Symphony can ill afford to add to its existing debt. Thus the Symphony is still faced with the need of raising additional income either through grants and contributions or the sale of its services. There are three principal programs available to Chester- field County students under the auspices of the Symphony: The Ensemble In-School Teaching Programs were attended during the 1972-73 season by approximately 4,200 Chesterfield County school- children. Because of the lack of funds, these programs were not conducted in Chesterfield County last year. Experience has shown that they cost the Symphony $104 per program. Accordingly, the proposal of the Symphony to provide 26 such programs for the coming season would cost the Symphony $2,70~. These programs are most appealing to groups of Elementary and Junior High School students. It could reasonably be expected that if such programs are reinstated, more than 5,000 Chesterfield students would attend. Two Five Sinfonia In-School Concerts were attended last year by approximatel~ 2,500 Chesterfield school children. The cost of these concerts to the Symphony is $1,050 each. Through proper scheduling in advance and arranging for two presentations of the same program on the same day Bt the same school, the number of these concerts can be doubled for the coming' year at no addition- al cost to the Symphony or the County. Accordingly, for the ten concerts proposed for next year, the Symphony's cost would be $5,250. The youth Concerts performed in the Mosque cost the Symphony approximately $44,000. About 25% of the students at- tending these concerts come from Chesterfield County. It can thus be said that the County's pro rata share of the cost of these concerts is $11,000. The total cost to the Symphony of these three programs as they relate to the Chesterfield County school children is, therefore, $18,954. The Symphony is proposing to continue these services under an agreement whereby the County will pay $15 000 to the Symphony. ' In addition to these services, the Symphony will con- tinue to provide at no cost to the County the Youth Orc'hestra (about 1/3 of whose 75 members come from Chesterfield County), the Youth Wind Ensemble (about 1/2 of whose 48 members come from the County), the Youth Chorus (about 1/5 of whose 50 members come from the County) and the Youth Scholarship Program (1/3 of whose 21 recipients last year w~re Chesterfield residenbs and received a total amount of assistance in excess of $1,000). If the Symphony were to charge the County for its pro rata share of these latter four programs, at least another $2,500 would probably have to be added to the Symphony's cost. in round figures it can then be said that the Symphony will be supplying services to the school children of Chesterfield County Which cost the Symphony more than $21,500, but for which the Symphony is asking the County to pay only $15,000. This does not take into account any added value for the broad general bene- fit which the County receives by the presence in its environs of this cultural attraction for its adult citizens and business de- velopment. Without payment from the County some of these services may have to be curtailed. 8/6/74 Grace Notes Some Youlh ul Music Sounds By Francis Church A sense of pride and accomplishment'radiated through the Scottish Rite Temple as the Richmond Symphony Youth Orchestra closed its regular season recently. A nearly full house warmly applauded the program fefiturlng a contemporary work by Vaclav Nelhybel played by the orchestra and its wind ensemble, a classical violin concerto with Jo Ann Switzer as soloist and Faure's "Requiem," In which the orchestra was joined by chorus and soloists from three CheSter- field County high schools,' The orchestra had given four conceris during a season in which significant works from the symphonic literature had been ex- plored. And on closing night the orchestra unveiled a handsome "logo" by Brian Thomson which is a symbol of the ensemble's optimism for the future. But there was a sense of loss at this closing concert, too. The orchestra's 12.year-old concertmaster, Laura Park, Is leaving for Philadelphia's Curtis Institute of Music this fall. She repor- tedly is the youngest person ever to enroll there. And William Curry, assistant conductor of the parent Rich- mond Symphony who has done so much for the youth orchestra, is leaving for Baltimore. On to Musical.Careers I t is nothing new for good players to leave the ranks of the youth orchestra for conservatories and musical careers. For example, Sara Boyer already is at Curtis. Mrs. Judith Brltton Is the highly regarded first flutist in the Richmond Symphony; 25 to30alumnt are playing in symphony orchestras. These statistics attest to the success of the youth orchestra as a musical training ground. Another backbone of the Youth orchestra, Mrs. M.G. Ramey, also is retiring. She deserves it. For most of the orchestra's 15 yea rs she has toiled tirelessly as manager and what have you. In reality the title might be "chief cook and bottle washer." The corps of volunteers from the symphony women's association which she has spearheaded really makes the youth orctiestra go. With Curry's departure, perhaps the youth orchestra should take a long look at its conducting setup. This year, the orchestra not only was led by Curry but also by Rex Britton and Stephen Kapeller. Varied Conducfing Techniques The tandem of conductors was deliberate. Orchestra sponsors felt the players would gain valuable experience through ex- posure to several conductors with differing techniques. And cer- tainly the rehearsal with violinist-conductor Serglu Luca was .rewarding for the musicians. But something.is lost, too, when the players must adjust to many conducting approaches. Often discipline and attention to detail are lost, a.common occurrence among orchestras, in- cluding major ones, which rely on guest conductors for any length of time. The time may be right for the' youth orchestra leadership to look to permane.nt, committed, undivided leadership from the podium. '['he youngsters deserve as much, if they are to rflove ahead. Furthermore, the orchestra deservesa greater commitment to music from the publid schools, especially in the strings;'as a pool for talent.' The'small size of the youth's orchestra's first violin section is disquieting, especially compared with those in such cities .as Norfolk and. Louisville. The reason is that the public schools simply aren't feeding in the players. The schools have some marvelous string teachers, but. they have to figh! for their lives every year when the program should be growing. String Playing O[{ers li/eflme R, eWards An example of the apparent apathy here is that one of the finest string teachers to be graduated from Virginia Commonwealth University this spring was snapped up -- not by Richmond or Henrico, Chesterfield or Hanover counties -- but by Hampton. The heavy emphasis, and spending, on such sports as varsity football is all well and good. But how many (or rather how few) men will play football at age 50? On the other hand, the lucky few who play string instri~ments can count on a lifetime of pleasure, right in their own living rooms. More should be added to the ranks. A fine, expariding youth orchestra can' be a source of great community prlde.'Such communities as Bergen, N.J., Fort Worth, Tex., and Montgomery County, Md., are sending their: orchestras to the American Festival of Youth Orchestras June 26-July 3 in Washington. Richmond should be there, and will be there some year if the community turns itself around and shows a new sense of commitment to quality musical education aS the backbone of a growing youth orchestra. !Dell Conce"'' To Feafure Youth's Work · i "'Seventh Rain," a work com. posed by 19-year-old pianist Bruce Gardner, will ~be featured In tomorrow's Rich- mond Symphony Orchestra per- · formance at Dogwood Dell. Gardner composed the work ~ during a seven-day rain In 1975. At the time, he had studied piaho seriously for only about five years.. . . A member of the Richmond Symphony Youth'. Orchestra and a recent graduate of J.R. Tucker High School, Gardner plans to continue his musical studies on the conservatory level. In addition to the premiere of .Gardner's piece, the All- American program Will include Gershwtn's "American in Paris" and "Porgy and Bess," Bernsteln's "Candlde Over- ture,".Copland's "Hoe Dow,l," Darion's "Man of La Manchu," · Reed's "Festival Prelude" and Chadwick's '..'Jubilee." William Curry will conduct the performance, which will be the last of Symphony Week. Scheduled to begin at 8: 45 p. m., the concert Is free. The Richmond News Leader 6/15/77 Youth Orchestra At Dell Tonight The Rlchmond Symphony Youth Orchestra will make its first Festival of Arts ap- pearance tonight al 8:45 at Dogwood Dell: The program will include Bach's Chorale from "Easter 'Cantata," Handel's "Prelude and Fugue in D Minor." Schubert's "Rosamunde Over- ture,'' the last movement of Hanson's "Romantic Symphony," Saint-Sachs' "Danse Macabre" and Gian- nini's ."Symphony NO. 2." William Curry, Stephen Kapeller and Rex Britton will conduct the orchestra. The per- forma.nce, a part of Symphony Week, is free. Ricl~ond '6/15/77 Tin~s-Dispatch Youth Orchestra! To Be at Dell The Richmond Symphony Youth Orchestra will make its first Festival of Arts ap- pearance at Dogwood Deli to- day at 8:45 p.m. in a free con- cert under the direction William Curry, Stephen Kapeller and Rex Britton. The program will include Schubert's ,'Rosamunde Over- ture,'' Saint-SaChs' "Danse Macabre," Handel's "Prelude and Fugue in D Minor," the last movement of Hanson's "Romantic Symphony," Gian- nini's ,'Symphony No. 2" and Bach's Chorale . from "Easter Cantata." YouthOrche 'ra 'ln Final Concert ! ' J~nn~e Swltzer. a 10-year-al of flq~_,p_r~_o_r _to__ ~e..p~rforma~ ~vi~t~lst. will be ,the guest per-.~. ~ former at $ p.m. Tuesday for the ,l~cl~mond Symphony Youth '~'rches tr,~'s final c, oncert o.f the season in the $cottlsh~Rite Temple. . ,~[; ~','<. Miss Swltzer will perform ¥1ottl's "vtolid ~onc~rtb NO. 22'° ~l.th the..orc, hestra; Ad- ~ditlsnal Works on the program Include the FnUre ~'lq~iulem" by th~ orbh~tra nnd aleX,.voice .chorus :of students from MnnGt~ester, MIdibthlan' nnd Thol~ns~, ~are Hish ,Schools tn mem'~r~ '."bf: R'lchmond Symphony founder Emma Gray Trlgg. Soloists will be barltone..Tom ~iller,' and soprano Beth Lazard,' both of Midothian. '~ "] -~: : The. Rich'mond Symphony ' Youth Wind Ensemble will also combine with the orchestra for Nelhy,bel's "Music. for. Orchestra." ' = . .:, .r!.c,k?s wil!._be. *old at the box, On motion of , seconded by , the Board adopts the following: WHEREAS E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., presently located on Route 656, Bellwood Road, will expand its plant by 1980. WHEREAS the said company will create an increase in traffic of approximately 30 cars per day and the capital outlay for said company is approximately several million dollars. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That this Board requests the Highway Department to improve with Industrial Access Funds Route 656, Bellwood Road from Route 1-301 to the DuPont-James River Plant, a distance of 1.59 mile. AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED: That if the Commonwealth is unsuccessful in obtaining the necessary right of way, the Board of Supervisors will take all necessary steps to obtain, by negotiation or condemnation, an unrestricted right of way of 50 feet and to adjust all existing utilities; the cost of both obtaining the right of way and the adjustment of utilities to be borne by the County. Stale Of"ce B~ildina/Richmond Viroinis 23219 (80,1~ 786 3791 July 5, 1977 Mr. Michael C. Ritz Director of Planning Chesterfield County Chesterfield Courthouse, Dear Mike: Virginia 23832 Enclosed is a letter from John Stull which I discussed with you today. As you can see from the second paragraph they do have tentative plans to add several million dollars in investment to this facility, and I think this is sufficient qualification for us to proceed on the access road appli- cation. l°leas~ let rne know if there is any way in which I may be of further assistance on this matter outside of my regular function in connection with the access road program. Thanks so much for your help. Cordially yours, ohn s on,Dir ector~ Jr Community Development LPJj r:c oh Enclosure C. I. D. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS ~ COMPANY WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19898 LEGAL DEPARTMENt June 28, 1977 Mr. Lawrence P. Johnson, Jr. Office of the Governor Division of Industrial Development State Office Building Richmond, VA 23219 Dear Mr. Johnson: As your office is aware, Bellwood Road in Chesterfield County serves several industrial sites along the James River and is, indeed, the only access road available for heavy vehicles used in connection with manufacturing operations located there. Du Pont Company has two sites dependent on Bellwood Road (James River Plant and Richmond Truck Terminal). Thi& past winter was extremely damaging to the road, to the point of its being close to impassable at some points. We would appreciate your assistance with the Virginia State Highway Department in expediting the application of Chesterfield County in seeking Industrial Access Road Funds to repair Bellwood Road. Chesterfield County is favorably disposed toward such a project, but · participation of available funding from the state is needed. As a supple- ment.to data provided by Chesterfield'County in its application, I should like you to convey the'further information that Du Pont has tentative plans to add in excess of several million dollars new investment to the James River sit~ We~t~ the facilities ~rovided by this investment woUld start'up in the 1980-1981 period and will create more than~ht new job~. Please consider this information as confidential for use in det6~mining applicability for access road funds to this situation. Needless to say, it is critical that a repair project be started by late summer in order to avoid the temporary closing of either of several {ndustrial sites due to impassabl~ conditions next winter. Any help you can extend in the matter would be welcome. JMS:ka cc: Mr'. Michael C. Ritz Director of Planning Chesterfield County Sincerely, M. Stull Attorney,/Gpvernmenta1 Affairs Division DATE:., TO: .FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM July 8, 1977 Board of Supervisors C. G. Manuel, Interim County Administrator Dexter R. Williams~tanner/Eng±neer Park'n'Ride Lots Attached are the final sections of the Transit Service Report No. 1, concerning proposed park'n'ride transit service to nothern Chesterfield. The first section summarizes the results of the GRTC Marketing Analysis that pertain to Chesterfield. The last section presents Staff's assessments of alternatives for future action and recommendations. DRW/j p COUNTY .TRANSIT SERVICES CHESTERFIELD REPORT NO. 1 Draft 7/8/7.~ TABLE OF CONTENTS EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE Metropolitan Area Service - GRTC, Bon Air Transit Company, Waller Bus Lines, Tri-City Coaches Through Service - Greyhound, James River Bus Lines ALTERNATIVES Previous Planning Efforts - Voorhees (Richmond, Chesterfield- Henrico TDP, Tri-Cities Transit Study General Responsibility of County - Ettrick Northern Chester- field Park'n'Ride Service - General Study and ImPlementation Schedule Fiscal Responsibilities Tentative Sites and Estimated Costs GRTC Marketing Analysis SUMMARY AND RECOM~4ENDATIONS Attachments 'GRTCMA''R/fETING ANAL¥SI'S In June, 1977, RRPDC and GRTC completed a marketing analysis of questionaire returns from users and hon-users of transit in the Richmond metropolitan area. By establishing the needs and desires of both users and non-users of transit, an in-house marketing capability may be developed for increasing transit ridership throughout the Richmond urbanized area. In Chesterfield County, between Huguenot Road and Route 10, approximately 800 questionnaires were mailed to persons who had indicated in a telephone survey that they would fill out and return a questionnaire. Of the 800 question- naires distributed, 338 (or approximately 40%) were returned. Two categories of questions which were analyzied are: 1. Importance rankings of trip-making variables; 2. Levels of consideration given to use of transit. The following was reported in the GRTC Marketing Analysis for Chesterfield respondents: ,i In Chesterfield, the four most important trip variables among men and women were: being sure of reaching destination on time, having travel method immediately available at time of departure; having travel method available at place of departure; and being able to travel right to one's destination. As with other non-riders dis- cussed earlier, these choices are attributes of automobile travel. Keeping travel costs as iow as possible ranks fifth among female respondents and sixth among males. Avoiding parking problems ranked next behind cost for both males and females. Shortest trip time ranked fifth among males and seventh among females. ~\ In both Counties, (Chesterfield and Henric6), prime 'consideration to using transit was expressed in terms of restriction in automobile travel: if car coasts continue to rise. This had hel'd true across all non-rider groups. From this ~oint on, the rankings between the two Counties varied Considerably. 1~ In Chesterfield, the availability of parkland-ride lots ranked second in consideration for use of transit, among both males' and females. Third in consideration was more frequent service to destination. Other items given high consideration were: making the trip quicker than it is now; being sure buses would run on time; if bus stopped closer to usual destination; and being sure of personal safety while riding the bus. Summary & Recommendations Transit service has been operated in Chesterfield County t~ate without supervision ~or subsidy by the County government. However, the regional transition of transit service from private enterprise to pUblic service, increasing urbanizatio~ the County, and energy concerns have prompted the County to ~l~v~ ~V~ O its position on the future of transit service in the County. The expressed concerns of the Board to date regarding new transity service have been related to identifying need and minimizing costs. With respect to minimizing costs, the low density development pattern of northern Chest'erfield precludes the operation of'~local service w~thout subsidy. The transit service alternative for northern~Chesterfield County which exhibits the most potential for non-subsidized operation is express busservice to park'n'ride lots. The problems associated with identifying the need for a"particular park'n'ride service and initiating action to provide for that need are illustrated as followS: 1. On September 9, 1975, a public hearing was held at Bon Air Baptist Church on a proposed park'n'ride lot to be located between Buford Road and Forest Hill Avenue in Bon Air. The need for service to this area was established on the basis of the modal split model run by RRPDC and informal citizen input. Although the citizen testimony given at this hearing did not refute the need for park'n'ride service to this area, the particular location was strongly opposed by the majority of citizens who spoke. The problem in this case was that~ ~ government action to_ provide for a need recognized by both government and citizens was rejected by the citizenry as inappropriate. There- fore, the ~taff time spent by VDH&T, GRTC and the County in preparing this proposal was largely wasted becuase the proposal did not have the public support necessary to see it through to completion. As a result, the County now has the sole responsibility of establishing the need for and Public support of any new park'n'ride faciltiy. 2. While the GRTC Marketing Analysis does giVe an indication that some residents of Chesterfield County are interested in transit service, the general interest expressed in the survey does not offer assurances as to the fiscal success of J~ route-~nor-'any!i~dications that support would be different than the experience situation as occurred with the Bon Air proposal. 3. Services provided by Chesterfield County have been established largely on the basis of citiz~ req~st, whether by petition or informal conversation. Because of the capital and potential subsidy costs associated with transit service, a formal request for transit from~the citizenry would offer some proof to the Board that-the funding and time committment to a new transit service is spent in the best interest of the county. The County now must choose from three basic alternative for further action on park'n'ride service which are: 1. Suspend all activity on the evaluation of park'n'ride services for a specified or unspecified time. 2. Select a service arc,orr implementation of a park'n'ride lot on the basis of existing information and proceed to implement the service 3. Present the park'n'ride issue to civic associations in order to inform them of costs and benefits and receive their input concerning the need for transit service and their acceptance of specific locations of proposed facilities. This process would last approximately one year, after which the Board could consider the issue again. Staff recommends that the County purufe alternative 3 because existing information indicates that some need for transit service exists causing alternative 1 to be inappropriate, while at the same time initia~ing a particular park'n'ride service in FY 78 may be p~a~ure. Past communication between the County government and the citizenry on specific park'n'ride lot locations lacks substance, and alternative 3 would provide an opportunity for substantive eemm~ea~e~s e~mm~e~e~'communication. The first step in alternative 3 is to distribute a copy of Transit Services Report Number 1~ with a cover letter explaining the report and the County's position to all civic associations and other c~vic organizations of which the County is aware. The questions concerning park'n'ride service could be directed to Staff, and Staff would be available to meet with civic groups to discuss both general and specific aspects of proposed park'n'ride as it relates to their communities. Board members could participate to the extent that each may desire. During this process, the public would be informed of the potential costs and benefits of park'n'ride service, potential sites in their area, and the County's desire to have any new park'n'ride service to pay for itself. The information presented would also include a statement of the problm~s inherent in the provision of the service and costs to the users of the proposed service versus the costs for alternative transportation. presented After the park'n!ride issue has been p~es~e~ to a civic group, that group should express their views to the Board in the form of a petition. The petition should state their views on the general issue of provision of transit services by the County and on any specific location in their area. If a civic group indicates in their petition that they desire park'n'ride service; they should indicate in of their petition how many/the signers are daily commuters to downtown Richmond. · The final step ~'~the process would be for~taff to assess these petitions'.and/or statements qoncerning park'n'ride service, and ~ report to the Board at the end'of fiscal year '78. This process would provide the Board with a much more accurate pieture of the interest of Chesterfield residents for park'n'ride service that is available with ekisting information. A possible disadvantage of alternative 3 is that citizen interest may be high in several areas where service would be very e~pe~}ems- expensive and possibly a heavy burden on'-the General Fund. For example, 'Brandermill, Salisbury, Enon, Matoaca, and Chester can be highly-organized and enthusiastic, but better sites might be found from a fiscal standpoint. This potential cn~-be compared to Rockwood Park; once an appetite (or standard of living) is learned, all others will desire it even though it is not affordable. This disadvantage might support a ~ore rational decision-making process, i.e. alternative 2 - which is essentially the method which Staff has followed to date. Another problem will arise when one area has a lot and other areas do not causing problems again similar to Rockwood's experience. Competition from several areas for limited local funds might require tax increases for transit operating deficits and bond issues for capital costs (buses, land, improvements). The County may safeguard against these potential problems by emphasizing in all communications with the citizenry that wh~eh while citizen support of any proposed project is paramount, the final governing criteria to be considered by the Board is fiscal vi&bility. The citizenry must be informed that the Board wishes to select a park'n'ride site. that exhibits the highest' level of both fiscal viability and citizen support, and that before action on a second park'n' ride lot is initiated, the first park'n'ride lot must be eva~a~ed in terms of its costs and benefits to the County and the region. COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM · 0: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Mr. C. G. Manu~l, Interim County Administrator FROM: James P. Zook, Chief, Comprekens~ve Planning DATE: July 8, 1977 'RE: ETTRICK TRANSIT ROUTE On December 8, 1976, the Board passed a resolution stating they wished to maintain the existing level of service in Ettrick and that negotiations between Chesterfield and Petersburg would be necessary to accomplish this if Petersburg should become the owner and operator of transit service in the Tri-Cities area (see page A-l). Petersburg did assume operation ,of transit service in the Tri-Cities area on July 1, 1977, and two preliminary cost estimates are presented on pages A-2 through A-6. ESTIMATINGETTRICK LINE COSTS. Method A. On page A-4, Attachment 1, the operating cost of the Ettrick route is established as a percentage of the estimated system operatfng costs equal to the percentage of the total system route miles. On page A-4, Attachment 1, the estimated operating cost (FY ~7/78) of the Ettrick route is established as 12.4% of the total system operating costs. This is based on the .percentage of the total system mileage which is on the Ettrick line~ 'This method estimates the Ettrick route operating costs to be $36,442. Petersburg estimates a revenue of $23,732 in FY .77/78 for the Ettrick line, leaving an estimated deficit of $12,710. This method is much the same as is used by GRTC in the Richmond area for establishing the operating costs for a particular local service. Method B. The other ·estimated, F~ 77/78, operating cost is established as 1/Sth of the system opprating costs (12.5~). except tires, gas, oil and grease which is established at 12.4% of the total system costs. The 12.5% factor for operating costs is based on the fact that the system has eight routes; therefore, the Ettrick route is 1/Sth or 12.5%. This method yields an estimated FY 77/78 operating cost of $36,699. The estimated FY 77/78 revenue of $23,732 is sub- tracted from the estimated cost, leaving an estimated deficit of $12,967. Of the two methods, it is presently in the County's interest to use the former method of establishing operating costs, as 12.4% is ~ less than 12.5%. On pages A-2 and A-3, the actual cost and billing procedures proposed by Petersburg are outlined. Staff comments are as follows: Item (1) - Actual cost of operating the Ettrick line -- Staff recommends that the cost of the Ettrick line should be established on the basis of mileage as indicated on page A-4 (Attachment 1). As mentioned previously, this method is used by GRTC for establishing local route costs and offers both fair and effective means of establishing cost. REVENUE FOR ETTRICK LINE Actual farebox revenues from the Ettrick line -- Assuming that the buses used on the Ettrick route are operated solely on that route then this procedure for establishing revenue appears viable. However, a procedure for allocating transfer revenues should be established as soon as possible. It is clearly in the County's interest to have most of the initial fare and transfer fare attributed to the Ettrick route. DEFICIT Actual deficit -- Once methods for establishing operating costs and allocating transfer revenues are established, then the actual deficit is appropriately determined by subtracting revenues from operating costs. The deficit for the Ettrick line is esti- mated to be $12,710 yearly. (page A-4). DEF IC.~T SHARING Percentage of line within Chesterfield -- Staff recom- mends that the Chesterfield portion of the Ettrick route deficit should not be established on the basis of jurisdictional mileage. This method of allocating responsibility for the Ettrick route deficit ignores the issue of. for whom the service is being pro- vided. On page A-7 (Table 6), the origins and destinations of transit trips to and from the Ettrick area (Analysis District 405) are shown~ Eighty-nine of the 184 trips end, or 48.4%, as the Ettrick route originates in the Ettrick area, indicating that Chesterfield residents make up 48.4% of the individuals served by the Ettrick route. Another aspect of this issue is illus- trated on page A-8 in the Cross Tabulation of Trip Purpose Table. On all routes except Ettrick, the predominant trip purpose is home-based work. On the Ettrick route, non-home- based and home-based school trips far exceed the home-based work trip and all other categories, indicating that the Ettrick route service to students at Virginia State is significant. Because system user information is not adequate, it is difficult to assign to Chesterfield or to Petersburg an actual def- icit based upon service to each of the respective "publics". There 'is also the question of whether the State should have a portion of the .deficit given the service 'to Virginia State College. In any case, Petersburg has offered to share one-half of the deficit for the Ettrick line. If the County is to con- tinue transit service in the Ettrick area on a subsidy basis then the Petersburg proposal seems reasonable until more infor- mation is known. 'SCHEDULE FOR SUB'SID¥ PAYMENT The S.~bsidy required in the first half of tke fiscal year would be $6,000; $3,000 would be returned to the county in the second half of the fiscal year. This "front money" is needed because of Federal regulations which affect cash flow in the first year of operation. Each succeeding year the subsidy required would be on a quarterly basis with reimbursement in the following quarter. NON-SUBS ID%~ CONS~DERAT~N The County may wish to raise fares to eliminate the necessity for subsidy. On page A-9, operating costs for the total system (provided by Crgter Planning District Commission) and the Ettrick routes are shown. Depending on the transfer policy, the annual full-fare ridership on the Ettrick route should be 80,000 or more. On this basis, a fare of $0.40 or $0.45 would possibly provide revenues to cover the cost of the route operation. However, if fares are raised, Staff recommends that fareincrease should be incremental~ perhaps $0.05 at first; from this it is possible to determine if increased fares will decrease ridership, and conse- quently limit total revenue to the existing level of revenue provided by the current $0.30 fare. In other words, the effect of a fare increase could be a decline in ridership resulting in a similar need for subsidy. Petersburg may increase the fares system-wide in the second year of operation or when the new buses are in operation. This will not be considered until some experience exists with the actual deficit of the system. SUMMARY OF OPTIONS Alternative A - Chesterfield could elect not to enter into service subsidy contract with Petersburg for continuing the service. The result would likely be loss of transit service in. this area of the County. Alternative B - Delay entering into an agreement until uncer- tainties of "fair share" of subsidy are deter- mined; i.e., whether Petersburg should pay more or less, and whether Virginia State College would be willing to participate. May mean cessation of service until "fair share" is determined. Study to determine "fair share" and discussions and/or negotiations with Virginia State College could cost up to $1,000.00 in County staff time. Alternative C - Enter into service/subsidy contract with Petersburg at present fare rate and assume the "fair share" (a fifty-fifty split of the subsidy to be "fair share") to be adequate. Alternative D - Same as Alternative C except raise fares $0.-05 upon agreement. Alternative E - Same as Alternative C'except invest staff time as described in Alternative B to determine "fair share" between Petersburg, Chesterfield and Virginia · State College. Alternative F - Same as Alternative E except raise fare $0.05 upon agreement. declared in full force and effect imnediately upon passage. Michael S. Kolevzon and Victoria Kolevzon S76-28T/A (to be paid-~-o~-~J'~u~732330~224.'0)' Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. It was on motion of Mr. Myers, seconded by Mr. Bookman, resolved followin~ resolution was approved:' Be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of-Chest~ Virginia, ~n regular meeting assembled that the Ch~i~ of said Board be, and he hereby is authorized to enter into a s~pp!ement_al, aggr~nen_t ~with the Seab0a~..d .Coast .Line Rail.rpa_d. _C..o~9_an_y, and to sign same on behalf of said County whereby an agreement dated June 10, 1976, between the said Railroad Company and said Coonty covering the installation and maintenance of sewer mains, lines of pipe on or across the rights of way and underneath the tracks of, said Railroad Comt!a__n~_a_t__C_e3!_t.~_a!ia_~ Virginia; is amended to indicate the correct material and conduit size of the encasement pipes, as more particularly set forth in said supplemental agreement, which supplemental agreement is dated November 29, 1976, a copy of v~ich is filed with this Board of Supervisors. Ayes.: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. BooRman and Mr. Myers. ]~r. Ritz introdu~s~zlu~ion oo_ the Tr~s_T~._._anait. Study .sta. ting this ~uld not be a c~i~ment ' to guarantee subsidy; it ~ould be showing the County's support of the study. After further discussion, it was on motion of .Mr. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Bookman, resolved that the fdd~i~g_resolu.- ~ion was approved: Whereas, it has become evident that the Tri-Cities Coaches, Inc., which presently provides transit service to the area of the County adjacent to the Tri-Cities SMSA, will in the near futore go out of business; and Whereas, a document entitled Transit Teci~nical Study: Tri-Cities, Virg.inia~ described the problems and 0pportuni6ies fOr continuing transit service ~n the Tri-Cities area which stn3dy has been duly considered in the formulation of this resolution; Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors desires to maintain the existing level olf transit service in this area of the County with the option at some future date to increase the level of' service and recognizes that this service will be subject to successful negotiations between the County and the City. of' Petersburg if the City is to be the owner and the operator of the transit system in th~ Tri-Cities area. Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Myers. It was agreed to discuss the Powhite Parkway Extension later. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by .Mr. Apperson, it was resolved that a SJl00.00 Petty Cash Fund _be established for the Airport in the name of D _e~nis A. i~arker, Petty_Cash. Ayes: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs. Girone, Mr. Apperson, ~. BooP~n and Ph-. Myers. oFrlzlC~' Ol~ TRA N S I~OITT'A"riON A~iD May 26, 1977 Mr. C. G. Manuel Interim County.Administrator Chesterfield County · Chesterfield,'Va. 23832 Dear Mr. Manuel: In order to begin preliminary negotiations for a contract be- tween Chesterfield County and Petersburg for continued transit service into Ettrick, I have prepared the attached-two estimates, of deficit for F. Y. 1977-78. Attachment #1 is based upon the percentage of the total system mileage which is on the Ettrick line. The estimmted deficit by this method is $12,710. Attachment #2 is based on 12.5%' {1/8) of the Transit Division operating budget (Attachment #3) with ~the exception of tires, gas, grease and oil which are based on mileage on the Ettrick line. The estimated deficit by this method is $12,967 of which we Should re- ceive $6,484 (50%) reimbursement from the Urban Mass. Transportation Administration. Since residents of the City of Petersburg' attending Virginia State College also' benefit from this line, Petersburg wi~ll absorb the. cost for the portion of this line within Petersburg (ap- proximately 50%). Therefore, it appears the cost to Chesterfield County would be approximately $3,242 for F. Y. 1977-78. The above esitmates are strictly for planning purposes and the accuracy is in no way guaranteed. The actual cost and billing pro- ceedures would be as follows: (1) The actual deficit would be determined as follows: ? - ? ? x? ? - actual cost of operating the entire Ettrick line -_actual fare box revenues form the Ettrick line - Actual deficit - Percentage of line within Chesterfield County - Actual deficit attributable to Chesterfield County (2) The City of PetersbBrg would bill the County of Chesterfield quarterly for the actual deficit incurred on the Chesterfield County portion of the Ettrickline. Mr. Manuel Page II May 26..~ .1977 At the end of each quarter, the City of Petersburg will request 50% reimbursement of all deficits from UMTA. When the City of Petersburg-receives this reimbursement from [NrA it will reimburse Chesterfield County for 50% of its payment. We will be happy to meet with you or answer any questions per- raining to this matter. irm CC: Mr. William R. Cook- · Yours truly, John A. Sinkiewicz ' Director of Traffic .Engineering ~ Transportation 0 c;) oo ~;) o %o ~ o i.~ o r-f ~4D ["- ~ CD c.4 0% I'.. CD [/'3 'ri' .~-~ , ~ 0 Actual Operating Expenses Chester£ield County Transit M~g. er Secretary Bus Drivers. Mechanics Employee Benefits Advertising Dues & Subscriptions Liability Insurance Repairs - Motor Vehicles Repairs - Office Equip. Postage . Telephone Travel Contractual Services Tires Gas, Grease & Oil Stationery ~ Office Supplies Small, Tools Wearing Apparel Bus Tickets (transfers) $115,416 x 12.5% 6,576 x 12.5% 108,720 x 12.5% 17;664 f 12.5% 44,513 x 12.'5% '5,000 x 12.5% 500x 12.5% 15,000 x 12.5% 7,500 x 12.5% 200 x 12.5% 500 x 12.5% 1,000 x 12.5% 1,000 x 12.5% 25,000 x 12.5% 4,000 x 12.4% 35,000 x 12.4% SO0 x 12.5% 2,000 x 12.5% 2,800 x 12.5% 1,000 x 12.5% Total Estimated Revenue Estimated Deficit '$ 1,927 822 13,590 2,208 5,564 625 63 1,875 958 25 63 125 125 3,125' 496 4,340 63 250 350 125 $36,699 -23,732 ATTAQ ~ !l;b,q' A- ]' · OPEI~TI;. I; B[JDGET F.Y. 1977-1978 A. Salaries and Wages 1 B'~mager 1 SecretaD, · 'iSBus Drivers 2 B'~2chm~ics Employee Benefits (50%) Total Salaries .and' Wages B. Other Operating Exl)enses Advertising Dues & Subscriptions Liability Insurance Repairs - ~btor Vehicles. Repairs - Office Equipm. ent Pos rage Telephone Travel Co0tractual Services Tire Rental Gas, Grease & Oil Office. Supplies Snml 1 ·fools Uniforms Bus Tickets f Transfers) Total- OtJ~er Ex~enses Total'Operating £x3~ense Subtotal $ 15,416 6,576 108,720 17,664 ~148,376 44,513 5,000 S00 15,000 '7,500 200 S00 1,000 1,000 2S, 000 4,1)00 .35,000 SO0 2,000 2,800 1 ~ 000 $101, $293,889 TABLE 6 Summarized Origin-Destination Data. from On-board Survey (Unfactored) Analysis District 101 1.02 104 105 106 107 109 202 205 207 301 304 3O5 306 405_ 5O3 504 Origins 501 28 145 43 96 ll3 71 9 6 43 1 12 7 2 89 1 2 Destinations 622 14 96 45 67 21 130 2 6 16 1 2 4 l0 1 95 36 Trip Ends 1123 42 241 88 163 134 201 ll 12 59 2 14 ll 12 1 184 1 38 Major O-D Pairs Districts Trips 1 O1-1 O1 32 lO1-102 39 lOl-104 · 191 1 O1-105 84 1 O1-106 131 lOl-107 111 101-109 199 1 O1-207 53 1 O1-405 177 lO1-504 29 104-104 18 106-107 12 Z ~0~ ~"0 00~ ,--- 000 000 000 ~ Z 0 u~ 0 CZ) 0 0 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 6-4 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTER- FIELD, 1975, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO BUILDING PERMIT FEES FOR MOBILE HOMES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section 6-4 of the Code of the County of Chester-. field is amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 6-4. Permit fees. (a) Generally. Unless otherwise excepted, no permit to begin work for new construction, alteration, removal, demoli- tion, or other building operation or construction required by the several provisions of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code shall be issued until the fees prescribed in this section shall have been paid. No amendment to a permit neces- sitating an additional fee because of an increase in the esti- mated cost of the work involved shall be approved until the additional fee has been paid. All such permits shall be issued by the building official on forms approved and furnished by his office. The fees for permits shall be based upon the project cost in accordance with the following schedule: (!) Buildin9: a. Basic building, including signs, two thousand dollars or less ............... $10.00! Each additional thousand ............... 2.50 b. Demolition ............................. 10.001 c. Moving or relocating buildings ......... 10.001 d. Septic tank ............................ 25.001 e. Mobile home, including building, 0 elect'rical and plumbing ................ 2~, 0 . (2) Mechanical: Heating or air conditioning, two thousand dollars or less ............... $10.00 Each additional thousand ............... 2.501 Replacement of oil or gas tanks i over ten gallons ....................... 10.00i (3) c. Replacement of hot water heater ........ 10.00 Plumbing: a. Basic plumbing, four traps or less ..... $10.00~ Each additional trap ............... 1 501 b. Water, sewer and septic tank con- nections ............................... 10. 001 c. Wells .................................. 10.00' (4) Electrical: Basic eleCtrical, one thousand dollars less ~ $10 00 Each additional thousand ............... 5.00 Elevator/escalator, one thousand dol- lars or less ........................... 10.00 Each additional thousand ............... 5.00 (5) Elect~riCal~ and plumbing cards: Master card, annually .......... · ........ $ 5.00 Examination ............................ 20.00 Journeyman card, annually .............. 5.00 Examination ............................ 10.00 (b) Exemptions 'from fee ~requirement: (1) No fee shall be required for building permits for construction when the cost of such construction is less than five hundred dollars and such construction would not involve securing any other permit as required by section 113.01 of the BOCA Basic Building Code. (2) No fee shall be required to be paid for permits to be issued for the construction of buildings designed for and used to house religious assemblies as a place of worship. (c) Filing ~certificates of cost; adjustment of fee. Upon completion of any building or construction for which a permit is required under the provisions of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, the applicant shall file with the building offi- cial on forms furnished by him, prior to occupancy or within ninety days after completion, a certificate of actual cost of such building or construction. At the time such certificate of actual cost is filed, the amount of fee required by this section shall be adjusted to the actual cost and either an additional fee paid or a refund made. (d) Disposition of fees. Ail permit fees required by this section shall be paid by the applicant to the county treasurer or his deputy at the time the application for permit is filed with the building official, and upon receipt of such fees, the treasurer shall deposit same to the credit of the county general fund. STUB ROAD POLICY Adopted by the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors On Sept. 27, 1972 The Planning Commission may designate stub roads and/or utilities which will not be installed when the subdivision is de- veloped and to require, in lieu thereof, a "cash deposit" by the subdivider to the County Treasurer which will be placed in a "Stub Road Deposit Pund" and "Stub Utility Deposit Fund", respec- tively, to be used at the County Engineer's discretion to build at some later date and when requested the stub roads and/or utilities. (It is anticipated that the Planning Commission's policy to so designate stub roads and utilities should be used sparingly). The "cash deposit" will be equal to the present esti- mated total cost of such improvements made by the subdivider's engineer and approved by the Engineering Department. The sub-~ divider shall pay these amounts to the County Treasurer prior to acceptance of the subdivision's streets into the State systems. Road and utility plans submitted to the County Engineer shall include proper design for stub roads and utilities regardless of whether or not they are built initially. Dedication of the necessary right-of-way(s) and easement(s) for such roads and utilities will be made at the time the subdivision is recorded. The recorded plat will also show that any stub roads which are not originally built may be built at some later date. Such right-of-way(s) Will be grubbed or cleared only if specifically approved by the Engineering~Department for drainage or other purposes. Maintenance of the right-of-way shall be accomPlished by the Engineering Department unless otherwise previously pro- vided. If an adjacent subdivider or developer wants utilities con- structed and/or the streets paved in a stub road right-of-way for which funds have been placed in the Deposit Funds, he shall make application for same to the County Engineer. The County Engineer will act as the County's agent to see that such streets and/or utilities are built 'to necessary specifications. In any subdivision recorded and/or built in sections, all stub roads and utilities in a section designed to serve property in the subdivision but to be developed in a later section shall be con- structed at the time other streets and utilities in that section are constructed. MEMORANDUM DATE: July 7, 1977 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Board of Superx~ors and'County Administrator James P. Zo~~ief, Comprehens~ive I~anning Division FY77-78, FY78-79, FY79-80 Housing Assistance Plan as per requirements of the HUD Community Development Block Grant Program. Please find enclosed the Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) which will be subject of public hearing on July 13, 1977. Those not familar With the requirements/responsibilities for the HAP, please call me prior to the public hearing for background information. Thank you. JPZ/jp .-. 'arm Approved · OMB No. 63R-1471 Page 1.of 2 pages U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT · . HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN TABLE III. GOALS FOR LOWER IHCOME HOUSIHG ASSISTAHCE CURRENT YEAR GOAL 1, NAME OF APPLICANT ; S. ~ ORIGINAL COUN. TY OF CHESTERFIELD [~] AMENDMENT, DATE: 2. APPLICATION/GRANT NUMBER 4. PROGRAM YEAR N.UMBER Of HOUSEHOLDS TO BE ASSISTED ELDERLY OR LARGE ALL FAMILY FAMILY H AN DICAP PED TYPES AND SOURCES OF ASSISTANCE HOUSEHOLDS ('4 or less (1--2 persons) persons) [5 or more · persons) _,,~.- (a) (b) (c) (cl) (e) A. NEW RENTAL UNITS . ~ 1. Section 8-HUD z 2. State Agency-Total (Sum o/lines a and b) s o. Section 8 VHDA 100 - 80 20 4 b. Other FH/ViA 50 - 35 15 - 3. Other Assisted New Rental Housing s · (Identify) . Tota~ (9) a. -~ 4. Total (Sum'o/lines 1,2, and3) 150. - ~15 35 B. REHABILITATION OF RENTAL UNITS '' s 1. Section 8-HUD - ia 2. State Agehcy-Tota~ (Sum.of lines a and b) I~ a. Section 8 ~ b. Other 3. Other Assisted Rehabilitation of Rental Housing 13 (Identify) -- Total , le 4. Total (Sum o/lines 1,2, and 3) C. EXISTING RENTAL UNITS 17 ]. Section 8-HUD ~e 2. State Agenc'y-Total (,Sum o( lines 'a and b) Is a. Section 8 2o b. Other 21 3. Other Assisted Existing Rental Housing (Identify,) - Total 24 4. Total (Sum o/lines 1,2, and 3) D. REHABILITATION ASSISTANCE TO HOMEOWNERS OR PROSPECTIVE HOMEOWNERS zs 1. CD Block Grants 26 2. Section 235 3. Ofher Rehabilitation Assistance to Horneowne~s or - 27 Prospective Homeowners (Identify) - Total 28 a. : So, 4.'Total (Sum o[ lines 1,2, and 3) E. NEW CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE TO HOMEOWNERS OR PROSPECTIVE HOMEOWNERS s~ 1. Section 235 sz_ 2. Other (Identi[~,) -- Total " (?~ aa ss 3. Total (Sum o/lines l and 2) 36 F. ALL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GOALS r (Sum of lines A4, B4, C4, D4, and E3) 150 - 115 35 HUD-7015 .I 0 (12-75) Page 2 of'2 pages U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN " TABLE III. GOALS FOR LOWER INCOME HOUSINC 3SSISTANCE THREE YEAR GOAL NAME OF APPLICANT 3. ~ ORIGINAL COU]Nr~y O~F C~~D ~ AMENDMENT, DATE,' APPLICATION~GRANT NUMBER 4. NUMBER OF'HOUSEHOLDS TO BE ASSISTED TYPES AND SOURCES OF ASSISTANCE EL DE~LY O ~ ~AMILY LA~G~ ALL HANDICAPPED (4orless FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS (]--2persons) personsJ (5 or more persons) ~ (a) (b) (~) (d) (e) A. NEW RENTAL UNITS 1. Section 8-HUD 2. State Aqency-Total [Sum of lines a and b) a. Section 8 VHDA 300 100 b. Other ~A 15 0 - 10 3.. Other Assisted New Re. tal Housing (lde~i/z). Total 4. lo~d (Sum o[ lines 1, 2, and 8J l. Section 8. HUD 2. State Agency-Total (Sum o/ lJne~ a a~d b) a. Section 8 VHDA 1 5 0 1 0 5 4 5 b. Oth~ : ' !3. Other Assisted Rehabilitation of Rental Housing flde,~i/y)- Total ~a. 4. Total (5.m of Z~e~ ], 2, a~ 3) C. EXISTING RENTAL UNITS: r 1. ~e~Jon 8-HUD 2. State A~ency-TotaJ (Su~ o/l~e~ a.and, b) a. Section 8 .' b. Other 3. Other Assisted Existing Rental H~uslng (Ide,zi[y). Total 4. Total (S~m pi lines l, 2, a.d 3) D. 'REHABILITATION ASSISTANCE TO HOMEOWN ERS. OR PROSPECTIVE HOMEOWNERS 1. CD Block Grants 2. Section 235 3. Other Rehabilit~[on Ass[st~ce to Hom~wn~s or. Prospective Hom~s [Identi/y) . Total ~ 4. ]ota% (S~ of ~,~ ], 2, and 3) E. NEW CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE TO HOMEOWNERS OR PROSPECTIVE HOM EpWN~E$ 1. ~ection 235 2. Oth~ (lHen~i~7) - Total a. 3. Total (Sum o/ lines I and 2) (S~m o/~i,~ '~ 4, ~4. C~, 04, ~.~ ~3 ~ 6 0 0 l 0 0 3 7 0 ~ 2 5 PEaCEST OF ~LL HOUSEHOLUS 1~% ~7 G. E~LANATION OF PRIORITIES(Attach additlonalpages) HUD-7015.10 (12-75 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPM~- -~ HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN TABLE IV - GENERAL LOCATIONS FOR pROPOSED LOWER INCOME HOUSING Form ApprOved OMB No. 63R-1471 NAME OF APPI-ICANT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIE. LD A. IDENTIFY GENERAL LOCATIONS ON MAP IN THIS APPLICATION 3. ~J ORIGINAL AMENDMENT, DATE: 4. PROGRAM YEAR FROM: TO: [.New ~nstmcfion:Cm~sT[~ctNumbers Construction of low to moderate 'income 'housing may be allowable in all census tracts in tke County. Multiple 'family housing is discouraged in areas exterior to~corrid°rs or sectors" and in areas where public utilities are not present and where the proposed d~velQpment is not compatible with the adjacent area. Tracts partially served by public utilities include 1009.02, 1001.03, 1008.03, 1009.04, 1009.0~, 1005, 1004.02, 1004.01, 1003.02, 1008.04, 1002.02, 1009.05, 100~.03 . 02 04 e Map enclosed with Report for general area of"sectorS 2: ~il~a~on: ~ensu§ Tra~umbe~s corridors"- B. EXPLANATION OF sELECTION OF GENERAL LOCATIONSI l.,New~nstruction General locations are identified for multiple family projects on the map which is included with this application. The actual location within the corridor or sectors is affected by utility avail- ability and compatibility with 'development in the area. Single family kousing assisted bY FHMA maY locate 'in any census tract in the County ~.h~k~gk~s eligible witk~FPIMA' 2. Rehabititation HUD-7O 15.1'1 (12 EXPECTED TO RESIDE BASED UPON EXPECTED EMPLOYMENT '- INCREASE TO 1980 300 - 450 - 200 - ' '- :6:00 ' - 1,550 - Total.Government Total Commercial Total Office/Professional Total Industrial Total New Employment to 1980 Assumption: New employment in County will generate: 387 new single person households~ Assume 10% of these are income-eligible or 38 households. 775 are households with 2 persons in household working. 10% are income- eligible or 78 households. 387 are households with one member of family in work force. 25% are income-eligible or 97 households. The total "Expected to Reside"'lhouseholds (based upon employment expectations) that are "income,.el~gib~e~.~is..estimated to be 213. 149 Family - If one assumes 70% family (4 persons or less). 64 Large Family - 30% large family (5 persons or more). 0% elderly. The 149 households will be family and 64 will be large family. Additional Assumptions:~ (A) Future income-eligible households based upon calculated 9.52%' of total households in 1977 are eligible, and the observation that households with 1 member in the work force are more likely to be income-eligible than with 2 members in work force. The above assumptions are not specific to family size. (B) Family size distribution of need was accomplished by assuming that no elderly households Would be expected to reside because of new employment. The assumption tkat 70% of the families would be 4 persons or less and that 30% would be '5 persons or more is based somewhat on the 1977 update of housing needs where a 60/40 relationship existed. (C) Figures for new employment are based upon known or expected ~evelopment proposals. EXPLANATION OF PRIORITIES Section 8 ne~ housing proposals should reflect the HAP distribution goal for large family needs by de- signing at least 20 percent of the housing project to accommodate large families. The County desires, to review assisted housing applications that are submitted to HUD by VHDA or any other organization. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT July 7, 1977 MEMORANDUM To: BOARD OF_ SUPERVISORS, Ckesterfield County From: <~.'~. C. R~tz, Director, .Community Development Subject: SIGN'S ON' 'THE A~RPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Quotes-have 'been obtained from Talley Neon & Acme Neon to install the words '"TERMINAL", ,RESTAURANT", and "LOBBY", on the front f~qade o~ the Airport Terminal Building. These' words will be brown plastic letters permanently mounted to the building like the ones on our new building. They would not be lighted. For a maximum of $600 ~ossibly as little as $510) Acme Neon would install the signs 'shown on the ' attached sketck. Talley Neon was about 10% higher. MCR/pb. cc: Mr. Dennis Parker GC % BE IT RESOLVED that upon receipt of an executed Agreement of Release signed by representatives of Wafters Fence Company, Inc,, and E. G. Bowles Co., the Chairman of the Board is authorized to sign such Agreement which provides for final acceptance of the contract and payment by the County for certain im- provements to recreational facilities at Ecoff Park, Ettrick Park, Harrowgate Park and Matoaca Park under a contract between E. G. Bowles and the County dated March 10, 1975 and which Agreement further provides for final payment of retainage of $3,723.37 on such contract less liquidated damages in the amount of $1,400.00. THIS AGREEMENT OF RELEASE, made this day of , 1977, by and between WATTERS FENCE CO., INC. (Watters), a Virginia corporation, E. G. BOWLES CO., a Virginia corporation (Bowles) and the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD (the County), a pol~ical subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia. W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Bowles and the County entered into an agreement dated March 10, 1975 concerning the construction of certain improve- ments to recreational facilities at Ecoff Park, Ettrick Park, Harrowgate Park and Matoaca Park in Chesterfield County which agree-~ ment provided for liquidated damages of $50.00 per day for each day il over the completion date specified therein; and TA~HEREAS, Bowles and Watters entered into a subcontractual agreement dated May 14, 1975 whereby Watters agreed to perform certain fencing operations at the above-mentioned sites; and WHEREAS, the completion date for the improvements to said recreational facilities was March 31, 1976 which date was validly extended by the County to April 13, 1976; and WHEREAS, the improvements were completed on May 21, 1976; and WHEREAS, the County presently retains funds appropriated for such improvements in the amount of $3,723.37. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Bowles hereby agrees to render a bill to the County in the amount of $2,323.37 ($3,723.37 retainage minus $1,400.00 in liquidated damages measured from April 13, 1976 to May 21, 1976 deleting weekends) · The County agrees to pay such bill and agrees to the computation of liquidated damages in the aforesaid manner 2. Bowles and Watters hereby agree to accept the com- ilputation of $1,400.00 as proper liquidated damages assessable by the County. /0 3. Bowles hereby agrees to forward the monies paid by the County to Watters after subtracting therefrom the.sums of $180.00 for a Watters' billing error and $50.00 expended for grass t!seed and all attorney's fees payable by Bowles for the resolution i!of this Contractual dispute 4. Bowles and Watters hereby agree that the aforesaid sum payable by the County will be deemed complete satisfaction and payment in full for any and all claims of either Bowles or Watters ~,under the contract agreement of March 10, 1975 or the subcontractuall liagreement of May 14, 1975. Bowles hereby warrants and covenants ilthat when it delivers the monies to be paid by the County with !ithe subtractions noted above, all subcontractors will have been paid in full 5. Bowles and Watters hereby release any claim for liability, damages, loss or any other claim arising out of the contractual agreement of March 10, 1975 or the subcontractual agreement of May 14, 1975 which exists at the date of this agree- ment against the County whether such claim be known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, matured or unmatured, fixed or contingent, filed or unfiled. 6. Watters hereby releases Bowles from any claim for liability, damages, loss or any other claim arising out of the con- tractual agreement of May 14, 1975 which exists at the date of this agreement against Bowles whether such claim be known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, matured or unmatured, fixed or contingent, or 'unfiled. filed - 2 - 7. The County hereby releases Bowles and Watters from any claim for liability, damages (liquidated or unliquidated), loss or any other claim arising out of the contractual agreement of March 10, 1975 and the subcontractual agreement of May 14, 1975 which exists of the date of this agreement against Bowles and Watters whether such claim ~be known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, matured or unmatured, fixed or contingent, filed or un filed. 8. This Agreement!constitutes final acceptance of the completed project by the County, of all work required to be com- pleted under a contract between E. G. Bowles Company and the County of Chesterfield, Virginia dated March 10, 1975 concerning construction of recreational facilities for Ecoff Park, Ettrick Park, Harrowgate Park and Matoaca Park in Chesterfield County, Virginia. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: WATTERS FENCE CO., INC. (SEAL) Attest: By E. G. BOWLES CO. (SEAL) Attest: By COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD (SEAL) At test:_~. ,/~~~J~~ -- 3 -- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTIONS 15-1 AND 15-4 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1975, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO STOCK FARMS IN AGRICULTURAL ZONES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield CoUnty: el) That 'Sections 15-1 and 15-4 of~the Zoning Ordinance of the Code 'of the County of Chesterfield are amended and reen- acted as follows: Section 15-1 (a) (b) (c) (id) (f) Uses permitted. Same as specified for R-40 District. Farming, dairy farming, livestock and poultry raising, including all buildings necessary to such use and the keeping, storage or operation of any vehicle or machin- ery necessary to such 'use. Forestry operations and sawmills together with the incidental uses thereof. GraveYards. · Stock FarmS',i pirovided ~th'at %he lot' or' parcel has not ' le s S 'th~an~ 'th'ree~ ' (13)' ~acre s. Kennels, provided that not more than six (6) dogs are kept and confined to the premises and the lot or parcel has not less than five {5) acres. Section 15-4 Uses allowed by Special Exception, subject to the · provisions 'of Section 27-5. Ca) Same as specified for R-40 District. (b) Individual mobile homes for a period not to exceed two years. At the expiration of the two year period a new application may be made for a new Special Exception. The Board of Zoning Appeals may take action on such application withoUt prior notice being published in a newspaper on the date the Board will act on such appli- cation and no notice to adjoining landowners shall be required unless directed by the Board of Zoning Appeals (c) Outdoor advertising signs subject to Section 24.2-5. (id)' ' Sto'ck 'fa~rms when ~the' lo~t~ or parcel' has less' than three ~ ~(~3)' a~cres. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT ~5-15 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1975, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE REQUIRE- MENT TO ESTABLISH A SPECIAL DOG FUND BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That ~5-15 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1975, as amended, is am~%~nded and reenacted as follows: Sec. 5'1~5. DiSposition of' funds. The funds collected for dog license taxes shall be paid into a special ~m~ account and may be disposed of as provided in section 29-184.2 of the Code of Virginia. A~'; ORDINA~CE TO Ak~END A?~D REENACT ~5-15 OF T~{E CODE OF THE COUNTY OF C~{ESTE~FIELD, 1975, AS A~ENDED, RELATI~.~G TO T}tE REQUIRE- MENT TO ESTABLISH A SPECIAL DOC~ BE IT ORDAI~ED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That ~5-15 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1975, as ~ended, is amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 5-15. Dispositio~ of funds ~-~e funds collected for dog license taxes shall be paid into a special ~m~ account and may be disposed of as provided in section 29-184.2 6f {h~j~-'Code of Virginia. DOUGLAS B. FUGATE, COMMISSIONER LEONARD ~. RAL~ BRISTOL, BRISTOL DISTRICT HOR/~CE G. FRALIN, ROANOKE, SALEM Dr. sTRICT THOMAS R. GLASS, LYNCHBURG, LYNCHBURG DIST.RICT MORRILL M. CROWE, RICHMOND, RICHMOND DISTRICT WILLIAM T. ROOS, YORKTOWN, ~;UFFOLK D[ST]{[CT DOUGLAS G. JANNEY, EREDERICKSBURG, FREDERICi~SBURG DISTRICT RALPH A. BRETON, FALLS CHURCH, CULPEPER DISTRICT ROBERT S. LANDES, STAUNTON, STA UNTON D/STRICT T. RAY HASSELL, Ill, CHESAPEAKE, ATLARGE URBA,'',r CHARLES S. HOOPER, JR., CREWE, AT LARGE'-I(URAL COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 L. E. BRETT, JR. DISTRICT ENGINEER June 21, 1977 JOHN E. HARWOOD DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHIEF ENGINEER W. S. G. BRITTON DtRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION LEO E. BUSSER III DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT J.M. WRAY, JR. DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS J.P, ROYER, JR. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING P, B. COLDIRON DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO OFFICE OF DISTRICT ENGINEER PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA 23803 ?. 0. Box 3036 Bon A±r, V±rg±nia 23235 Mr. C. G. Manuel Interim County Administrator County of Chesterfield Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Re: Sewer Connection Chesterfield Residency Shop Dear Mr. Manuel: The reason for this letter is for a special request of the Board of Supervisors for Chesterfield County. As you are aware, the Chesterfield Residency Office is to be relocated in the near future on Route 360 west of Courthouse Road. This relocation will include our current Residency Shop. The existing Residency Shop, which is located on Route 60 just behind our Residency Office, will be converted to an area headquarters, which will house approximately twenty persons. The existing shop is currently utilizing a septic field for bathroom facilities. This septic field is giving us problems, and, therefore, we are experiencing a need to tie onto the County's sewer system. We have checked into this possibility and find that we can tie onto a proposed sewer line belonging to State Police Headquarters. The State Police sewer line will be constructed within the near future. The cost for the hookup to the County line will be approximately $5o,ooo. A HIGHWAY IS AS SAFE AS THE USER MAKES IT Mr. C. G. Manuel Page 2 June 21, 1977 Mr. John Davenport of this office has been in touch with Mr. Dave Welchons. Mr. Welchons is very familiar with the location as he has reviewed it on the site. In order for the Highway Department to connect onto the State Police line, we will have to run a four- inch service line approximately 1,000 feet. We estimate this cost to be in the neighborhood of $6,000. In discussions with Mr. Welchons it was determined that the County bases their hookup fees on the amount of acreage and the type of usage of the property. We consider the property which we own to be used mostly for storage facilities, stockpiling sand, gravel, corrugated pipe. Of this six acres we utilize on a daily basis approximately two acres. There are only two toilet facilities, one which is in operation in our shop office. When it is improved at some future date, we will only use two toilet facilities. Based on the two acres of usage of property and the County's base figure of $1,200 per acre, this would come to $2,400. We are requesting the Board of Supervisors to give their consideration in allowing the Virginia Department of Highways to tie onto the State Police line at a cost of $2,400. This will allow us to work within our current budget in trying to get this line installed as soon as possible as our current septic field is failing, and the improvements are needed immediately. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, ~ ~ fA E. L. Covingtorf, Jr. Resident Engineer ELCj r: pmg CC: Mr. L. E. Brett, Jr. Mr. E. D. Slate Mr. Dave Welchons HEADQUARTERS ~ VIP~INIA WING, CIVIL AIR PATRu~ -USAF Auxiliary- Richard Evelyn Byrd International Airport Sandston, Virginia 23150 June 23, 1977 Mr. Merlin O'Neil-Chairman, Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Mr. O'Neil: I represent the Virginia Wing Civil Air Patrol as Chairman of Location Committee for the construction of a new Virginia Wing CAP Headquarters building. As you know, Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit benevolent organization devoted to Search and Rescue, Emergency Service and Aerospace Education for young people. At the present time, Virginia Wing is in the process of a Building Fund campaign. We would like very much to locate our new building at the Chesterfield Industrial Air Park. Lacating our building at Chesterfield would bring prestige to the park in that hundreds of personnel would be traveling there by auto or aircraft annually. The terminal building already houses one of our squadrons and three (3) of our aircraft are based there now. We are primarily looking for a donation of land or a ($1.00) one dollar a year lease type of arrangement. I would ask that my committee, consisting of Col. Jon Hill, CAP, Mr. Marshall Cole and myself, be allowed a presentation to the Board to support a positive decision to our request. We can make ourselves available at your convenience. NOTE- I may be reached by phone: Home- 746-5993/Business- 798-9128 Correspondence should be mailed to: Earl T. VanStavern, Col., CAP P.O. Box 312 Ashland, Virginia 23005 Yours Truly, Earl T. VanStavern, Col., CAP ~/cc: Mr. Jack Manuel "We Move the Earth H. M. SHOOSMITR,JR., PRESIDENT E: K. SHOOSMITH, VICE-PRESIDENT J. T. S HOOSMITH,wCE-PRESIDENT C. L. McLEO D, W CE- PRESI DENT MARVIN H. Wi LSON, SECRETARY D. D. BREN EMAN, TREASURER SHOOSHITH aeos., .C. Uo nleae loes llSO0 LEWIS ROAD.CHESTER, VIRGINIA 23831. PHONE 748-5823 February 28, 1977 Mr. Edward James County of Chesterfield Post Office Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Re: Millwood Road Improvements Bid. ~ 76-10157-3008 P. O. No. M6553 Dear Mr. James: As requested by Mr. Williamson, Department of Planning and Construction, we are pleased to submit our price for additional work to the above mentioned project. Furnishing labor, equipment, materials and supervision to scarify the existing pavement, regrade, roll and lav 2" of plant mix asphalt. Ail of the above for the lump sum of ............ $7,510.00 The original contract amount .................... $8,290.50 Sub Total ............. $15,800.50 Less Surface Treatment from original contract...$1,668.50 New Total ............. $14,132.00 If 3" of stone is needed in the cul-de-sac area as recom- mended by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, this will be added for the lump sum of $300.00. As you know the work was originally bid July 15, 1976 but because of the road's rapid deterioration the project has been re- evaluated. It is my understanding this additional work is needed for that reason and to insure it's acceptance into the state highway system. Mr. Edward James County of Chesterfield February 28, 1977 Page 2 We are now approaching a new construction season and would like very much to know the status of this project, as soon as possible. me. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call on Very truly yours, G. W. Knickerbocker Estimator cc: Mr. Williamson Chesterfield County School Board Department of Construction and Planning 8610 Perrymont Road Richmond, Virginia 23234 GWK; s 1 mc WM. E. LOVING, SR,, Pres. Mr. John Boykin c/o Genera~ Services P.0. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Mr. Boyhin: 5703 STAPLES MILL ROAD RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23228 (804) 266-7950 Expert Advice From Years Of Experience Creative Custom Framing Oils--Prints--Mirrors Art Restoration Repairing Old Frames Lithographs Coats of Arms Accessories Home Furnishing Consultant May 19, 1977 T[~5 ~ill confirm my visit to the Chesterfield Co~tA! Court House on May 17th and inspection of the nine (9] oil p..o..~ which wer~ shown to me Based upon my limited inspection of these pairings, it is evident ~at most of them need considerable care.. This includes, cleaning, restoration of m~y, re-c~nvassing of some and re-var~ng. It is difficult to furnish an exac~ "r~c ....... witho~ examining ead~ ~aint~n~ ~-~ ~.- _ : ~'' ~ ~o.~ rep.a~r an~ restoration ,~ ~ ~,- ~,~o~n9 it on an rndivi~ual bas~. However, shoed you desire to do s . . the.~e p 'ntin~s . omc re~air clean · ~} ~ ~ ~,.. ~ ..q grou~, ~oe b~.'¢ve this ~' ~ and~ really o~ neea ~o~be ,~,,,~ .... e~srn.ce ~o.o or ~ree of these cert '~ v dno. , lz ' ' ' " " ' ' , but would ~L~~~_~. ,_ -~,,,~.,~ ~n~ ~rve ~ltem a ~reat following: I took ~ome of the paintings down ~or a c~oser look ~d found the I. Some need re-canvassing in order to keep .~he paint ~rom further tracing and peeling from the canvas. 2. ~(ost need restoring in varying degrees. 3. The Pastel needs to be restored badly since it has been eaten by Silver Fish. Thi~ piece can be r~paired and pro- tected against further deterioration. 4. All the paintings need cleaning and re-varniShing. (continued) page -2- ~r. John Boykin e/o General Servic~ P.O. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia May 19, 1977 Most of the fr,,es need multiple repair. Some of them would be too costly - others can be done for a reasonable fee. · ore compce~e eos~ ~ure ~r... paintin,q. IIoweve~l~loo~nq a~ ~n~ a.~ou~: ~ ~ne. we oe~eve ~et( eo~a ~e ~ in exco_~o_n~ ~n~on ~or~ao~m~q. ~ W~h ~f~ence ~ ~e f~, ~ I told you on ~e t~ephone, ~ may be possible to o~y rep~r ~e ve~ o~e fr~ and replace ~xe o~e~ w~h a eomp~me~t~ ~fo~ fr~e w~ch ~o~d be s~le for h~aing in ~e Co~ Co~ Ho~e. T~ wo~d be no probl~ since we have a ~ide v~.( of mo~ngs for po~~ ~ td~ ~ ex~e~ so~e~ for ready-m~e We ar~ in a ~osi~ion to do whatever you wish or desire with regard to these paintings and frames. We have the quatified personnel to do the restoration and guarantee all ou~ work. We wo~Id appreciate the oppo~tunit~l o f working with you in ~utting these painting~ in a good state of repair, an~ if we can answer ant! queStionS you m~j have, please feel free to call us. For your rea&! reference, we enclosing a business card. Trusting we can be of servi~e to you, we are Sineer~j yours en~o COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD INTRACOUNTY CORRESPONDENCE July 12, 1977 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Bob Galusha Lane B. Ramsey~'-z~ Personnel and Salary Review Committee Minutes of July 8, 1977 The actions recommended to the Board of Supervisors by the Personnel and Salary RevieW Committee at it's July 8, 1977 meeting are as follows: Suggested. Resolution: On motion of , seconded by , it is hereby resolved that ~be appropriated from the Unappropriated Surplus of the General Fund as follows for Personnel Committe action: Agenda Item #11: Decrease: 111-11143-2141 Machine Rental $ 750.00 Increase: 111-11143-4050 111-11143-1090 111-11143-4030 Office Equipment Clerical Furniture & Fixtures 750.00 1,035.00 Total Increase LBR/lga MINUTES PERSONNEL AND SALARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Personnel and Salary Advisory Committee meeting l:O0 P.M. July 8, 1977 (June & July Meeting) MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. J. C. Girone Mr. G. Dodd Mr. C. G. Manuel Mr. R. B. Gal usha AGENDA ITEM #1: Mrs. G. Knoop, Director of Library Services, requested the Committee's concurrence to reclassify one Clerk Typist II, ~rade 5 to Technical Processing Clerk II, Grade 8. DISCUSSION: This request was considered during the May meeting by the Committee and denied as it was understood to be an additional position, not a reclassification of an existing position. The reclassification action will require no additional funds. The Committee was of the opinion that the reclassification was justified. COMMITTEE ACTION: The Committee recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve the reclass- ification of one existing Clerk Typist I~, Grade 5,'to Technical Processing Clerk I'I, Grade.8 position. Action will be within present budget constraints, and will be effective on Board approval. AGENDA ITEM #2: Dr. Wagner and Mr. Spencer, Health Department, requested the Committee's support and guidance regarding their efforts to upgrade the scales for Sanitarians in order to retain qualified personnel. DISCUSSION: Dr. Wagner and Mr. Spencer advised the Committee that frequent turn-over in their Sanitarian staff has created a great deal of personnel turbulence within the Health Department, and they were concerned that efficiency was deteriorating. It was their opinion that low salary, and lack of career opportunity was the major causes. As possible solutions they requested the Committee to consider the following: That the Board of Supervisors by Resolution request through the Legislators that the sanitarian pay scale be evaluated and appropriately raised to increase interest of qualified applicants, That the Board of Supervisors by Resolution request through the Legislators permission to subsidize health department personnel as an incentive to help maintain a well-trained, experienced staff; c. That the Board of Supervisors authorize the County to furnish automobiles for sanitarians to be reimbursed by the State. COMMITTEE ACTION: TheCommittee recommended: ae That Dr. Wagner and Mr. Spencer collect the facts and data for s~ch~a Resolution as mentioned in a and b above, to present it to the Board to be incorporated in other data being gathered for Legisl~ative consideration, and b. That the Board of Supervisors authorize the County to provide the Health Department with operational "turn-in" vehicles as available. AGENDA ITEM #3: Mr. Martin, Nursing Home Administrator, requested the Committee's consideration and concurrence to establish the position of Administrative Secretary, Grade 14. DISCUSSION: The Committee was of the opinion that Mr. Martin had justified the need for a secretarial assistant, however, the level of Administrative Secretary was inconsistent with stated responsibilities and County position classification p.ractices. COMMITTEE ACTION: The Committee recommended: a. That the position, Secretary, Grade ll, be established for the Nursing Home; b. That this action be taken within present budget appropration; That this action be effective and conditional upon receipt of authorization to eliminate the existing position of Accountant I, or the reclassification of the existing Accountant I, Grade 14 position to Secretary, Grade 11, position. AGENDA ITEM #4: Mr. R. M. McElfish, Environmental Engineering, requested the Committee's consideration and concurrence for t'he following actions: a. Establishment of one additional Construction Inspector II position; b. Reclassification of existing Drainage Superintendent, Grade 16 position to Drainage Superintendent, Grade 19. DISCUSSION: Mr. McElfish advised the Committee that early in 1977 his departmental work load had increased to the extent that an additional inspector had been authorized, however, upon the relocation of the drainage section, one of the inspectors, who had been performing similiar functions for Utiljties~ rema~ned.w~ the Utilities, thereby creating a shortage for Mr. mcElf~sh, mr. mcL/~isn o~erea the following statistics for justifications: 3 Inspectors (prior to relocation) 108 Subdivisions 2 Inspectors (now) 130 Subdivisions 35 sites 40 sites Additionally, Mr. McElfish advised the Committee that due to added responsibility assigned to the Drainage Superintendent position, the incumbent now supervises the foreman of the drainage crew. This position is classified as a LabQr Foreman III, Grade 18. The Drainage Superintendent classification is currently at Grade 16. This is inconsistent with good management practices. COMMITTEE ACTION: The Committee recommended: a. The position of Construction Inspector II, Grade 15, be established; b'. That the Drainage Superintendent, Grade 16, be reclassfied to Drainage Superintendent, Grade 19. c. Actiions to be taken within present budget appropriations and are effective on Board approval. AGENDA ITEM #5: Mr. A. K. Wynne, Director, Mental Health and Mental Retardation, requested Committee's consideration and concurrence for the following actions: a. Reclassify one Clerk Typist II', Grade 5, to Clerk Typist III, Grade 7; b. Reclassify position Work Adjustment Supervisor, Grade 14, to Work Adjustment Supervisor, Grade 19; c. Reclassify position Production Supervisor, Grade 14, to Production Manager, Grade 17; DISCUSSION: Mr. Wynne advised the Committee that the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Services Board had apProved the reclassification actions based upon added responsibilities and increased work load. COMMITTEE ACTION: The Committee recommended: a. Reclassi. fication of one Clerk Typist II, Grade 5, to Clerk Typist III, Grade 7, b. Reclassification of Work Adjustment Supervisor, Grade 14, to Work AdjuStment Supervisor, Grade 19, c. Reclassifcation of Producti~on Supervisor, Grade 14, to Production Manager, Grade 17. d. All actions to be taken within present budget appropriation and effective on Board approval. AGENDA ITEM #6: Mr. Falconer, County Assessor, requested the Committee's consideration and concurrence to establish the position of Deputy Assessor and that the position be established at Grade 24. This action to result from the reclassification of one Appraiser II, Grade 19 position. DISCUSSION: The Committee was of the opinion that second line management'philosophy dictated such an action. Mr. Galusha surveyed the position/classification and found She recommended grade to be within the competitive range for surrounding jurisdictions. COMMITTEE ACTION: The Committee recommended: The classification, Deputy Assessor be added to the County Classification Plan for Service and that such classification be allocated to Grade 24 of the Uniform Pay Plan. b. One position of Appraiser II, Grade 19, be reclassified to Deputy Assessor, Grade 24; c. Actions to be effective on Board approval. AGENDA ITEM #7: Mr. E. James, General Services, requested Committee's consideration and concurrence for one additional step increase for each of four employees. DISCUSSION: The Committee did not feel that this was sufficient justification to warrant the requested increases. Additionally, the Committee felt that all such increases should be recommended at the employee's anniversary date, or the regularly schedUled, review date. COMMITTEE ACTION: The Committee recommended: The request be denied. AGENDA ITEM #8: Colonel Pittman, Chief of Police, requested the Committee's consideration and concurrence for the follow~.ng: a. Establishment of the following classifications: 1. Corporal, Grade 16 2. Master Investigation, Grade 20 + 10% 3. Master Technician, Grade 20 + 10% 4. Master Patrol, Grade 20 b. Reclassification of: 1. Six Patrolmen to Corporal 2. Two Patrolman to Master Patrolmen 3. Four Investigators to Master Investigator 4. Two Technicians to Master Technician 5. Four Dispatchers to Senior Dispatcher DISCUSSION: The Committee felt that additional study was necessary to develop this career concept in that therewerecertain reservations in establishing grade structures as presented; i.e. Grade 20 + 10% Additionally, as this action would cost an additional $6,288, it was the Committee's feeling that this concept/request should be presented as a part of the 1978-79 budget. COMMITTEE ACTION: The Committee recommended: Requests be denied. AGENDA ITEM #9: Mr. Galusha, Personnel Director, provided copies of the Proposed Personnel Regulations to each member of the Committee for their review and comments. DISCUSSION: Mr. Micas, County Attorney, explained the ramifications, both advantages and disadvantages of adopting a formal set of Personnel Regulations. Mr. Micas stated that he had reviewed the regulations, that his comments and suggestions had been incorporated, and felt they were legally sufficient. During the course of the discussion it was the concensus of the Committee that the initial purpose of the Committee had been served and that it had outlived its usefullness. Consequently the Committee felt that it should be disestablished as soon as practicable. COMMITTEEACTION: a. Committee members will review and present comments to Personnel Director by July 15, 1977; Personnel Regulations, with appropriate revisions will be reviewed by the County Administrator and County Attorney; The final draft (proposed regulations) will be provided each member of the Board of Supervisors for review prior to approval/adoption by the Board of Supervisors. d. Disestablishment of the Personnel Committee on adoption of the Personnel Regulations by the Board of Supervisors. AGENDA ITEM #10: Mr. Moore, Treasurer, requested the Committee's consideration and concurrence for the following actions: a. Reclassification of two Account Clerk II, Grade 6 positions to Account Clerk III, Grade 8 positions; b. Reclassification of two Account Clerk I, Grade 4 positions to Account Clerk I'I, Grade 6 posi'tions'. DISCUSSION: Mr. Moore advised the Committee that job work load had increased in numerous areas requiring incumbents to assume more and greater responsibilities, conse- quently, a re-evaluation of existing positions necessitated the proposed reclassification actions. COMMITTEE ACTION: The Committee recommended: a. That two Account Clerk II, Grade 6 positions be reclassified to Account Clerk II'I, Grade 8 positions; b. That two Account Clerk I, Grade 4 positions be reclassified to Account Clerk II, Grade 6 positions; c. That these activities be transacted wi'thin present budget appropriation, and are to be retroactive to July 1~ 1977. AGENDA ITEM #11: Mr. Balderson, Division of Development Review, requested the Committee's consideration and concurrence to establish a new position within his division. The position requested was that of Secretary, Grade 11. DISCUSSION: Mr. Balderson explained to the Committee that the person hired to fill this position, if approved, would function in an office supervisory position, releasing Mr. Smith from thoSe responsibilities not normally associated with his planning activities. This person, in addition to assuming the office manager role of Mr. Smith, will assist i'n the typing responsibiliti~es of the office, an area which is in need of emphasis, according to Mr, Balderson. COMMITTTEE ACTION: The Con~mittee recommended: a. One position of Secretary, Grade ll,~be added to the Table of Authorization for the Department of Community Development; b. An amount to cover the expenses of salary and required office furniture, less a budgeted lease payment for an IBM Mag Card machine to be returned to the company, be appropriated to the Department of Community Development. This action to be effective on Board approval. Mr. R. B. Gal usha Secretary/Recorder Mrs. J. Girone Chairperson