11-24-71 Packet I would therefor~-recommend that the line be dra,~=~as follows:
Beginning at Lake Ches ~n and Second Branch road area c~ntinuing on Second Branch
to Courthouse to Woodpecker Road, down Woodpecker to Nash Road and Hash to Licking
Creek and down Licking Creek to its intersection with Swift Creek and down Swift
Creek to Bradley Bridge Road crossing and continuing down Swift Creek to the un-
named creek on the map which I believe to be Old Town Creek and up this Creek to
Branders Bridge Road, do~.~n Branders Bridge to Beachwood Conl~jnui, ng o:l Beachwood to
Harrowgate to an unnamed creek,~which runs off Timsbury and4,~rom this creek and
Harrowgate eastward follo~ting this creek behind Par 3 golf course to Route 1 and
Timsbury to Rt. 620 and across P~. 620, southeast following Timsbury to Swift Creek
at Colonial Heights city limits.]
Since 1-95 at number 5 interchange (Walthal) and Happy Hill Rt. l, are both
the same distance from Bensley and is closer to Bensley and since Harrowgate -Rt. 1
is much closer to E-M than Bensley, I find Timsbury Creek a good dividing point on
Rt. 1.
By using Timsbury Creek and Rt. 620 as a dividing line it allows E-M to
service the part of this road they can easily reach and leave the other part of
the road to Bensley, which has easy access from 1-95 or from Rt. 1 and Happy
Hill Road.
Both Squads agree that whatever area, 1-95 from Walthal to Colonial Heights
limits, is inithe first squad to receive the call will respond.
I have tried to access the whole situation, keeping in mind the primary
consideration of adequate emergency service to the public the majority of any
given day and I feel the above line would be a fair and equitable boundary.
Respectful ly,
Mason T'~'T~. ~halkley, Detective Sgt.
Special Assistant to Chief of Police
DEPAITMENT OF
MENTAL HYGfENE AND HOSPITALS
NovqFsd~er 29,
EDUCATIONAL THERAFY CIHTfR:
2824 MORT~ AVENUE
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 232.22
lqro Melvi~x W. Bu~nett, F_.xecutive Secr~tary
Cheste,~fi~ld Coun~
Chester~iOld Courthouse
Ches terfield~ Virginia 2.3832
Dear Mr. Burnett:
May we express to you and the Board of Supervisors our appreciation
for &1lowing us to appear before you on Wednesday~ November 24~ to
seek funding for Chesterfield Children to ~e seen at Education
Therapy Center between January 1 - June 30, 1972o
Our understandin9 is that the Board of Supervisors agreed to fund
up to $1500 to be used at $150 per child. The first remittance
wilI be $600?. with the remainder upon request. These funds are
/~to be matched by the Virginia Department of Mental Hygiene and
Hospitals.
[Will you please make check payable to the Virginia Department of
Mental Hygiene and Hospitals~ Box 1797~ Richmond~ Virginia 23214.
Thank you for your cgnsideration.
X Since~:ely '
Finance Chairman
ooo/ih
Po S. Please mark check credEt
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD
(For Intracounty Correspondence)
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
M. W. Burnett; Planning Commission
Michael C. Ritz
Suggested zoning and subdivision fees.
May 7, 19?l
I would suggest the following fees be reviewed for C.P.C.and
Board action (the zoning fees are essentially the same as pre-
liminarily agreed upon for proposed new zoning ordinance):
(1) Zoning:
(a) Agricultural (A)
$ 40.00
(b) Residential (R-A, R-l, R-2, TH-l,
RM, MH-1 MH-2)
(c) Commercial (C-l, C-2, C-T)
(d) Industrial (M)
40.00
75.00 plus
100.00 plus
(2) Use Permits:
(a) Multiple family or two family
75.00 plus
2.50/acre
(3)
(~1)
(b) Mobile homes
(c) All other ~
Variances
Subdivision plats:
45.00
?5.00
25.00
l) For tentative approval:
(a) Subdivisions containing
more than 5 lots
(b) Subdivisions containing 5
or less lots
2) For final approval:
25.00/plat and
10.00/p lat and
10.00/plat and
1.00/lot
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
IRVING. HORNERo ¢#&lR#&N
CLOVER HILL e, JSTRICT
C.J. PURDT
Bi'BM UO& DISTRtCT
J. RUFFIN APPERSDN BALE OlSTRIC~
COU
NTY
OF
CHESTER
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA
M. W. Bum4En'
~m'ECUT~! SICRETAR~
November 18~ 1971
BOARD OF SUPERYISORS
HERBERT O. BROWNING.VICE
F. F. DWE~CH
m~NCXtSTER
ANDREW R. MARTIN
FIELD
Bensley-Bermuda Volunteer Rescue Squad
R%trtck-Matoaca ~olunteer Rescue Squad
Gentlemen:
Mr. Mason Chalkley will make a repor~ of his study
o£ %he boundaries between your districts on November 24,
1971 at 3:00 P.M. If you would like to hear what'he
suggests to the Board of Supervisors or add your own
comments~ please have representatives present.
Should there be any questions concerning this
meeting~ please call the undersigned.
Sincerely,
Mo Wo Burne%%
Executive Secretary
COLONEL E. P. GILL
CHIEF OF POLICE
E. T. SMITH
CAPTAIN OF DETECTIVES
COUNTY
OF
CHESTERFIELD
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA
POLICE DEPARTMENT
November 23, 1971
Mr. M. W. Burnett
Executive Secretary
County of Chesterfield
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear Sir:
On receipt of Mr. Hilpert's letter of September 2, the Dog pound
ceased to carry animals to them to destroy, and has since been utilizing
the needle technique. This procedure ties up three men for a considerable
time and since it involves a deadly drug is potentially dangerous to the
wardens. It is, however, the cheapest method of destroying the animals,
costing about $60.00 per year in serum. When you figure man hours involved
it becomes quite expensive.
The use of automobile exhaust fumes to destroy the dogs is considered
by the SPCA and others to be inhumane. It is also time consuming and mechan-
ically harmful to the vehicles involved in this operation. The dogs whine
and yelp during the process which creates ill will among those citizens that
happen to visit the pound during this procedure. It is not 100 per cent
efficient as the process has to be repeated quite often to completely kill
the said dogs.
I respectfully request with complete agreement of the Chief of Police,
that the County appropriate necessary funds to purchase and install a decom-
pression chamber for the purpose of humanely disposing of stray and sick or
diseased animals. It can be placed in the existing gas room and would afford
a much more efficient operation.
The price of the unit is $2860.00 delivered to the pound. The County
then must unload it, install it and hook it up. I am not sure how much this
would cost exactly, but believe it would be less than $500.00.
RespectfUlqy,
M Chalkley, Detective Sgt.
Special Assistant to Chief of Police
MTC/jc
TElEPHOnE
THE RICH,~t, OND 'SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ,.oo ¢.^,,,,,.E.~.^'¥-,,,E ^v.:...,c..o,.,.....^. ~,~,=
September 2. 1971
Board o~ Eup~rvisors
County ~f Chesterfield
ATheniaN: Mr. ~urnet~ Executive Secretary
Gentlemen:
During the calendar year to date the Richmond SPCA has DAndled
319 dogs for the Chesterfield Cour~ty dog wardens. H~ndling includes
eutl~nizing and disposing of the carcasses. The Richmond SPCA has
always coope~ted with the County in this ~nner because it has pre-
ferred to see the dogs ~handled in this manner rather than disposed
of in a carbon monoxide chamber or some other less humane means.
The number of dogs handled is broken down by date and nunber in the
enc~os u~,
Normally when an individual brings a dog to the Ellen ~-lasg~
Memorial Shelter to be euthanized the donation requested is $5°00.
This covers euthar~sia and disposition of the carcass. B~sed on
this standard'practice to handle 300 dogs would be about $1,500.00.
In addition, the dog wardens use Richmond SPCA equipment and utilities
to clean their vehicles and cages.
Although the Richmond SPCA has approached the Board of Suoervisors
previously, in this matter the request has never been treated ~avor-
ably. Hm;ever, for the coming fiscal year, in ~Jew of the increasin_~
prices for supplias, labor, and ooerating equioment the Richmond SPC~
is faced with the orosoect of a $13~000.00 deficit for the fiscal year
1971/72, which be~ns i October 1971. In vi~ of this, we are re-
submitting our request hoping that the Board of Suoer~sors will find
it within their means to ~ake a minimum contribution of $225.00 payable
;uarterly to the Michmon~ SPCA to handle animal; for the dog warderm during
fiscal year 19~/72. 5~8~nk you for your cooperation.
JH/psb
Very truly yours,
~Exe cutive Dire ctor
MEMBERSHIP DUES: ANNUAL, $S.00; COI',ITRIBUT;NG. $10.00, SUSTAINING, $25.00:'PATRON. $50.00: LIFE, $100.00
~ 2o 71
~26 7i
6971
7871
.721 71
T28T1
8~T1
81271
NL~N~ER OF D~JS RECEIVED
2O
20
12
'18
18
25
~6
R
Q U OTAT! 0 N
RICHMOND ENGINEERING COMPANY,
BOX 2 AC, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23205
7th &Hospital Streets, Telephone 703-644-2611
IN DUPLICATE
DATE
14 October 1971
INC.
TO
County of Chesterfield
Chesterfield County Courthouse
Chesterfield, Va.
ATTENTION
INQUIRY
Mr. Chalkly
Vacuum Tank
REFERENCE i ~C0 Quote #101211
GENTLEMEN: RICHMOND ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. PROPOSES TO FURNISH THE EQUIPMENT SPECIFIED HEREIN ATTHE
PRICES STATED AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS, AND CONDITIONS STATED HEREON AND ON THE REVERSE SIDE HEREOF
AND ALL ATTACHMENTS.
UNIT· UNIT TOTAL
ITEM QTY SIZE. TYPE ~ DESCRIPTION WEIGHT PRICE PRICE
I 1 Vacuum Tank, 36" OD x 5'-0" overall length. Unit
to be fabricated per attached sketch A. 1373# $2860. $2860.
IA Alt. We offer as an extra an i8" diameter manhole fab-
. ricated per attached sketch B for an additional . ,
$377.00.
Please accept my apology for the delay in pricing
this vessel as there was some difficulty in
obtaining vacuum pump prices.
* We will submit drawings for your aPproval withinl
4 weeks after receipt of a purchase order.
Delivery will be approximately 10 weeks after
receipt of a purchase order.
SHIPMENT: F.0,B. Our Plant, Richmond, Va. with freight allowed to Chesterfield County Court-
TERMS: ~ OF I% 10 DAYS - NET 30 DAYS house, Chesterfield,____
Va
*
SHIPMENT WEEKS AFTER RECEIPT OF ORDER, SUBJECT TO RECEIPT OF MATERIALS (IF PURCHASE REQUIRED) AND
DRAWING APPROVAL. THIS PROPOSAL IS MADE SUBJECT TO ACCEPTANCE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE SHOWN ABOVE. THE
PRICES QUOTED DO NOT INCLUDE SALES, USE, EXCISE OR OTHER GOVERNMENTAL CHARGES WHICH ARE TO BE PAID BY THE
REC0 WITH A TAX-EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE ACCEPTABLE TO THE TAXING
PURCHASER UNLESS THE PURCHASER PROVIDES
AUTHORITIES.
NOTICE- NEW ADDRESS
P. O. BOX 25189
9ND, VA. 23260
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
RICHM04~[~ ~NGINEERIN~ COMPANY, INC.
Ralph F. T, rammell/Mgr., Engineered Products
By: T."L. U~-~{-stant Chief
Estimator
Metal Plate Fabricators. Meat ~chanDers, Process Vessel~, Pre.ute Vessels in stee[, stainless steel, aiumi.um, copper, al{oys. IE~A AS~E ABS
~;~ ':-:,L'.:~" r' · ~, TERMS AND COHDITIONS OF SALE : :' ~
reserves the right to correct ~ o~]~s er~n specifications or ~r:ces.
2. TAXES: The prices provided for herein are exclusive of any present or future Federal, State, FAunicipal or other sales or use tax with
~es~pect to the material or equipment or services covered hereby, of ~ny. other present or future excise tax upon or measured by the gross receipts
from this transaction or any allocated portion thereof or by the gross value of the material or e~uipment covered hereby and of any oresent or
future property tax or other similar charge with respect ?a the_,mater a ar equitomen: covered hereby. If the Seller is required by applicable aw or
regulation to pay or collect any such ~ax or taxes on account of this teansaction or the material or equipment or services covered hereby, then
such amount of tax shall be paid by the ~uyer t~ the Seller in ~ditio~.tothe prices herein ~rovided for. '. '. ' ~. ~.' ' ' ~ ~J~,
3. SHIPPING INSTRUCTIONS: If goods are ready fo~ im~diate delivery, shipping instructions shall be received by Seller within f~ty-f'ive
(45) days after Seller's acceptance of,Buyer's order. On all other'orders shipping instr~tio~.shall, ber~eiv~b~'S~{ler.~ithln ~n,~10)days
- ~'n~ifi~ion th~ g~ods are availaSle for deliver. -
4. DELIVERY: Par~iol shipments may be m~e when ready and invoice submitted. ~elivery of goods ~o a common carrier or licensed ~ruc~er
-s~l~ constitute delivery ~o ~uyer. n the event tha~ shipping instructions are no~ received within the s~cified per~od, Se~ler~moy hilt ~uye~
al~ ~ar~ inci~nt thereto. All r~sk of Joss or damage after delivery shall be bor~ by ~uyer.
~. ROUTING: In the absence of ~uyer's instruction as to desired carrter and routing, goods may be forwarded and routed as Seller, 'in
_~.~ole disc(etion~.sha~l decide. ~ller shall?o~bq_Jiab~ for selection of the carrier or method.~f.r, outing ......... -- ' -' ' '
-- 6~-DELAYS: Delivery promises.are Seller's best estimate of the time ,when g~ods wit be shipped~ Seller shall not be Jiabl~ for failure to
--~ve~.o~ delays indetivery occasioned by strikes, lockouts; fires~ inability toobtain materials ~ shipping space, breo~do~s, d~lays of-
or suppliers, govern~ntal acts and regulations, and other causes beyond Seller's reasonable control, f performance by Se~Jer is delayed by
reason thereof, Seller shall inform ~uyer promptly, and the time for delivery shall be extended for the period of s~ch delay or, at Seller's option,
the contract may be cancelled without liability to either ~arty. ' '- ''
' ' ~. CA~CELLATI~ After Seller' 'acceptance of Buyer's order, cancellation by' Buyer shall Ge made'only' by~'a~reement' of Seller in writing.
8. ORIGIN: All soles are made f. o. b. Seller's plant unless otherwise ~cified ..... ~ ~ ~ ..... . : ~ . ~[~
9. WARRANTY: Seller warrants that its goods .are in cbmpliance wi~h stated specific~ions within llm~ts.~ standard ~nufacturing tolerances
and variances of the producer, and are free from defects in materials and workmanship. Seller will replace without charge, refund the purchase
price or ma~e a fair allowance for any noncomo)iance with stated specifications or an? d~fects in material or workmanship in its products demo~-
str~ed to its satisfaction to have existed at the time of delJvery~ ~rovided ~uyer gives Scl}er written notice immediately upon dJscover~ thereof
and, ~n Rn~ event, within one (1) year after delivery of the gooas to ~uyer. Seller may require the return of the product to establish any claim.
Seller's liability is. limited ta making reaJacement, refund or allowance w.~thin a reasonable t~me after receipt of written notice.' THiS S SELLER'S
SOLE WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THE GOODS; SELLER MAKES NO OTHE~ ~ARRANTY OF ANY KIND WHATEVER, EXPRESS O~
IMPLIED, AND ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTAB LITY AND ~ITNESS FOR A PArtiCULAR PURPOSE ~HICH EXCEED THE
A~OVE OBLIGATION ARE HERE~Y DISCLAIMED BY SELLER AND ~XCLUD~D. Seller will not be liable for any co~equential damages, loss
or expense arising n connection with the use of, or the inability to use, its goods for any purpose whatever. Seller's liability under no circum-
stances will exceed the contract price for goods claimed to be defective or unsuitable.
10. CLAIMS OR RETURNS: All claims for alleged defectS' ~n' goods, other t~n defects in workmansh,p or .mater al, shall be dee~d waived
unless made in writing an~ delivered to Seller within ten ~10) days after, r~ce~at of goods by Duper. ~uyer shatl afford Seller prompt and reason.
able opportunity to insoect all goods as'to which any claim is ma~e. All returns.must be made freight ~arges prepaid witb prior permission of
Seller and must be accompanied by Seller's ~acking list and freight
11. FORMATION O~ CONTRACT: No contract between Buyer and Seller sh~ll exist unless and until Seller shall accept and acknowledge at
its general sales office a nurchase order submitted by Buyer pursuant hereto.
12. BUYER'S FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: Seller's acceptance of any purchase order submitted by Buyer pursuant to this quotation and
Seller's ~Jigations upon such acceotance shall at all times be sub,eot to.approval o~ Buyer's financial responsibili~ by Seller's credit depart-
men~. Seller may at any time require payment ~ advance or satisfactory security, guarantee or assurance that invoices will be promptly paid
when due. f Buyer, after demand, fails promptty to pay n advance or ~o g~ve satisfactory security, guarantee or assurance. Seller shall have the
r~ght to withhold delivery or ~erformance of any undelivered ~ortion of the ~oods or unperformed services, or ~o terminate the contract as to any
undelivered goods or unperformed services, whereupon Buyer shall immedlate~y become I~ab~e to Seller for (al the purchase price oE a~J goods
delivered and services ~erformed, and lb) any loss suffered by Seller /inc~uding ass of reasonable ~rofits) w~th resDec~ to undeJivered g~ods an~
and unperformed services. If any such undeiivered goods sha~ have been Eabricated or ~roduced specially for Buyer, Seller's loss she I be ~eemed
to be at a mJmmum the difference between t~e full purchase price thereof p~us freJght~ storage and other ces~s ~ncurred by Seller in connection
therewith, less an allowance for the ~hen current scra~ value of such goods as determined by Seller.
13. MODIFICATION AHD WAIVER: Buyer's order, Seller's acceptance and t~se Terms and Conditions shall contain the entire confract
tween the parties, and ther~ shall be no oral understanding, representations or agreements. ~n case of any ~ncons~stency between the terms of
'B~r's order and Sel~er*s acceptance and these Terms and Conditions, the terms of such order and acceptance shall prevail. No a~teratlon~
__[~ . E~mQd~f~c~tion. or wa~ve~ shal be effective unless *n writing ~nd s~gned by Ehe .party against who~ such claimed a~terati~n,. ~odlflcafion or waiver
~s sought to be enforced. No waiver by e~ther party of any default in any terms or condition shal'lconstitute a waiver of any other ~erm or conditJon.
.~4~ APPLI~LE ~AW: The contract shall be governed by and sh~t~ be construed according so the laws oE the State of Vi~s,nia.
15e ~ge~ in qu~tities may result in changes m unit pric~s sho~. :
RICI-IMOND ENGINEER. lNG CO.
~C3~ND VlEGINIA
SK- ~
,o,,o. ~.,~ SK-A
Total Blat<out wi~in 60 Seconds
Peace~l "Sleep" within 3 /~inutes
Tested and
approved' by Humane
organizations throughout the United
States, Euthan~r is quick, p 'amless and-
one hundred per cent efficient in the destruc-
tion of unwanted', diseased or injured animals.
In addition, the carefully engineered eq~ent
design offers complete safety' for' operating personnel.
This installation at Manila, Republic of the Philippines
~oorove_d and recommended by ALL leading humane workers Euthanair is rapidly replac-
ing electr__o~utio_n, hy_drocya~m'_c_c ga~s, carbon monoxide, shooting, drowning, "the needle" and other
types of animal destruction in principal cities throughout the country. (See inside pages for some
of the cities now using the Euthanair method of destruction in their animal shelters.)
DEVELOPMEI OF THE EUTHAI' IR METHOD
FOR "HIGH ALTITUDE" EUTHANASIA
NOTHING CAN LIVE WITHOUT OXYGEN
--WE AT,T, TI:gAT!
And l;ased on this fact, one of the most interesting
(and one of the few beneficial) outgrowths o£ World
War II is the now established Euthanair Method of
small animal destruction. Animals to be destroyed.
are "blacked out" in a decompression chamber to an
Esthetic Euthanasia within a matter of seconds.
Amt, peculiarly enough, during the course of experi- Model LU complete installation inside one room at
mentation a complete reversal of testing was made Peninsula Hu-mane Association, Burlingame, Calif.
from the humanitarian standpoint in that in this case
human beings served as "guinea pigs" in the air force decompression chambers with animals reaping the benefits.
Through assiduous engineering of principles set forth by Dr. Charles F. Lombard, Associate Professor of the
Department of Aviation Medicine at the University of Southern California, and with the help of Dr. Wesley A.
Young, Western Regional Director of the American Humane Association, the Euthanair Company, originators of
the method, has de~veloped a decompression chamber th_at i__~n 22 years of research has met the highest standards
of the perfect Euthanasia for small animals. Putting the animals to sleep absolutely painlessly and with a mini-
mum of apprehension on the part of the animals, the method is distributed on the premise that "It is better to
p~ng than to save life."
With the technical principles of Dr. Lombard as a starting point and the continued assistance of Dr. Young,
Richard L. Bonner, General Manager of the Los Angeles Department of Animal Regulation; Bertram E. Morse,
Chief Animal Inspector of Los Angeles; the American Humane Association; Sydney Coleman of the ASPCA and
Model SU showing chamber' door open, cage door
closed. Note that installation is located next to
refrigerated morgue--Southgate, Calif., shelter.
many others, the Euthanair Company, Spencer Selby,
President, has developed the method to the point that
more than 200 principal cities throughout the countr, y
have adopted it as superior to any oth~er t_~Lw~Ca~al
destruction. All are enthusiastic over the equipment not
only because of the humane aspects involved, but also
in thg fact that the Euthanair Method is a great deal
less expensive in operation.
Briefly, the method is as follows: animal or animals
to be put to sleep are placed in a heavy steel chamber
from which the air is removed by an automatic pump,
thereby simulating an airless altitude of approximately
60,000 feet. Unconsciousness occurs somewhere be-
tween seven and 60 sec6nds, with total Euthanasia
resulting within three minutes.
ADVANTAC OF THE EUTHAN IR METHOD
Advantages of the method over' any previous type may
be enumerated as follows:
1--Ab~lutely no suffering -- since there is no
strangulation or suffocation there is no pain pres-
ent when animal blacks out and the animal is un-
conscious bef_pre it becomes prone'
2--An absolute minimum of apprehension or fear on
the part__of ~,he animal
."b)ackout~' proces_~s ·
both
before, and during
3--Eliminates crowding! and holdover of suffem_2_~_g_~api-
~_~mfor ~on since the equipment is
geared to operate w~en needed__with a minimum of
service or attention of the operator.
4., Absolute safety_ for operating personnel--no toxic
gasses to contend with;
5--Ease of operation--any employee can run the equip-
ment very simply without a specialized cours_~,_~
t_raining._
Euthanair Pumping Unit located outside building
on Southgate installation.
O--Time saver--automatic controls eliminate need of operator's presence during work period of the machine;
and since the automatic cutoff immediately__~o_qps mac_h_in_e__o_12?r_ation_ when prop_2r altitude is reached, there
is also a savings e efl%-~d by unnecessary wear of the equipment;
7--D~urability~--engineering and design of the units produced by the Euthanair Company have reached the point
where all equipment is now built to run for 10 years on the basis of a full eight-hour day;
8---Cleanliness--because of the fact fi{at there is comparatively so much less mess from excretions during or
shortly after the animal death, the entire process is much cleaner.
WHAT EUTHANAIR USERS SAY:
"It destroys the animals much faster and in a more
humane way. You do not have to wait until the dogs
are destroyed to turn off the machine as you have
the automatic shutoff valve."
"I can work in the Lethal Room while animals are
~xpiring because there are no gas fumes to contend
with."
"Animals are destroyed quicker with little or no con-
,sciousness of event."
"There is no danger to employees."
"We' are e.xtremely impressed with its humaneness,
speed and ease of operation. In fact we are SO im-
pressed that we believe it should be required equip-
ment for every animal welfare organization !"
". . . about 600 animals a month are dispatched_ . . .
and the equipment is in operation about 10 or 12 times
a~d- '" :ay.
"There
animals
is no hemorrhaging of animals, nor do the
manifest fear."
EUTHAN;' ! R
STANDA 'D
UNITS
LU (Large Un!t) Chamber 36" x 42" (3" greater dia-
meter than MU). Requires room approximately 12' x
14' for dolly maneuverability. Will handle up to~60
MU (Medium Unit) Chamber ~3" x 42". Will handle
up to 50 animals per hour.
SU (Small Unit) Chamber 30" x 40". Installation
requires space approximately 4' x 6'. Will handle up
to 40 animals per hour.
EU (Emergency Unit) Installed in conjunction with
one of the above-mentioned standard units but used
as a secondary chamber usually for new-born animals
since their resPiratory systems are undeveloped and
a higher altitude is necessary for complete Euthan-
asia. Also operated independently for emergency
cases. Chamber size 16" x 30".
Pump installed outside building
which is best when possible
Extra cages and dollies available for larger shelters.
Specialized equipment custom built to YOUR specifi-
cations when necessary.
Model LU, Burlingame, Calif., showing
portable cage on dolly
The Euthanair Company has developed
three standard models which will accom-
modate most of the problems of a normal
city or humane organization. Variations
of the standard models are frequently
necessary and in instances such as this,
the engineering department of the com-
pany works directly with the city in-
volved. It is suggested that all problems
b.e brought direct to the company's Los
Angeles office for complete engineering.
EUTHANAIR COMPANY
13~~. CAMILLA STREET WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA 90601
213-696-7922
~m
606
150o
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
THE RICHMOND TIMES~DISPATCH
was published ~n The ~{aehmoad Th~es-D~spatch~ a newspaper
published ~n the C~ty ~f R~chmond, State of
CORNELL
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reenact Chapter 11, Article 1,
Section 11-8 of the Chesterfield County Code by providing
for the compilation of records upon which assessments and
changes in assessments are made, the giving of notice to
affected taxpayers, the filing of protests against
assessments and hearings before the board of equalization.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY
OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA:
THAT Chapter 11, Article 1, Section 11-8 of the Code of the
County of Chesterfield, Virginia, be and it is hereby amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
The assessor and the board of equalization of real estate
assessments shall be governed by the following general
procedures in the assessment and changes of assessment of
real estate in the county:
(a) The assessor shall assemble and compile records showing
the facts and data upon which assessments and changes in assess-
ment are made, separately for each piece or parcel of real
estate in the county, filing with such records any letter,
statement or documentary evidence submitted by the owner or
affected taxpayer of such real estate, or by any person on
his behalf, concerning the valuation or assessment of such
real estate.
(b) The real estate assessment office shall notify each
affected taxpayer in writing on or before the fifteenth day
of February of any year in which a new or changed assessment
for such property is made or proposed by the assessor. Such
notice shall be given by mail addressed to the last known
address furnished to county tax officials by the affected
taxpayer. If the address of such affected taxpayer is unknown,
then notice shall be made by publication of such notice on or
before such date in a newspaper having general circulation in
the county.
(c) Any owner of real property or affected taxpayer, any
person with a substantial legal or equitable interest in
the property involved, or any authorized representative of such
persons, ?r any authorized representative of the county board
of supervisors may file protest against any assessment affecting
such property within sixty days after the date of notice.
Such protest shall be filed in duplicate with the real estate
assessment office, and may be in any form, including the form
of a letter. One copy of such protest shall be transmitted
forthwith to the board of equalization of real estate assessments,
which shall grant appeal of the assessment or change of
assessment as a matter of right, and shall accord the protestant
an opportunity for hearing in person, with witnesses, by counsel
or by submission of memoranda verified under oath. The board of'
equalization of real estate assessments may in its discretion
grant an appeal and opportunity for hearing for just cause shown
and on any protest filed after such date.
(d) Hearings shall be scheduled by the board of equalization
of real estate assessments with due regard for the convenience
of the protestant and with due regard for the time required by
the assessor to investigate the protest and to prepare
justification of the protested assessment. The board of
equalization of real estate assessments shall publish notice
in a newspaper having general circulation in the county,
giving the regular time and place of its hearings. The board
of equalization of real estate assessments shall determine and
rule upon all protested assessments and all proposed reduced
assessments within ninety days from the date of hearing. Ail
actions of such board affecting assessments of real estate in
such county shall be certified by such board to the assessor on
forms prepared by and prescribed by the assessor. Notice of
the decision of the board of equalization of real estate
assessments shall be prepared in triplicate, and a copy thereof
shall be given to the protestant and affected taxpayer by
the real estate assessment office through the mail promptly
after the decision is so certified.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
after its passage as provided by law.
NEW KENT COUNTY BOARD OP SUPERVISORS /
N0VE ER l??l ' WED
IN RE: RIC~O~'REGIONAL WAT~ PLAN AND '~,~ ~V~ ~
RIC~OND R~IONA'L S~AGE PL~ ADOPTED ~: o ~ -'
~ the motion of S. W. Crump. seconded by R. E. Bo~er aud
unanimously approved, the ~ollowing ~esolution was . 3
adopted.
~~S the Virginia General Assembly, through the 1968 Virgi
Area Development Act, Provided for the cmeation of regional plann-~
lng districts to provide foP, among othe~ noble pursuits, the phys~-
cal development of regions of the state on a sound and orderly bas~s
and within a gover~ental fP~ework which will promote constructiv
gmowth and efficient a~inisCPation; and
W~R~S the Ric~ond Regional Planning District Co~ission,
acting on the basis of Che aforementioned legislation and in recog,
nit,on of the need to provide adequate water resources For future
regzonal development, ~as-"p~oduced'the Ric~ond Re .
and theRic~ond Re~io-~- ~- ~ ~ gional Water Plan
' ~ ,~ oewerage ~1~, doc~enting regional water~
resource needs and a coordinated approach towards m ~
needs; and eet~ng those
~EAS the future growth of the County of New Kent will in $
large part be dete~ined by the efficient and orderly provision of
necessary water and sewerage facilities; ~
NOW, TH~EFORE, BE IT RESOLED by the New K '
Supervisors this 8 _ _ ~ ent County Board o
th day of November, 1971, that t '
al Walter Plan and th~ wl~ ........ he zc~ond Re i n-
1970 are hereb~ ~adop~~~-~='~nG ne~lonal ~ew ...... - , .
BE IT FIYRTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be dis
patched to the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission and
to each governing body now a party to the Agreement which created
the Commission.
NEW KENT COUNTY BOARD O? SUPERVISORS
By:
J. A. Pearman, Chairman
Vivian L. Anderson, Clerk
Nevember [8, 1971
Pleaee fin~ enclosed a cop~ of a Resoluti~ in
Memoriam ad,ted at the Annual Meeting ~f the Virginia
A~ociaticu of ~ountie~ in Frederieksburg ~n Nc~aber 9~
1971.
Mr. Hague was a trusted friend and colleague, and
local government in Virgim~ia will maas his ini~uence.
Please accept my-~rmest and ~r~ee% regards.
Executive Director
E~lclosure
cc~ Mr. M. W. l~arnett ~'
RESOLUTION IN ~EMORIA~ - 1970-71
WHEREAS, Mr. W. Earl Daniel, Presiden%, 1952-53, Middlesex County;
Mr. S%anley R. Hague, Presiden% 1955-56, Ches%erfield County; Mr. Ira S.
Kidd, Supervisor, Bland County; Mr. C. W. Vaughn, Supervisor, Charlot%e
Coun%y; Mr. W. G. White, Supervisor, Culpeper County; Mr. Charles W. Richards,
Supervisor, James City County; Mr. Webb W. Estes, Supervisor, Mecklenburg
County; Mr. A. L. Munden, Supervisor, No%toway Coun%y; Mr. M. P. Boswell,
Supervisor, Nottoway Coun%y; and Mr. E. C. Carver, Execu%ive Secre%ary,
S%afford County, were each deVo%ed %o %he bes% interes%s of their respective
coun%ies and their peoples, having served them in many ways as friends and
members representing them on %heir respective boards of supervisors; and
WHEREAS, such ou%standing and devoted services %o their counties, to
%he Virginia Association of Counties, and to the cause of local governmen%
throughout the S%ate is recorded in the records of their respective counties
%hroughou% %he historY and minutes of the Association; and
WHEREAS, God in.his infini%e wisdom has removed these faithful friends
and associa%es from our midst,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED %ha% %hi~ 37th Annual Meeting of %he
Virginia Association of Counties does hereby express its deep regret and
sorrow upon %he loss of %hese warm and'respected friends and servants;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Associa%ion of Counties
extends 'I:o %heir respective families and %he Board of Supervisors and other
coun%y officers of their respective coun%ies i%s sympathy and assures %hem
%hat %heir grief is shared by others;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED %hat the Secretary is hereby instructed to
spread %his Resolution upon the Minutes of the meeting and to send suitable
copies as visible evidence of the respect and admiration wi%h which the
members of this Association regard these departed colleagues.
Upon motion of Mr. Billy W. Yrazier, seconded by Mr. Elmo Baldwin,
the Resolution was unanimously adopted.
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD
CHESTERFIELD. VIRGINIA
II.
III.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
Approval of vater contra, re:
IF/1-57DU Shorb~ne load 4~80.00
~l-~6D ~.V~ta BI~. - ~~~le TI~I $3,~0.00
~p~al of racer ~~c ~
WTl-~ ~t~e ~d ~d ~k'l
Approval o~ eewer a&reemeat~
871-35D ~otel - lout. 10
~onoideracion of requeot for extenolon of time [or payment o£
sewer connection £oeo for C. O. Cooper and K. D. Algire.
~onaideraCion o~ request for se~er extension on Cherrytree lame.
Clari£Lcat£on of tema of Sewer Contract 871-36~, Krmmo load.
Dt~ueoion of sever aerv~e for Bexley Subdivision and
property belonging ~o lC & K Aa.octet.a,
ConoideaCion of 30-day extension of time for Project 6§11-45A.
Letter ~rou SCant. S. Lyttle ~any, Inc. dated ~T~uber 5,
1971 and leCr~r ffrom I. It~art loyer & bloelatu dated
Movember 10, 1971.
D~oe~d~e~m of prmparaCima o~ operaCioue mmual to be approved
by l~vi~tal Protection A&eney ~or the Falling Creek Sewage
Treatment Plant.
Resolution authorLztog condemnation o£ the iollowinE property.
l~p section 37-3 - Luck's Lane G. g. Good. and Corrtne R.
Ooode, his vile
COUNTY Of CHESTERFIELD
CHESTERFIELD. VIRGINIA
~enda - ~ngineertng and Utilitie~ Department
Page 2
~rvvaber 24, 1971
Xm
III.
R~oIuC~ au~oriztn~ vmati~ end dedication of eorrocZed
oeeer meeent f~ len Luohbauth onder l~oJecC 65XI-33~/TA.
IoberC A. Pa:tut:er
Mevemb~ 2,$, 1971
l~ov-mber 22, 1971
l~r. Robert A. Painter
County Rn~neer,
Co~Cy o£ ChesCarffield,
Chesterffield, Va.
Dear Bob:
Re I Subject- Luck' $ Lane
DMp Section: 37-3
Property:
G. E. Goods &
Corrina g. ~e (his wife)
Attached please find plat.shoving proposed Ora/_na&e
Easement across the above property.
The above property ovners have re~used to dedicate this
easement. I would appreciate yo~ co~t8.
Sincerely,
A. J. Bridges
R~ghc of Way Eh&Inset
AJB/mb
P~bert A. Painter, ~Count:y. Engtneer
Melvin W. Burnett, Executive Secretary
Dr. A. R. Martin, Supervisor -M[dlethiaa
District
'"oN H OF
DOUGLAS B. FUGATE. COMMISSIONER
G. L. BAUGHAN, LUR~A~', VA.
MORRILL M. CROWE, RICHMOND, VA.
W. FRED DUCKWORTH, NORFOLK, VA.
LE ROY EAKIN, JR.. McLEAN, VA.
EARL A. FITZPATRICK, ROANOKE, VA.
THOMAS R. GLASS, LYNCHBURG, VA.
RUFUS T. HAIRSTON, BRISTOL, VA.
DOUGLAS G. JANNEY, FREDERICKSBURG, VA.
J. P. MILLS, JR.
STATE TRAFFIC AND SAFETY ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
1221 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, VA. 23219
November 24, 1971
JOHN E. HARWOOD,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHIEF ENGINEER
DIRECTOR OF ADMINiSTRATiON
A. K. HUNSBERGER, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
J. V. CLARKE, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
H, GORDON BLUNDON,
DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMMING AND PLANNING
Traffic Safety - Intersection
Route 10 and Winfree Street
Chester fie ld Count~L_
f~" -. .~ ~ ~- \
I ~"'~
Mr, M. W. Burnett, Executive Secretary
Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
Chesterfield, Virginia '
Dear Mr. Burnett:
Reference is made to your letter of November 16 attaching a cop~
a resolution of November 10 of your Board of Supervisors and Co~issioner
Fugate's reply of November 18 regarding the above subject.
It is a pleasure to inform you that traffic has increased during the
past year to the point a signal is justified at the Intersection of Route 10
and Winfree Street. Justification is based on delay and congestion rather
than accident experience. Of the ten accidents occurring at the intersection
only four were of the type generally eliminated by the erection of a signal.
The other six were of the type that generally increase at a signal installation.
Plans are being prepared, equipment secured and it is planned to start
installation of the signal next week.
A signal has also been authorized for the Intersection of Route 1 and
Osborne Road. This signal will be installed in the near future.
A study is underway for the Intersection of Route 10 and Harrowgate
Road. No recommendation will be made on this location until analysis has been
completed.
Signalization of the Intersection of Route 10 with Winfree Street will
provide traffic direction and hopefully will result in fewer accidents. To
obtain maximum safety, cooperation is needed from the pedestrians in properly
using the crosswalks and from your police in enforcing NO PARKING regulations.
Thanks to you and members of your Board of Supervisors for interest
in traffic safety.
Sincerely, , ~
JPM: s rp ~~
~rr: ~reot-Petersbur~ '~ ~ ~,m Safety Engineer
DOUGLAS B. FUGATE, COMMISSIONER
G. L. BAUGHAN. LURAY, VA.
DOUGLAS G, JANNEY, FREDERICKSBURG, VA.
W. FRED DUCKWORTH, NORFOLK, VA.
EARL A. FITZPATRICK, ROANOKE, VA.
THOMAS R. GLASS, LYNCHBURGo VA.
RUFUS T. HAIRSTON, E, RISTOL, VA.
LE ROY EAKIN, JR., McLEAN, VA.
ROBERT S. WEAVER, JR.. VICTORIA, VA,
IoNWEALTI+ OF
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
RICHMOND, VA. 23219
JOHN E. HARWOOD,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHIEF ENGINEER
A. B. EURE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION
A. K. HUNSBERGER, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
J. V, CLARKE, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
W. S. G. BRITTON,
DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMMING AND PLANNING
L. R. TREAT, JR,
DISTRICT ENGINEER
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County of Chesterfield
Chesterfield, Virginia
November 23, 1971
23832
OFFICE OF DISTRICT ENGINEER
PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA 23803
P. O. gox 3036
Bon Air~ Virginia 23235
Gentlemen:
This is in reference to your resolution dated September 29, 1971 requesting
the restriction of left turn movements on Route 150 and at Routes 647 and
651 during the morning and afternoon peak periods. A special study is
under way at these intersections but enough data has been obtained from
the preliminary analysis to give you a report.
Restricting left turns is the most expedient manner to improve traffic
flow at the two intersections; however, to do so will create serious
left turn problems at other intersections on Route 150, particularly
at Route 10.
Recent counts made at the two intersections show the following:
Intersection Route 150 and Route 647
7AM to 9AM (Morning Peak)
Left Turns Through
Southbound 576 1235
Northbound 52 757
Intersection Route 150 and Route 647
4PM to 6PM (Afternoon Peak)
Left Turns
Southbound 266
Northbound 129
Through
1157
1531
Intersection Route 150 and Route 651
7A~ to 9AH (Morning Peak)
Left Turns Through
Southbound 57 1445
Northbound 50 800
A HIGHWAY IS AS SAFE AS THE USER MAKES IT
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
-2-
November 23, 1971
Intersection Route 150 and Route 651
4PM to 6PM (Afternoon Peak)
Left Turns Through
Southbound 55 876
Northbound 74 1549
You can see that restriction of left turns will force over 900 southbound
vehicles to turn at Route 10 or use some other route to their destination.
Restriction of northbound left turns is not as critical as southbound since
slightly over 300 vehicles want to go left at the two intersections. Also,
with a left turn restriction motorist would be forced to use Route 360
interchange which has adequate storage and is signalized.
The answer to the left turn problem at the two locations lies in other
types of traffic control. Therefore, it is recommended that the request
for left turn restrictions be denied.
We will be happy to keep you posted on the final outcome of this special
study and recommendations for improvement of these intersections.
Ve~f truly yours,
'E. Coving /,
Resident Engineer
ELC/vcn
DOUGLAS B. FUGATE, COMMISSIONER
G. L. BAUGHAN, LURAY, VA.
W. FRED DUCKWORTH, NORFOLK, VA.
LE ROY EAKIN, JR., McLEAN, VA.
EARL A. FITZPATRICK, ROANOKE, VA.
THOMAS R. GLASS, LYNCHBURG, VA.
RUFUS T. HAIRSTON, BRISTOL, VA.
OOUGLAS G. JANNEY, FREDERICKSBURG, VA.
ROBERT S. WEAVER, JR., VICTORIA, VA.
Ooy osw ^LwH- OF
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
1221 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, VA. 23219
November 18, 1971
JOHN E. HARWOOD,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHIEF ENGINEER
W. S. G. BRITTON.
DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION
A, K. HUNSBERGER, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
J. V. CLARKE. DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
H, G. BLUNDON,
DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMMING AND PLANNING
IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO
Traffic Safety - Intersection
Route 10 and Winfree Street
Chesterfield County
Mr. M. W. Burnett, Executive Secretary
Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
Chesterfield, Virginia
Dear Mr. Burnett:
It is a pleasure to reply to your letter of November 16
relative to a resolution of November 10 of your Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors requesting that a traffic signal be installed
on Route 10 at Winfree Street.
Please advise your Board members that a study of this
intersection has been made and the information secured is now
being analyzed. If traffic has increased to reach our warrants
I assure you that a signal will be authorized.
Also of interest in the same area is the Harrowgate Road
entrance to Route 10.' This location will be studied by our District
Traffic Engineer.
Please convey my thanks to members of your Board of Supervisors
for their interest in traffic safety.
Sincerely,
"~Doug/~ B. Fug te, C~ssioner
A HIGHWAY IS AS SAFE AS THE USER MAKES IT
Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
Chesterfield Courthouse,
Chesterfie]d, Virginia 23832
12649 Wlnfree Street,
Chester, Virginia 23831
November 11, 1971
Gent]emen:
On Tuesday, November 2, 197l, the citizens of Virginia voted in an
election to place candidates in governmental positions from which
they could ~serve the people.~j
A week later, we have a need for these elected officials to rise
up and ~serve the people.~'
A 13 year-old boy was struck and severely injured by an automobile
at the intersection of State Route #IO and Centralia Road (State
Route #145 - North) on November 10, 1971o At the time this was
written, it was doubtful if the boy would survive. Later, the
same day, another auto accident occUrred at the same intersection.
It is highly possible and probable that both accidents could have
been prevented by the installation of a traffic light at this
location; thereby, providing means to safely cross the intersection.
I realize that several surveys of the traffic at this intersection
have been made and by the cold,hard facts represented by numbers,
there is no justification for a light.
The question is - "How does the loss of a life or a life-time
crippled person become translated into cold, hard numbers?" It
is time to throw the statistics away and become compassionate with
a grief-stricken motherZ Install a traffic llght at this point -
give the crossing pedestrian or motorist a way to safely cross the
streetJ Do our best to correct a bad situation! Cost be hanged;
the medical expenses of that young boy will most likely be greater.
I am calling on the Board of Supervisors to take action and see that
a light is installed at the intersection of Route #10 and Centralla
Road,
! shall not rest until it is done!
Sincere]y yours,
Robert E. Chase
cc: Chesterfield News Journal
~OSEPH S, ~A~IES
AUDITOR
aUDITOR OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
P. O. Box 1295
RICHMOND 23210 JOHN M.PURCELL,JR,
ASSISTANT
November 8, 1971
To the Board of Supervisors
County of Chesterfield
Commonwealth of Virginia
Chesterfield, Virginia
Dear Sirs:
We have audited the accounts and records of
MACK T, DANIELS
COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
of the
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD
for the calendar year 1970, and present our report in the form of the statements
immediately following this communication.
The examination disclosed that the Clerk had made full accounting for
all funds of record coming into his custody~ He is to be commended for the excel~
lent manner in which his records had been prepared.
We have included in this report~ on Exhibit D, a statement of the funds
on deposit and under control of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County at December
31, 1970. The information with respect to the accounts was furnished to us by the
depositories. No audit of these funds has 'been made by us~ and the inclusion of
this statement, which is for the information of the Court~ should not be construed
as indicating that the funds have been audited.
The following statistical data concerning the activities of the Clerk's
office for the calendar year 1970 are presented for informative purposes:
Deeds recorded
Wills and administrations recorded
Chancery causes - New
Actions at law -New
Criminal cases tried
Hunting and fishing licenses sold
Marriage licenses issued
6,423
156
649
254
388
619
582
The records disclosed that the Clerk was bonded in the amount of $25,000
with the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland as surety°
We acknowledge the cooperation extended to us during the course of the
engagement.
JMP:dbm
gd:lO
Very ,£~uly yours,
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
At December 31~ 1970
Exhibit A
A S S E T
Cash in office
Cash on deposit with~
The Bank of Virginia~. Chester, Virginia
Returned check
Clerk of the Conrt~
Withdrawals in excess of earned fees~ commissioas~
Total
S
etc,
Collections for others
Recording equipment account
Unclassified receipts
Clerk of the Conrt~
Excess fees refundable to
the
Depository bonds (Schedule 1}
Advanced costs to record plats
Deferred credit
LIABILITIES
Commonwealth of Virginia
Sub-total
Total
IExhibit C~
February 15, 1962 W. J. Hornine $ 2~00
February 15~ 1962 Custom Craft Homes 2~50
$17, 011.50
27,404.36
7.00
18.00
$44, 440.86
71.43
841.00
3~43
40~ 155~50
$42~ 071,36
2~ 345.00
4~50~
20~00
$44~440~86
$ 4~50
STATEMENT OF REVENUE RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS
Year Ended December 31~ 1970
Exhibit A-1
Bal an ce Balance
Items January 1~ ,Receipts Disburse- December 31~
1 9 7 0 meats 1 9 7 0 '
Commonwealth of Virginia:
I 'Deeds
Deeds of conveyance
Tax on Wills and administrations
Chancery causes
Actions at law
Fines and forfeited recognizances
Costs in criminal cases
Proceeds of sale of forfeited property
Hunting and fishing license sales
Tax on marriage licenses
Commonwealth's attorney fees
County Courts.fees
Receipts for reportable violations - D~M~V~
State forest stamps
Total
County cC Chesterfield:
Fines and forfeited recognizances
Commonwealth's attorney fees
Land transfer fees
Laud redemptions, delinquent taxes,
penalty and interest
Fees - Sheriff and deputies
Arrest fees - County police
Fees -~ County library
Recordation taxes
Tax on deeds of conveyance
Total
Collections for Others
Recording Equipment Account
Unclassified Receipts
Clerk of the Court - Fees, commissions, etc.
Total receipts, disbursements
and balances
$156,281~10 $156,281,10
22,213~00 22~213.00
4~ 983~65 4~983~65
1~ 535o00 1~ 535 ~ O0
1, 310,00 1~ 310,00
213~755~59 213~755.59
2~ 978~08 2, 978,08
3, 841~65 3, 841,65
1~ 969, O0 1, 969~ O0
1~ 164~00 1~ 164~00
2~ 547~50 2, 547~50
40~691~00 40~691~00
47~715~00 47~715~00
299~00 299,00
$ - $501~283~57 $501~283~57 $ -
$ - $
4,127~27 $ 4~127,27 $ -
686~36 686~36 -
2~321,53 2~321~53 -
23~830~50 23~830o50 -
555,52 555~52 -
84~28 84,28
212,80 212~80 -
63~039,90 63~039,90 -
22~213,00 22~213~00 -
$ - $117,071~16 $117, 071~16 $ -
$ 71,43 $ 537~00 $ 537,00 71.43'
$ 1~716~00 $ 125~00 $ - $ 1~841.00
$ 2~43 $ 1~,00 $ - $ 3.43
$59~ 824~39 $118~ 955~96~ $138~ 642.85 $40~ 137.50a
$61 614~25 $737~ 973~69 $757~ 534~58 $42~ 053.36
Reconciliation with Exhibit A:
Clerk of the Court: (Exhibit A)
Excess fees refundable t'0 the Con~nonwealth of Virginia (Exhibit C) $40~155~50
Less - Withdrawals in excess of earned fees commissions, etc. 18.00 $40~137.50
See Exhibit B for details
5 28 67 Stuart P. Driskill
DEPOSITORY BONDS
At December 81~ 1970 Schedule 1
Date Style of Suit Amount
4 11 56 Moody Shaban vs Donald K. Frazier $ 10,00
4 11 57 Reginald J: Gehret vs Charles F, Walker 25,00
10 27 58 James David Massenburk vs Julius Lee 25°00
8 16 59 Henry Cs Sherman vs Ambrose L, Price 25.00
9 15 59 H~ H. Lewis, Jr vs Earl F. Davis 25.00
5 4 60 Bill Murphy Sons~ Incorporated vs James H, Congoon, Jr: 25°00
4 5 61 Ted Lansing Supply Company~ Inc. vs Dennis P. Brooks~, et al 25.00
4 5 61 Ted Lansing Supply Company,. Inc~ vs Dennis P, Brooks~ et al 25.00
11 19 62 Elizabeth Kidd vs Stuart W~ Kidd 50000
11 14 68 Commonwealth of Virginia vs Ralph James Allen 185~00
7 16 64 Tidewater Oil Company vs Frederick D, Gordon 25~00
10 1 64 Seaboard Finance Company vs J~ H. Shepperson, et al 25~00
7 15 65 Commonwealth of Virginia vs John Me Harris 50.00
t0 19 65 Electro Beam Corporation vs Gordon W~ Lang 25.00
5 10 67 Marie Phillips Realty Company vs Carl B, Whittington 25.00
8 12 68 Commonwealth of Virginia vs O~Neal Crockett 50.00
12 18 68 Shirley A~ Cordle vs Po R~ Wallace, Incorporated 25.00
2 28 69 Jarvis R~ Jenkins vs Melvin C, Friend 25.00
4 18 69 International Properties vs John D. McDonald, et al 25.00
5 6 69 I Carroll Finger Harris 100.00
5 16 69 Commonwealth of Virginia vs I Charles Emmett Gaswich 800.00
7 15 69 Carlyle F. Nunnally 500°00
8 5 69 Redisco, Incorporated vs Jerry L. Schwartz 25,00
11 18 69 Corm~onwealth of Virginia vs Garland Tucker Webb 100,00
5 14 70 M. W. Gill and Son, Incorporated vs Lewis A. Jenkins 25~00
5 14 70 Commonwealth of Virginia vs Willie E. Corneit 25.00
6 2.~ 7~ Richmond Ready Mix Corporation vs S. Clay,is Smith 25,00
10 16 70 Drs~ Kell~ Eagles;, Singer and Johnson vs James E~ Carey 500°00
11 16 70 Household Finance Corporation vs Grady L. Pennington, et al 25°00
ll 28 70 R~ B. McCurry vs Clyde Shore 25~00
Total $ 2~ ~45.00
STATEMENT OF COMPENSATION
Year Ended December 31~ 1970
Exhibit B
Income:
Fees and other remuneration:~ Deeds
Wills and administrations
Chancery causes
Actions at law
Criminal cases
Commissions and fees on land redemptions
Recording lands sold and delinquent
Commissions on State revenue
Commissions on hunting and fishing licenses
Issuing marriage licenses
Commissions on transfer fees
Financing statements, etc.
Miscellaneous
Salary paid by County - County clerk
Total
Expenses:
Compensation of employees~
Mrs. Petro D. Longest $ 9~,000G00
Mrs~ Margaret C~ Foster 8~530~00
Mrs~ Elsie H, Cotten 7~100~00
Mrs, Frances S. Wright 6~000G00
Mrs. Ella Allen Crnmp 5~400~00
Mrs, Joyce Anne Lumpkin 2~837o40
Mrs. Margo P. Beazley 4,024~78
Mrs. Linda J. Harrell 1,281~93
Miss Peggy Leigh Waldron 2,178~10
Mrs. Claire Ho Strother 1~474~65
Miss Nancy Jo Kachle 1~388~50
Mrs° Bessie V. Richter 1~289~00
0ther~
Postage 1,204~40
Surety bond premium 88.00
Robbery grid burglarly insurance premium 84,00
Professional liability insurance premium 411~00
Recording and indexing deeds 5~892,30
Income in Excess of Expenses Allowed
Excess Fees Refundable to Commonwealth of Virginia (Exhibit C)
Net Compensation oC Clerk
$ 47, 193.50
2.~ 665, O0
14~ 355.65
- 4~ 438.25
16,152,25
1~ 825.64
124.10
16~, 160~08
115.25
2~ 910o00
257~97
1,530~00
9~ 728~27
1~500~00
$118, 955~96
58, 134,06
$ 60~821o90
40~ 155~50
$ 20,666~40
EXCESS FEES REFUNDABLE TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
At December 31~ 1970
Exhibit C
In come:
From all sources {Exhibit Bi
Allowances:
Compensation allowed by statute - Per annum
Allowance for salary paid by county - Per annum
Total compensation allowable - Per annum
Expenses allowed by Compensation Board
Total allowances
Excess Fees - Year ended December 31, 1970
$19~166~40
1~500.00
$20~666~40
58~134~06
$118~955.96
78~ 800°46
$ 40~ 155~50
FUNDS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CIRCUIT COURT ON DEPOSIT
ACCORDING TO THE RECORDS OF THE DEPOSITORIES
Exhibit D
At December 31~ 1970 Page 1
Date
Opened Style of Case Amount
The Bank of Virginia~ Richmond, Virginia:
Thomas Brauch. etc~, et al
Giles Bland Miller~ et al
A, Devoe Blankenship. et als
County of
vs Valentine F, Charles, et al
Chesterfield Edward McSweeney
Gregory
Alden Charles Wallace
Howard h Atkinson
Stanley Crump vs Eula B. Lee et al
Con~nonwealth of Virginia vs Samuel P. Howell
A A. Wood
County of Gladys L. Wood
Chesterfield vs Robert C~ Cressy
Jerry G. Watkins
J. Ryland Goode vs Margaret Booker Goode
Commonwealth of Virginia vs Frances S~ Gornto
Virginia El'ectric and Power Company vs Sarah Turner Green
John E. Hultiquest
County of Forest A. Tra%or and W. L. Tralor
Chesterfield W, Barrett Disney, Jr.
C~ H. Venner
Commonwealth of Virginia and County of Chesterfield vs heirs of
Lucy Howlett
Edwin R~ Bookman
Alma C. Bookman
John M, Lesner
Paul W, Stagg
John P, Schoenfeld
County of vs Irae O:Kennon
Chesterfield Wiltia~n E. Davis
James Fo HicksOn
Vera C~ Jolly
Lula B, Badgett
Mitchell Well and Pump Company
Linwood Nunnally, Administrator - J. M. Turner, et al vs Arthur L. Davis
Albert D. Talboz vs Ruby Mae Talbot Powell
American Telephone and Telegraph Company of Virginia vs Re -Holland. Inc.
County of [Herman Lo Coffey
%hesterfi~l~ ~s ~R~ ~ HQnbarrier Company.
~ommonwealth Naturai ~as ~orooration vs ~enry Clay Turner, et al
Uounty of Chesterfield vs Thomas A. Sheeham ·
Commonwealth of Virginia vs Frank A. Rollins~ et al
Eleanor H~ Ewell '
Albert S~ Karvelis
J~ H~ Benson
Robert C~ Newman
County of William L~ Wray
Chesterfield vs Laura Croeslampe
Maurice M: Mills
Mrs: Tonie Elkp
Roland E, Britton
Joe Vaden
J~ Ivan and Laura M, Archer
Forrest J, WatsOn vs William Watson~ et al
Samuel F, Brooks vs County of Chesterfield
James E, Branch et al
Harold Robinson Bey, et al
County of Richard H. and Patricia B. Hamilton
Chesterfield vs Sybil Valentine~ et al
Curtis N, Cosner and wife
John D~ ~ishman t al vs County of Chesterfield
Samuel M, Douglas, et al vs C.ounty of Chesterfield
Charles L, Grubb vs County of Chesterfield
Marvin L. Harrison et al vs County Of Chesterfield
James C~ Hobbs vs County of Chesterfield
Roy S. Bensley, Jro, et al vs County of Chesterfield
James L~ Johnson. et al vs County of Chesterfield
County of Chesterfield vs Roy D. Lea, et al
Bummer G. and Harriett Maddek vs County of Chesterfield
Franklin L Partin, et al vs County of Chesterfield
County of Chesterfield vs William A~ Scherer? Jr.
County of Chesterfield vs Lewis W~ Talbott, et al
County of Chesterfield vs M~ W~ Trammell. et al
County of Chesterfield vs L~ O: Scott.. et al
Checking accounts~
8 12 60
6 i0 66
10 3 66
3 30 66
11 3 66
3 14 66
7 28 66
11 7 66
12 21 66
12 21 66
12 21 66
12 21 66
11 17 66
3 3 66
7 27 66
5 24 67
5 24 67
5 24 67
5 24 67
6 267
9 I 67
9 167
10 2 67
10 2 67
10 2 67
10 2 67
10 2 67
10 2 67
11 24 67
12 11 67
12 11 67
.2 10 67
6 23 67
4 14 67
3 22 67
4 1067
1 11 68
1 23 68
4 3 68
6 13 68
6 13 68
7 25 68
7 25 68
7 25 68
8 2268
8 22 68
8 22 68
10 29 68
8 7 68
12 24 69
11 25 69
11 25 69
2 24 69
9 11 69
11 25 69
6 4 69
11 25 69
12 24 69
7 2 69
12 24 69
11 25 69
7 2 70
7 2 70
5 29 70
7 3 70
7 2 7O
7 2 7O
7 2 70
7 3 70
$ 8~ 000, O0
50,00
25,00
50 o00
1~. 334,00
50.00
25~00
25~00
438~00
2,00
50,00
25.00
25.00
50.00
222,20
488.05
2~ 320.00
25,00
25.00
25~00
220.00
242,49
25.00
100~00
25,00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25 ~00
50,00
100,00
100.00
50.00
19~ 296.40
868.68
3~000.00
25~00
500,00
5.00
25,00
11,29
300.00
50.00
25,00
50.00
35.00
35.00
35.00
25,00
48.00
500.00
84.00
8~ 076.46
5~.oo
2~.00
50,00
25.00
105~ 550.00
150.00
25.00
125.00
50.00
50.00
50,00
50.00
35.00
25.00
90.00
130.00
35.00
55.00
25,00
50.00
FUNDS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CIRCUIT COURT ON DEPOSIT
ACCORDING TO THE RECORDS OF THE DEPOSITORIES
Exhibit D
At December 31~ 1970 Page 2
Date
Opened Style of Case Amount
The Bank oF Virginia, Riehmond~ Virginia: Concluded
SaTin accounts
8 f 60
8 12 60 $
8 12 60
8 12 60
8 12 60
8 12 60
8 12 60
12 28 60
8 12 60
1 5 62
4 5 63
6 5 63
8 25 64
4 24 64
7 2 64
9 964
11 5 64
5 4 64
5 7 62
4 30 65
9 14 65
9 14 65
721 65
9 14 65
8 17 65
6 4 69
12 24 69
6 4 69
12 24 69
12 24 69
11 25 69
3 21 69
12 24 69
10 3 69
12 24 69
12 24 69
12 24 69
6 469
I
J, J~ Bynst
Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike Authority vs Marie Miller Jackson
fP;M~ Cooke
State Highway Commissioner J. Anderson vs IRichard L. Johnson~ et als
~enneth C. Pgrry vs Bear Brothers, Incorporated. et als
letcher F. oessnp~s heirs vs Fletcher J~ JessuP~s heirs
Commonwealth of Virginia vs Glen S. Orren
Robert R, Saunder~ St, acquire waste lands Inc.,et als
George L, Richardson and W E Wiltshire. Trustees vs Southern Broadcasters,
Commonwealth Natural Gas vs Henry Clay' Turner, et als
Commonwealth of V.~rginia and County of Chesterfield:
Denning
Circuit Court Gl Chesterfield vs Cecil N, Harwood, lnfant, et als vs Luby/
County of Chesterfield 7s B. W~ Waldrop~ et al
Commonwe<h of Virginia vs heirs of William S~ Miller, et al
ourtls F~ Rogers
Jefferson Dayis Development Corporation
County of Leonard Thomas Wade
Chesterfield vs Mrs~ Fern M~ Holder
Charles Swarm
Joseph Steward
Howard R, Patterson, et als vs Marilyn Irela~d~ et als
Rebecca J. Speeks.. an infant vs Juanita P. Speeks, an infant
Edwin F. Rosinski
Dorothy May Philips Furman
County of Ellett Proper-ty
Chesterfield vs Stanley Smith, Jr.
Wirt H~ Barksdale
Edith E. Armistead
H. Clem Johnson., et al vs County of Chesterfield
Christine T Lumpkin vs County of Chesterfield
Walter J, Lawson~ et al vs County of Chesterfield
Rachel A: Mays vs County of Chesterfield
John P, Pinsaio, 'etc. vs County of Chesterfield
Daniel A. Patron, et al vs County of Chesterfield
Richmond Metropolitan Authority vs Willie Ford, et al
Emily Go Rowe vs County of Chesterfield
Berrie M. Ross vs County of Chesterfield
Otto B. Stargardt, etc. vs County of Chesterfield
James S~ Tufty vs County of Chesterfield
Olin L, Taylor vs County of Chesterfield
Louis Allen Wilson, Jr., vs County of Chesterfield
The Central National Bank, Richmond, Virginia: Dorman~ Ledger~ checking accounts
7 2 48 Aaron Day vs John Paul Day~ incompetent ~12-082-207
7 27 53 Oussie C, Haynes vs Leonard Haynes, etc, #12-082-215
Checking accoun,:s:
12 4 62 Re ~, Thomas Brown et als vs Leslie Brown #12009185
11 28 61 Re ~ James W; Gilliam, et als vs Atha Brown, Jr, #12009127
9 7 65 M~ E Gordon vs Betty Jo Gordon Wingfield #12088736
6 19 69 Robert Cridlin iloyd:~s Execu-;ors vs Thomas Gregory, et als ~12-079-117
United Virginia Bank/State-Planters, Richmond, Virginia:
Donman~ checking accounts iPrior to}
1 1 56 P V~ Cogbilt. Clerk vs Oscar Banks
12 30 55 Heirs of Robert Michens
12 30 55 Barbara L Powell vs Powell
12 30 55 Waverly P, Nunnally vs Robert L Nunnally
8 21 58 Estate of Chastine Jasper
1i 3 59 A. S Gresham~ ~r,~ vs Richard S. Mosely
7 26 60 Thomas Lewis vs Kate Mitchell, et al
9 4 62 Nora Rehberger vs Mary Alice Dowries
Checking accounts
5 21 63
8 17 66
12 24 69
1 20 70
5 9 60
8 I~ 70
11 27 70
2 24 67
First and Merchants National Bank, Colonial Heights Branch, Colonial Heights~ Virginia:
Checking actounts~
6 10 59 Board of Public Welfare vs Eugene W, Whitmore~ et als #02516741
4 8 60 A~ W. and Irvin Hamner vs June p. /%ylor. et als #02516712
4 5 61 Fred N~ Sheppard, et al vs Be~n~ Thompson et al #02516738
11 18 64 Joseph J, Fergerson~ Jr,, et al vs Viqtoria Bridgefort, et al #02516819
'5 1 59 Robert L- Vincent vs Oas Vincent et als #02516725
4 19 60 Robert L: Vincent vs Gus Vincent et als #02516783 ,
Chase Construction Company, Incorporated vs unknown consent, Heirs, Devi.sees
and/or successors in interest of Ohio Johnson. deceased
Wilbert L~ Michens. et al vs United Brothers and' Sons Society
William O. Hicks~ ~t al vs Donna K, Hicks~ et al
Josegh D~ Jones~ et al vs Albert Redd an infant, et al
Clifford Grey Fraacella Grey vs ~ewis Supply Company
Sarah Turner Sinclair vs Brook-Hill Heights Corp~ Ltd, Coghill
Sarah Turner Sinclair, et al vs Marcus A, Coghill also known as MoA /
Bessie Spencer Williams vs Ida May Troy, et al
1~ 489.70
11.25
150.00
1~ 285.00
1~ 500.00
500.00
1~ 500.00
88.00
261.13
945~00
3~ 408~67
125.00
121.78
40.00
1~ 084.00
25~00
115~00
840.00
1~ 416.00
60.85
1~ 21~62
35,00
2~ 442.60
50.00
2, 184.00
25.00
161~ 00
35.00
1 O0. O0
25.00
35.00
50,00
25.00
5~427o00
50.00
75.00
175.00
25,00
25.00
6, 050~00
158.00
260.83
1,-168.06
329.93
99.69
2 730.04
143,69
61,44
47,58
1'.85
499.72
599.47
710.49
107.08
.321.06
87.76
:531.oo
962.42
15.00
638.67
6~ 000,00
25.25
1.00
110.67
699.92
880.51
308,03
191.79
FUNDS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CIRCUIT COURT ON DEPOSIT
ACCORDIN6 TO THE RECORDS OF THE DEPOSITORIES
At December 31~ 1970
Exhibit D
Page $
Date
Opened Style of Case Amount
First and Merchants National Bank, Richmond~ Virginia:
Dormant checking accountl
1 10 63 Raymond S, Cox vs George Clement Arhart et als $ 639.63
Checking accounts:
8 I 25 Cobb, executor vs Woolridge, et als -23
5 29 27 W~ A Eastman vs F~ M Eastman, et als 2~95
8 1 25 As Iv Jones, guardian vs John W. Jones, et als 104,98
8 1 25 Rook and wife vs Brittons, et als 27°67
Savings accounts
7 31 67 Bayler, Olivia, Epps, Barksdale, et al vs Wallace Harris, et al 1,.302~38
4 27 67 Medical College of Virginia vs Phyllis Reid 1,397~34
First and Merchants National Bank, Petersburg Savings Branch, Petersburg, Virginia:
Checking account
12 4 48 I In the suit of PerkinsonOs creditors, et als vs
Circuit Court I Perkinson executor, et als Harland, et als vs 102,06
of Chesterfield Perkins~on s executor~ et als #02516770 ~
12 4 48 County, Virginia In the suit of R A~ Wilson vs J.A:Wilson #02516767 85~96
Union Bank and Trust Company, Amelia, Virginia:
Checking accoun t,~
- Circuit Court of Amelia County, Virginia vs Sadie W. Jeter, et als vs
Mary ~ Craddock, et als #21403239 28.38
Savings accoun t~
1 15 41 P. V~ Cogbill, Executor vs Martin, et al #5181 3~293,98
Franklin Federal Savings and Loan Association, Richmond, Virginia:
Savings accounts:
1 20 38 R~ Mallory vs Robertson, executor, etco #270-7 2~900~00
1 2 38 R. Mallory vs Robertson~ executor, etCo #253-6 355~32
Richmond National Bank, Richmond,: Virginia:
Checking account
10 15 56 Bernice Vaughan vs Vincent Lo Gregory #201-70-955 70~73
Bank of Powhatan, Powhatan, Virginia:
Checking accounts:
4 3 63 [Walter Clark 125.0.0
4 3 63 County of Chesterfield vsIMari°n A? Gee. Sr. 25~00
10 20 62 R L~ Broach 155.00
The Bank of Chesterfield, Richmond, Virginia:
Checking accounts:
2 6 70
2 25 70
2 9 70 Commonwealth of Virginia and
7 1 69
2 25 70 County of Chesterfield
6 26 69
7 17 70
2 370
6 26 69
6 26 69
2 25 70
2 4 70
2 6 70
2 12 70
2 25 70
2 9 70
6 18 69
2 25 70
6 20 69
6 18 69
2 17 70
Mrs. J. H.H. Black, etco #1-502-301
Amy Bolling, etCo #1-502-557
Simon Branch, etCo #1-502-395
vs Jean L. Campbell, etCo #1-501-917
The unknown children of Minnie Clark
#1-502-476
William Franklin #1-591-887
The Circuit Court of Chesterfield County ~n the case of Heinie Ayscue,
et als vs Sarah Shell Golden. et als Chancery #6757 #1-700-677
Greater Virginia Realty corp,, etc
#1-502-220
Hannibal Henderson~ etc, #1-501-895
Commonwealth of Virginia and Henry Henderson. etc. #1-501-860
County of Chesterfield vs .
William Hughes~ etc~ #1-502-549
Chesterfield Land and Timbers vs Ella Jezter, etc~ et al #1-700-286
Albert Johnson~ etc, #1-502-344
John D~ Johnson~ etc, Yl-502-425
Elizabeth Johnson~ etc~ #1-502-514
Commonwealth of Virginia and William Lockett, etc, #1-502-417
County of Chesterfield vs Malinda Mayse. ezc~ #1-501-801
Ann A~ Nickels~ etc~ #1-502-530
George D, Patch, etc. #1-501-852
Potter Nettles #1-501-739
Rena Prince, etc~ #1-502-336
1~553~89
334~88
191,30
3~ 374 ~ 75
2~ 606.69
2~ 237,14
2,976.66
252.94
969,17
2~ 582.05
1~ 891.98
1~ 466.67
736.99
2~166.43
1, 328.1'7
1~ 803, Ii
2~ 498.14
839.86
2~ 325.14
9.80
279.12
FUNDS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CIRCUIT COURT ON DEPOSIT
ACCORDING TO THE RECORDS OF THE DEPOSITORIES
At December 31~ 1970
Exhibit D
Page 4
Date
Opened Style of Case
~duount
2 4
2 25
2 6
2 9
'Savings
10 30
The Bank of Chesterfield~ Richmond~ Virginia:
Checking accounts~ Concluded
2 9 70
2 25 70
Commonwealth of Virginia and
70 County of Chesterfield
70
7O
7O
Concluded
VS
Leola Rawlerson~ etc, {1-502-379 $
The Richmond & Tidewater Coal &
Railroad #1-700-882
Nellie J. Robinson, etc. #1-502-289
Lewis Thompson~ etc, #1-502-522
Elliott L, Threat, etc, #1-502-852
Richard Washington~ etc. #1-502-409
ac corm
70 Mack T~ Daniels, Clerk Circuit Court of Chesterfield County,
for William Nelson Holloman, infant #4101
Savings Certificates~
10 30 70 Mack T~ Daniels, Clerk Circuit Court of Chesterfield Coanty~
for William Nelson Holloman, infant #654
Pioneer Federal Savings and Loan Association~ Chester~ Virginia:
Savings Certi ficate~'
8 26 69 Maria Griffin Alexander~ an infant vs Aetna Life Insurance Company
#C2-240
Sav~ngs account~
9 3 69 Maria Griffin Alexander, Circuit Court of Chesterfield #22239
Metropolitan National Bank~ Richmond~ Virginia:
Savings account~
5 28 70 Henshaw Company, Inc. vs Linwood C. Barthurst, an infant #279888
Virginia
Virginia~
Total
408.08
5~063.63
1~144.16
1,531~96
439°02
898°83
17o75
4~700.00
600.00
714.64
1~488.00
$280~ 323.68
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD
INTRACOUNTY CORRESPONDENCE
October 13, 1971
TO:
F ROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. M. W. Burnett
J. R. Condrey~~/
Conversion from IBM 360/20 to Burroughs B 2520 Computer
We want to switch from IBM 360/20 computer and other
data processing equipment to a Burroughs 2520 system. We want
to sign a 5 year lease with Burroughs before 11/14/1971 to take
advantage of the current price freeze, to avoid any future increase
in rental equipment and to have new system installed by 3/1/72.
We want to change systems because:
We will have to add a second shift and rent
additional equipment if we keep the IBM 360
With Burroughs, we will have more capability
without increase in cost for 71-72 and lower
cost in 72-73
With Burroughs we can convert our present programs
(nearly 300) without the major reprogramming job
required if we go to IBM 360/25
Burroughs will permit DP to process more than one
computer job at a time. Our present equipment
will not permit this
Burroughs will provide programming and systems
help as part of the rental whereas IBM charges
$22.50 for this service
JRC:gc
September 20, 1971
Mr. M. W. Burnett
Executive Secretary
Chesterfield County
Chesterfield, Virginia
Dear Sir:
I have made an evaluation of our present computer to those of
other manufacturers using cost as the .guide line. The ~present
computer has limitations in the size of Pr0grams that may be
written. It is also a Basic R.P.G. Language machine. Each job
must be completed before another can be started.
There are many applications that could be transferred to Data
~Processing, such as setting up a better Budget and Expenditure
Control With encumbrances. The SchOol Administration wants to
set up personnel and expand their Payroll. They also want to
set up Inventory control for their TeXtbooks, Science equipment,
and Warehouse Supplies. They would like to have all schools
scheduled and set up Grade Reporting and Attendance Reports.
The National Cash Register Company reCommended a Century 200 with
two Tape and two DiSk Drives. Their service was not rated the
beSt, nor was their Software support.
The HoneyWell Corporation recommends H-115. The company is
having an Administrative problem and I did not feel it was
advisable to get involved with this type of problem.
Sperry Rand recommends UNIVAC 9400. This would give some multi-
processing and the ability to upgrade without majorrepr0gramming.
Their service was not rated as high as the service We now have.
The 9400 has larger Disk Packs and faster Tape Drives. It would
be faster and have more through-put than our preSent equipment.
I.B.M. recommended the 360/25. This would give faster internal
speeds and larger Disk Packs. This would require reprogramming
of all present jobs before equipment could be installed.
The Burroughs Corporation recommends B2520. This equipment
supports all major languages, and our present programs can be
converted to Cobol wi%hoUr repr0gramming. This would increase
through-put with multi-programming capability. The service and
SoftWare 'support offered by Burroughsis highlyrecommended.
The 'tapes wOuld be 1600 B.P.I. instead of 800 B.P.I which'
doubles the number of items stored on each tape.
I woUld recommend that the County of Chesterfield replace the
~resent_. I.B.M.~ 360/20 , , with a Burroughs B2520.
This would give more through-put because of multi-programming,
faster internal speeds and double the speed of the Tape and Disk
Drives. BurroughS is currently operating under a Bundled Policy.
This would give better utilization of our Programming staff and
Computer OPerators, beCause both could use the equiPment at the
same 'time 'for some jobs. This would also give one more Tape
Drive for a better utilization of Tape and Disk Operations. The
increase in cost .over present equipment is $260.00 per month.
Edward C. Thacker
DirleCtor, Data Processing
"
/.