03-16-2021 Work Session Agenda Packet
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
WORK SESSION
Tuesday, March 16, 2021 – 4:30 PM
Elections and Training Center
18 Depot Street,
Chatham, Virginia 24531
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER (4:30 PM)
2. ROLL CALL
3. AGENDA ITEMS TO BE ADDED
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
For the citizens’ convenience, all Work Session and Committee Meetings are now being
recorded and can be viewed on the same YouTube location as the Board of Supervisor’s
Business Meetings. Please remember that the Board’s Work Session is designed for
internal Board and County Staff communication, discussion, and work. It is not a
question and answer session with the audience. Accordingly, during the Work Session,
no questions or comments from the audience will be entertained. Respectfully, any
outbursts or disorderly conduct from the audience will not be tolerated and may result in
the offending person’s removal from the Work Session. As a reminder, all County
citizens, and other appropriate parties as designated by the Board’s Bylaws, are permitted
to make comments under the Hearing of the Citizens’ Section of tonight’s Business
Meeting.
5. PRESENTATIONS
6. STAFF, COMMITTEE, AND/OR CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER REPORTS
a. Small Business Assistance Fund Update (Staff Contact: Matthew D. Rowe); (5
minutes)
b. Gunn Garland CDBG Grant Update (Staff Contact: Emily S. Ragsdale); (5 minutes)
c. Solar Taxation Update (Staff Contacts: Emily S. Ragsdale and the Honorable Robin
C. Goard); (20 minutes)
d. Reassessment Update (Staff Contact: Nicholas A. Morris); (30 minutes)
Work Session - March 16, 2021
7. BUSINESS MEETING DISCUSSION ITEMS
8. CLOSED SESSION
a. Consultation with legal counsel employed or retained by a public body regarding
specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel. (Staff
Contact: J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.)
(1) Legal Authority: Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A)(8)
Subject Matters: Cool Branch/Franklin EMS Agreement; Keeling
VFD Board of Directors Mass Resignation; Tax
Legal Issue
Purpose: Legal Consultations/Advice Regarding the Same
b. Discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for a public purpose, or
of the disposition of publicly held real property, where discussion in an open meeting
would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public
body. (Staff Contact: J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.)
(1) Legal Authority: Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A)(3)
Subject Matters: Jail Land; Convenience Center Expansion Land
Purpose: Discussion of Related Property Acquisitions for a
Public Purpose
9. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION AND CLOSED SESSION CERTIFICATION
a. Closed Session Certification
10. ADJOURNMENT
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title: Small Business Assistance Fund Update (Staff Contact: Matthew D.
Rowe); (5 minutes)
Staff Contact(s): Matthew D. Rowe
Agenda Date: March 16, 2021 Item Number: 6.a
Attachment(s):
Reviewed By:
The County has been awarded a $330,000 Grant from the Virginia Department of Housing and
Community Development to provide local Grants of $15,000 maximum for small businesses
showing personal protective equipment needs and related supplies or rental assistance to rapidly
and safely reopen or remain open due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. County Economic
Development Staff will provide the Board an update of related Grant activities for the months of
January and February 2021. For informational purposes only. No action required.
6.a
Packet Pg. 3
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title: Gunn Garland CDBG Grant Update (Staff Contact: Emily S. Ragsdale);
(5 minutes)
Staff Contact(s): Emily S. Ragsdale
Agenda Date: March 16, 2021 Item Number: 6.b
Attachment(s): 2021.3.2 - Gunn Garland Infrastructure PER - Preliminary
2021 Cost Est Housing Budget Gunn Garland Planning Grant
Reviewed By:
Emily S. Ragsdale, Community Development Director, will provide the Board a Gunn-Garland
CDBG Grant update. For the Board’s review, attached are related documents. A legally
required related Public Hearing will be held at the Board’s March Business Meeting.
6.b
Packet Pg. 4
WPPDC 2020-13 #50131749
GUNN GARLAND ROAD UTILITIES
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
Department of Housing and Community Development
Community Development Block Grant
FEBRUARY, 2021
SUBMITTED BY
Dewberry Engineers Inc.
551 Piney Forest Road
Danville, Virginia 24540
434.549.8504
SUBMITTED TO
Pittsylvania County
PO Box 426
Chatham, Virginia 24531
434.432.1768
PRELIMINARY –
FOR REVIEW ONLY
6.b.a
Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 2021.3.2 - Gunn Garland Infrastructure PER - Preliminary (2398 : Gunn Garland CDBG Grant Update (Staff Contact: Emily S.
WPPDC 2020-13
#50131749
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
2. PROJECT PLANNING 4
2.1 Location 4
2.2 Environmental Resources Present 4
2.3 Population Trends 4
2.4 Community Engagement 4
3. EXISTING FACILITIES 5
3.1 Location Map 5
3.2 History 5
3.3 Condition of Existing Facilities 5
4. NEED FOR PROJECT 8
4.1 Health, Sanitation and Security 8
4.2 Aging Infrastructure 8
5. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 8
5.1 Description 9
Water Alternatives 9
Sewer Alternatives 9
5.2 Design Criteria 9
5.3 Map 10
5.4 Environmental Impacts 10
5.5 Land Requirements 13
5.6 Potential Construction Problems 14
5.7 Sustainability Considerations 14
5.8 Cost Estimates 14
6.b.a
Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 2021.3.2 - Gunn Garland Infrastructure PER - Preliminary (2398 : Gunn Garland CDBG Grant Update (Staff Contact: Emily S.
GUNN GARLAND ROAD UTILITIES PRELMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VA
2
6. SELECTED ALTERNATIVE 17
6.1 Life Cycle Cost Analysis 17
6.2 Total Project Cost Estimate 17
6.3 Non-Monetary Factors 18
6.4 Permit Requirements 18
6.5 Project Schedule 18
6.6 Conclusions and Recommendations 18
FIGURES
2.1 – Project Area 4
3.3 – Existing Conditions Photos 5
5.3.1 – Water Alternatives 11
5.3.2 – Sewer Alternatives 12
6.0 – Selected Alternatives 19
TABLES
5.5.1 – Private Property Easements for Water & Sewer Connections 13
5.5.2 – Sewer Alternative #1 Easements 13
5.5.3 – Sewer Alternative #2 Easements 13
5.8.1 – Water Alternative #1 Cost Estimate 14
5.8.2 – Water Alternative #2 Cost Estimate 15
5.8.3 – Sewer Alternative #1 Cost Estimate 15
5.8.4 – Sewer Alternative #2 Cost Estimate 16
5.8.5 – Road Improvements Cost Estimate 16
6.1.1 – Life Cycle Cost Analysis 17
6.2.1 – Total Project Cost Estimate 17
6.5.1 – Preliminary Schedule 18
6.b.a
Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 2021.3.2 - Gunn Garland Infrastructure PER - Preliminary (2398 : Gunn Garland CDBG Grant Update (Staff Contact: Emily S.
WPPDC 2020-13
#50131749
3
GUNN GARLAND ROAD UTILITIES
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
1. Executive Summary
Pittsylvania County Community Action, Inc. (PCCA) Housing Department identified the Gunn Garland Road
neighborhood, located due east of Danville, as in need of improved living conditions. There are approximately fifteen
(15) residents indicating interest in the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, which includes bringing homes within Section 8 Housing Standards, as
well as access to public water and sewer. These improvements will improve the overall health and living conditions of
residents in the Gunn Garland Road community.
PCCA presented this project to the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors in May 2018, was granted approval to
apply for a CDBG for funding, was awarded the funds, and Pittsylvania County will be serving as the financial agent
for the project. PCCA has since conducted the initial public meeting, formed a management team, completed
neighborhood surveys, and performed preliminary infrastructure assessments. The summary report for the project
indicates need for housing rehabilitation, improvements to wells, septic systems and surface drainage. Potential
upgrade to the residential road may also be included.
This preliminary engineering report (PER) will focus solely on the water and sewer improvements and includes an
estimate for road pavement improvements as well.
The designated project area is not currently served by public water and sewer. Water exists north along Tom Fork
Road and can be extended to Gunn Garland Road. Through a CDBG project in 2010, water and sanitary sewer
infrastructure was provided to Witcher Road, which is approximately 1/2 mile east of Gunn Garland Road. A desktop
review of the topography in the area indicates that gravity sewer can be extended to tie-in to the pump station
constructed as part of the 2010 Witcher Road project. Easements would be required to extend gravity sewer from
Gunn Garland Road to Witcher Road. The considered water and sewer alternatives have an estimated project cost
as shown in the summary table below:
Water Alt. 1 8" Waterline to Customers - Total Project Cost $608,800 Alt. 2 8" Loop to Ringgold Road - Total Project Cost $941,500 Sewer
Alt. 1 Gravity to Witcher Road - Total Project Cost $885,900
Alt. 2 Gravity to New Pump Station - Total Project Cost $972,900
The recommended alternatives are Water Alternative #2 and Sewer Alternative #1. If funds allow, the water loop
back to Ringgold Road will have improved water quality by eliminating a dead-end service and will provide increased
reliability with bi-directional potable supply to the neighborhood. The sewer extension to Witcher Road, assuming
private property easements can be obtained, will be the most efficient use of existing facilities. There is adequate
capacity at the existing Witcher Road Pump Station to serve Gunn Garland Road.
6.b.a
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 2021.3.2 - Gunn Garland Infrastructure PER - Preliminary (2398 : Gunn Garland CDBG Grant Update (Staff Contact: Emily S.
GUNN GARLAND ROAD UTILITIES PRELMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VA
4
2. Project Planning
2.1 Location
Gunn Garland Road (SR1024) is located in the Ringgold community within Pittsylvania County, Virginia, just east of
the City of Danville. The project area intersects both Tom Fork Road (SR 655) and US Highway 58.
2.2 Environmental Resources Present
The project area is generally residential and agricultural, with some light commercial (i.e. churches, fire stations, etc.).
There is a large farm that borders the rear property lines (easternmost) along Gunn Garland Road. Due to the nature
of the existing conditions, the only environmental concerns are general erosion and sediment control during
construction, which will be mitigated by implementation of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
stormwater best management practices (BMPs).
2.3 Population Trends
Based on the US Census Bureau, there has been a 5% reduction in population in Pittsylvania County since 2010.
There is no need to plan for future growth and development in the project area.
2.4 Community Engagement
A management team has been established for this project, which includes representatives from Pittsylvania County,
VDOT, Pittsylvania County Community Action (PCCA) and the community. Based on resident surveys obtained by
PCCA, there are 15 homes interested in participating in the project for which the utility improvements will serve. This
team will be responsible for keeping residents involved throughout project development. The volunteer fire
department building at the intersection of Tom Fork Road and Gunn Garland Road may be a potential meeting
location for residents so that they can walk or have a short walk to attend.
PROJECT AREA
FIGURE 2.1: Project area includes Gunn Garland Road and Gunn Garland Court.
6.b.a
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 2021.3.2 - Gunn Garland Infrastructure PER - Preliminary (2398 : Gunn Garland CDBG Grant Update (Staff Contact: Emily S.
WPPDC 2020-13
#50131749
5
3. Existing Facilities
3.1 Location Map
Refer to Exhibits 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 on pages 11-12 which show the existing water and sewer utilities in the vicinity. An
existing 12” waterline is located along Tom Fork Road and crosses Gunn Garland Road, which is approximately 850'
north of the intersection of Gunn Garland Road with Gunn Garland Court. VDOT right-of-way is available for
installation of a new water main. An 8” gravity sewer exists along Witcher Road to the east which discharges to the
Witcher Road Pump Station, and wastewater is ultimately pumped to the City of Danville via forcemain along US 58.
3.2 History
The homes along Gunn Garland Road are served by private wells and drainfields. It is assumed that the wells and
drainfields were installed the same time the homes were constructed, which ranges from 1940-1996, or 25-81 years
old. It was noted by the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) in 2019 that at least one property shared a well with an
adjacent property. It is uncertain if this situation has been resolved, but it could create a problem if the properties
were to be sold to another party and an easement for access to the well had not been previously granted. Generally,
there are shrink/swell soils in the area which are not conducive for properly functioning drainfields.
The Witcher Road sewer and pump station were installed in 2010 as a part of a CDBG project.
3.3 Condition of Existing Facilities
Through discussions with the Virginia Department of Health (VDH), Pittsylvania County Office of Environmental Health, it was noted that there was one (1) well replacement in recent years for a home on Gunn Garland Road. In addition, Pittsylvania County Service Authority (PCSA) was aware of one (1) property that shared a well with an adjacent property. The Witcher Road Pump Station was inspected by Dewberry as a part of the 2019 PCSA Pump Stations Condition Assessment project. There is a well-maintained access road and well-established stormwater features on site. The station is surrounded by a lockable fence with a wooden pump control rack covered with a wood truss roof. The station was in sound condition structurally and mechanically. The hatches, rails and piping are in good condition and the site lighting is operational. A flow meter is installed in the valve vault, however it was never wired to the control panel for a read out. The leads to the device were found unconnected in the control panel. The station has a level pressure transducer for pump control, but no back up floats. The pumps installed are Wilo, designed for 182 gpm, 125’ TDH and 22.6 HP. A drawdown test was performed, and Pump 1 delivered 223 gpm at 104’ TDH, and Pump 2 delivered 224 gpm at 96’ TDH. The pumps appear to be pumping at a higher rate and lower pressure than their design point.
Pump Station Valve Vault
6.b.a
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 2021.3.2 - Gunn Garland Infrastructure PER - Preliminary (2398 : Gunn Garland CDBG Grant Update (Staff Contact: Emily S.
GUNN GARLAND ROAD UTILITIES PRELMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VA
6
Pump Control Panel & Junction Box Utility Meter
The existing drainage ditches on either side of the road are blocked with debris, ponded in some areas, and generally need redeveloped to promote positive drainage downstream. Some of the storm culverts under driveways are deteriorated or broken.
Flooded Storm Culvert Due to Poor Drainage Debris Backing up Driveway Culvert
6.b.a
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 2021.3.2 - Gunn Garland Infrastructure PER - Preliminary (2398 : Gunn Garland CDBG Grant Update (Staff Contact: Emily S.
WPPDC 2020-13
#50131749
7
Ditch Washed Out without Positive Slope Drainage Ditch from Gunn Garland Court Gunn Garland Road is paved; however, Gunn Garland Court is not. There are numerous potholes and damage to the Gunn Garland Court road.
Gunn Garland Road Gunn Garland Road
6.b.a
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 2021.3.2 - Gunn Garland Infrastructure PER - Preliminary (2398 : Gunn Garland CDBG Grant Update (Staff Contact: Emily S.
GUNN GARLAND ROAD UTILITIES PRELMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VA
8
Gunn Garland Court Potholes Gunn Garland Court Washed Out Gravel
4. Need for Project
4.1 Health, Sanitation and Security
As described in Section 3.3, the homes in the project area are served by wells and drainfields, some with undesirable
existing conditions. Providing safe and reliable water and sewer service to this neighborhood is paramount. These
improvements will bring Gunn Garland Road up to the same development standards as the surrounding roads,
Ringgold Road and Witcher Road.
4.2 Aging Infrastructure
The homes in this area were built in the 1940’s to mid-1990’s, most in the 1960’s, and it is assumed that the wells
and drainfields were installed at the same time. Therefore, they have been in service for 25-80 years. VDH was
contacted to receive any records on file for this infrastructure. There were seven total records found in the project
area, some of which are under names that no longer match the current property owners. These records generally
indicate that the drainfields are in the rear of the properties, and the wells are near the house, a minimum of 100’ from
the drainfield. Since records do not exist for all homes, the contractor will need to do some exploratory work to
identify the location of existing utilities underground on each property during construction.
5. Alternatives Considered
Two alternatives were considered for both the water and sewer improvements. For each water alternative, all
participating residences will be connected to the new proposed waterline along Gunn Garland Road and the existing
wells will be demolished in place. For each sewer alternative, the existing discharge sewer from each residence will
be extended to tie into the new public sewer, and the private septic tanks will be demolished in place. For all
alternatives considered, stormwater drainage improvements will be implemented for the entire neighborhood. Some
of these may occur on private property as necessary. The existing ditches along either side of the road will be
improved for proper drainage to the downstream creek.
6.b.a
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 2021.3.2 - Gunn Garland Infrastructure PER - Preliminary (2398 : Gunn Garland CDBG Grant Update (Staff Contact: Emily S.
WPPDC 2020-13
#50131749
9
5.1 Description
Water Alternatives
1. Extend Waterline to Gunn Garland Road
An existing 12-inch waterline exists along Tom Fork Road, which is the northernmost side of Gunn Garland
Road. This alternative extends 6-inch waterline to the required customers along Gunn Garland Road and
Gunn Garland Court. The waterline will be routed along the west side of the road, and the service laterals to
the east side can either be directionally drilled to minimize pavement repairs, or open cut. Service
connections will be extended to all customers’ existing well lines.
2. Loop to Ringgold Road via Clark Street
The second alternative includes everything in the first alternative but will also include extending waterline
along Clark Street and tie into the existing 8-inch on Ringgold Road. This alternative will create a loop in
this residential area which eliminates a dead-end condition that can result in deterioration of water quality as
well as provide for improved resiliency through bi-directional service capability. The cost estimate provided
for this alternative adds 13 water connections to the properties along Clark Street.
Sewer Alternatives
1. Gravity Sewer along Gunn Garland, Tie-in to Witcher Road
Based on a preliminary evaluation of topography in the area, gravity sewer can be extended from the
northernmost side of Gunn Garland Road south to Gunn Garland Court, and east along private properties to
tie into the existing gravity sewer along Witcher Road. Private property easements will be required to extend
the sewer cross country to connect Gunn Garland Road to Witcher Road. The gravity sewer will be routed
along the east side of the road, and the service connections to the east side can either be directionally
drilled to minimize pavement repairs, or open cut. Service connections will be extended to all customers’
existing sewer discharge lines currently connected to septic tanks and drain fields. Existing septic tanks will
pumped out and demolished in-place.
2. Duplex Pump Station to Connect to US 58
Similar to the 2010 Witcher Road CDBG project, this alternative includes a gravity sewer along Gunn
Garland Road that will discharge to a new small pump station. From this new pump station, a new
forcemain will convey pumped wastewater to an existing 10” forcemain along US 58 to Danville. This
alternative will minimize the number of easements necessary, however, will require operation of another
pump station for a relatively low volume of wastewater.
5.2 Design Criteria Water The Gunn Garland Road neighborhood will be served by the 1 million gallon Cane Creek Centre Tank with an overflow elevation of 722.5’ (feet) and low tank elevation of approximately 684’. The home with the highest elevation in the project area is 580’ – which is 104’ lower than the low tank elevation, equivalent to 45 psi (2.31 feet = 1 psi). With the tank full, pressure will be approximately 62 psi. It is anticipated that the residents will experience residual pressure in the 60-90 psi range based upon home elevation and tank level at the time of demand. This pressure meets the minimum required 30 psi sustained residual pressure per the Virginia Waterworks Regulations. Considering a 500 gpm fire flow event, the pressure drop would be less than 5 psi with the bi-directional water connection, which is fed by the existing 16” on Ringgold Road – resulting in a worst case residential residual pressure during a fire event of 40 psi. Therefore, a 6-inch will provide adequate capacity and pressures above the required minimum of 20 psi to all users along Gunn Garland Road during a fire flow event. Sewer There are approximately 25 homes and a church currently connected to the 8-inch Witcher Road sewer. Assuming 100 gallons per person, and 2.5 people per home, then 6250 gpd of residential flow is discharged to the sewer from these customers. The church wastewater flows are estimated at 500 gpd. Therefore, an average flow of 6750 gpd with a peaking factor of 5 is 33,750 gpd (23 gpm) is estimated for the discharge to the pump station. Maximum capacity at minimum slope of 0.4% for an 8” sewer is 318 gpm. Additionally, there is adequate reserve capacity in the 182 gpm rated pump station for the additional 15± homes along Gunn Garland Road.
6.b.a
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 2021.3.2 - Gunn Garland Infrastructure PER - Preliminary (2398 : Gunn Garland CDBG Grant Update (Staff Contact: Emily S.
GUNN GARLAND ROAD UTILITIES PRELMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VA
10
Up to 15 additional homes from Gunn Garland Road discharging 100 gallons per person, 2.5 people per home, is equivalent to 3750 gpd. With a peaking factor of 5; 18,750 gpd (13 gpm). Reserve capacity in Witcher Road receiving sewer and pump station considering Gunn Garland Road:
• Gravity sewer: 318 gpm – 23 gpm – 13 gpm = 282 gpm
• Pump station: 182 gpm – 23 gpm – 13 gpm = 146 gpm
5.3 Map
The following two exhibits are included as attachments showing the proposed alternatives:
• 5.3.1 – Water Alternatives
• 5.3.2 – Sewer Alternatives
5.4 Environmental Impacts
The project site is a mile from the nearest creek. The sewer alternative will ultimately parallel a creek to Witcher Road
gravity sewer. Therefore, local erosion and sediment control is the primary environmental concern during
construction, however, there will not be any direct crossings or impacts to the creek. If the total land disturbance is
over 1 acre, a DEQ General Construction permit for land disturbance and handling of stormwater will be required.
Regardless, a local E&S permit from Pittsylvania County will be required. The contractor will be required to maintain
all erosion and sedimentation prevention measures to protect downstream properties from the impacts of unmitigated
stormwater runoff during construction.
6.b.a
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 2021.3.2 - Gunn Garland Infrastructure PER - Preliminary (2398 : Gunn Garland CDBG Grant Update (Staff Contact: Emily S.
PROJECT PROJ. NO.
TITLE DATE SHEET NO.
DRAWING NO.
REVISION
551 Piney Forest Road
Danville, VA 24540-3353
434.797.4497
Dewberry Engineers Inc.
00000000
N/A FIGURE
5.3.1
50131749
1/22/2021
GUNN GARLAND ROAD
WATER AND SEWER PER
WATER ALTERNATIVES
400'0'800'
SCALE: 1" = 400'
200'
OPTION 1
WATERLINE TO GUNN
GARLAND COURT
OPTION 2
CONTINUE WATERLINE
FROM GUNNN GARLAND
COURT TO RINGGOLD RD
6.b.a
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 2021.3.2 - Gunn Garland Infrastructure PER - Preliminary (2398 : Gunn Garland CDBG Grant Update (Staff Contact: Emily S.
PROJECT PROJ. NO.
TITLE DATE SHEET NO.
DRAWING NO.
REVISION
551 Piney Forest Road
Danville, VA 24540-3353
434.797.4497
Dewberry Engineers Inc.
00000000
N/A FIGURE
5.3.2
50131749
1/22/2021
GUNN GARLAND ROAD
WATER AND SEWER PER
SEWER ALTERNATIVES500'0'1000'SCALE: 1" = 500'250'OPTION 1GRAVITY SEWERFROM TOM FORKROAD TO EXISTINGWITCHER ROADPUMP STATIONOPTION 2CONTINUE GRAVITYSEWER TO NEWPUMP STATIONPUMP STATION
6.b.aPacket Pg. 17Attachment: 2021.3.2 - Gunn Garland Infrastructure PER - Preliminary (2398 : Gunn Garland CDBG Grant
WPPDC 2020-13
#50131749
13
5.5 Land Requirements
A temporary construction easement will be required from each of the participating property owners to connect their
existing water and sewer utilities to the new public water and sewer lines. Since location of septic tanks and wells
have not been surveyed, a uniform length of easement has been considered for all properties. Appraised land value
and total area of the properties were obtained through the Pittsylvania County GIS system.
Table 5.5.1 – Temporary Construction Easements Required
House
Number Property Owner
Appraised Land
Value
Total Land
Area
(Acres) Price per Acre
Temporary Easement
Required, Acres
(300 LF, 20' width)
Temporary Easement
Estimated Cost
(50% cost per acre)
Gunn Garland Road
220 PATRICIA WILLIAMS $5,000.00 0.22 $22,727.27 0.138 $1,565.24
244 MATTHEW & HAZEL GARLAND $5,000.00 0.22 $22,727.27 0.138 $1,565.24
268 MATTHEW & ERMA GARLAND $5,000.00 0.22 $22,727.27 0.138 $1,565.24
269 WILLIE LEE $8,000.00 0.67 $11,940.30 0.138 $822.33
300 MARY SUE SHERMAN $8,000.00 0.85 $9,411.76 0.138 $648.19
301 ALICE & JACKIE STAMPS $8,000.00 0.87 $9,195.40 0.138 $633.29
304 ANDREW & GEORGIA GARLAND $10,000.00 0.66 $15,151.52 0.138 $1,043.49
324 FRANCES GARLAND $6,000.00 0.41 $14,634.15 0.138 $1,007.86
384 ESSIE GUNN & ROSA PICKETT $8,000.00 0.78 $10,256.41 0.138 $706.36
Gunn Garland Court
193 GRACIE & BRIAN GUNN $5,000.00 0.22 $22,727.27 0.138 $1,565.24
211 MAE GARLAND $5,000.00 0.22 $22,727.27 0.138 $1,565.24
225 RONALD AND JOYCE STAMPS $8,000.00 1 $8,000.00 0.138 $550.96
236 CHARLES & EDWARD GWYNN $4,500.00 0.22 $20,454.55 0.138 $1,408.72
238 CHARLES GWYNN $7,500.00 1.21 $6,198.35 0.138 $426.88
TOTAL $15,074.30
Extension of water and sewer along Gunn Garland Road can primarily be within VDOT right-of-way, therefore not
requiring easements. For sewer alternative #1, which extends gravity sewer to Witcher Road, private property
easements will be required. A preliminary summary of anticipated cost is provided below:
Table 5.5.2 - Sewer Alternative #1 – Gravity Sewer to Witcher Road
Property Owner
Appraised
Land Value
Total
Land
Area
(Acres)
Price per
Acre
LF of
Sewer
Permanent
Easement
Required
(20' width)
Permanent
Easement
Estimated Cost
(straight cost
per acre)
Temporary
Easement
Required
(add. 10'
each side)
Temporary
Easement
Estimated
Cost (50%
cost per
acre) Total Cost
MARY SUE SHERMAN $8,000.00 0.85 $9,411.76 370 0.170 $1,598.88 0.170 $799.44 $2,398.31
CHARLES GWYNN $7,500.00 1.21 $6,198.35 550 0.253 $1,565.24 0.253 $782.62 $2,347.86
MARY SUE SHERMAN &
WILBERT GARLAND $36,000.00 16.35 $2,201.83 475 0.218 $480.20 0.218 $240.10 $720.30
GREGORY AND JENNIFER
WILKERSON $202,300.00 72.14 $2,804.27 1245 0.572 $1,602.99 0.572 $801.50 $2,404.49
VICKIE BERKLEY $10,500.00 4.62 $2,272.73 175 0.080 $182.61 0.080 $91.31 $273.92
TOTAL 2815 1.29 $5,429.92 1.29 $2,714.96 $8,144.87
For sewer alternative #2, which extends gravity sewer to a new pump station south of Gunn Garland Road, easement
acquisition for the pump station will be required. A preliminary summary of anticipated cost is provided below:
Table 5.5.3 - Sewer Alternative #2 – New Pump Station on Gunn Garland Road
Property Owner Appraised Land Value Total Land Area (Acres) Price per Acre Permanent Easement Required (acres) Permanent Easement Estimated Cost (straight cost per acre)
CARRIE AND JAMES CIFERS $44,700.00 2.2 $20,318.18 0.5 $10,159.09
6.b.a
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 2021.3.2 - Gunn Garland Infrastructure PER - Preliminary (2398 : Gunn Garland CDBG Grant Update (Staff Contact: Emily S.
GUNN GARLAND ROAD UTILITIES PRELMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VA
14
5.6 Potential Construction Problems
Existing well and drainfield records held by VDH only date back to 1990. If any infrastructure has not had a change in
ownership or improvements to the infrastructure in the last 30 years, there may not be records on file. In this case,
site visits with the property owners will be required during the design phase to try and determine the location of the
infrastructure underground to show on the drawings. The contractor will need to tie in the existing well supply line to
the new waterline on Gunn Garland, and also tie in the existing sewer discharge line from the septic tank over to the
new sewer along Gunn Garland. The wells will have to be grout filled for proper closure and septic tanks demolished
in-place.
These factors create some unknowns until construction. PCSA should be aware of this and understand based on the
magnitude of the work and the number of properties included, this could result in either inflated bid pricing if all risk is
on the contractor, or potential change orders if the County wants to take on responsibility for unknowns on private
property.
Lastly, easement acquisition could result in schedule delay if property owners are unwilling to agree with the terms
prepared by the County. Some property owners do not live in the actual dwelling unit and could be hard to reach.
Condemnation may be required in some circumstances. This process should begin as early as possible.
5.7 Sustainability Considerations
In general, gravity sewer is preferred to a pump station for the following sustainability considerations:
• Minimizing the number of pump stations is preferred to minimize power consumption as well as other related
operational cost.
• The Witcher Road pump station has adequate reserve capacity and is underutilized. The connection of the
Gunn Garland sewer will contribute to maximizing the efficiency of the station.
5.8 Cost Estimates
Table 5.8.1 - Water Alternative 1 - 6" Waterline to Customers
L.I. Description Qty Unit Unit Price Total Price
1 Mobilization + Site Prep 1 LS $52,400 $52,400
2 Erosion + Sediment Control 1 LS $28,400 $28,400
3 6" Tie-in to Existing 12" - Tom Fork Road 1 EA $7,800 $7,800
4 6" PVC Waterline 1800 LF $70 $126,000
5 6" Gate Valve 2 EA $4,300 $8,600
6 Air Release Valve 1 EA $7,500 $7,500
7 Fire Hydrant Assembly 2 EA $5,500 $11,000
8 Residential Water Meter and Service Connection 15 EA $500 $7,500
9 Extension of Residential Waterline to Property Line 2250 LF $20 $45,000
10 Residential Well Demolition 15 EA $3,500 $52,500
11 Stormwater Drainage Improvements 1 LS $12,500 $12,500
12 Driveway Repair - Gravel 10 EA $2,500 $25,000
13 Driveway Repair - Concrete 1 EA $7,500 $7,500
14 Driveway Repair - Asphalt 4 EA $9,500 $38,000
15 Site Restoration 1 LS $26,600 $26,600
Construction Subtotal $456,300
Contingency (10%) $45,700
Construction Total $502,000
Engineering + Survey $71,300
Permitting $5,000
Inspection $16,640
Easements $7,524
Legal + Administrative $6,250
Project Total $608,800
6.b.a
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 2021.3.2 - Gunn Garland Infrastructure PER - Preliminary (2398 : Gunn Garland CDBG Grant Update (Staff Contact: Emily S.
WPPDC 2020-13
#50131749
15
Table 5.8.2 - Water Alternative 2 - 6" Loop to Ringgold Road
L.I. Description Qty Unit Unit Price Total Price
1 Mobilization + Site Prep 1 LS $83,200 $83,200
2 Erosion + Sediment Control 1 LS $50,400 $50,400
3 6" Tie-in to Existing 12" - Tom Fork Road 1 EA $7,800 $7,800
4 6" PVC Waterline 3000 LF $70 $210,000
5 20" Steel Casing Open Cut Installation 20 LF $175 $3,500
6 6" Tie-in to Existing 8" - Ringgold Road 1 EA $5,500 $5,500
7 6" Gate Valve 4 EA $4,300 $17,200
8 Air Release Valve 2 EA $7,500 $15,000
9 Fire Hydrant Assembly 3 EA $5,500 $16,500
10 Residential Water Meter and Service Connection 28 EA $500 $14,000
11 Extension of Residential Waterline to Property Line 4200 LF $20 $84,000
12 Residential Well Demolition 28 EA $3,500 $98,000
13 Stormwater Drainage Improvements 1 LS $12,500 $12,500
14 Driveway Repair - Gravel 10 EA $2,500 $25,000
15 Driveway Repair - Concrete 1 EA $7,500 $7,500
16 Driveway Repair - Asphalt 4 EA $9,500 $38,000
17 Site Restoration 1 LS $47,200 $47,200
Construction Subtotal $735,300
Contingency (10%) $73,600
Construction Total $808,900
Engineering + Survey $97,100
Permitting $5,000
Inspection $16,640
Easements $7,524
Legal + Administrative $6,250
Project Total $941,500
Table 5.8.3 - Sewer Alternative 1 - Gravity to Witcher Road
L.I. Description Qty Unit Unit Price Total Price
1 Mobilization + Site Prep 1 LS $76,300 $76,300
2 Erosion + Sediment Control 1 LS $42,000 $42,000
3 Clearing and Grubbing 1160 LF $15 $17,400
4 8" PVC Gravity Sewer 3750 LF $85 $318,750
5 Manhole 10 EA $5,500 $55,000
6 Residential Sewer Connection 15 EA $250 $3,750
7 Extension of Residential Sewer to Property Line 2250 LF $35 $78,750
8 Septic Tank Demolition 15 EA $1,500 $22,500
9 Stormwater Drainage Improvements 1 LS $12,500 $12,500
10 Site Restoration 1 LS $49,700 $49,700
Construction Subtotal $676,700
Contingency (10%) $67,700
Construction Total $744,400
Engineering + Survey $93,100
Permitting $7,500
Inspection $16,640
Easements $15,669
Legal + Administrative $8,500
Project Total $885,900
6.b.a
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 2021.3.2 - Gunn Garland Infrastructure PER - Preliminary (2398 : Gunn Garland CDBG Grant Update (Staff Contact: Emily S.
GUNN GARLAND ROAD UTILITIES PRELMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VA
16
Table 5.8.4 - Sewer Alternative 2 - Gravity to New Pump Station
L.I. Description Qty Unit Unit Price Total Price
1 Mobilization + Site Prep 1 LS $87,400 $87,400
2 Erosion + Sediment Control 1 LS $27,700 $27,700
3 8" PVC Gravity Sewer 1700 LF $85 $144,500
4 Manhole 5 EA $5,500 $27,500
5 Residential Sewer Connection 15 EA $250 $3,750
6 Extension of Residential Sewer to Property Line 2250 LF $35 $78,750
7 Septic Tank Demolition 15 EA $1,500 $22,500
8 Duplex Pump Station 1 LS $250,000 $250,000
9 24" Steel Casing Jack and Bore Under US 58 60 LF $450 $27,000
10 6" PVC Forcemain 100 LF $75 $7,500
11 6" FM tie-in to Existing 10" along US 58 1 EA $8,500 $8,500
12 Stormwater Drainage Improvements 1 LS $12,500 $12,500
13 Site Restoration 1 LS $57,000 $57,000
Construction Subtotal $754,600
Contingency (10%) $75,500
Construction Total $830,100
Engineering + Survey $97,200
Permitting $5,000
Inspection $16,640
Easements $17,683
Legal + Administrative $6,250
Project Total $972,900
Table 5.8.5 - Road Improvements
L.I. Description Qty Unit Unit Price Total Price
1 Gunn Garland Road - 2" SM-9.5 Surface Course 357.5 TON $185 $66,138
2 Gunn Garland Court - 4" #21A/#21B Aggregate Base 236.5 TON $35 $8,278
3 Gunn Garland Court - 3" BM-25 Base Course 473 TON $120 $56,760
4 Gunn Garland Court - 2" SM-9.5 Surface Course 430 TON $185 $79,550
Construction Subtotal $144,600
Contingency (10%) $14,500
Construction Total $159,100
6.b.a
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 2021.3.2 - Gunn Garland Infrastructure PER - Preliminary (2398 : Gunn Garland CDBG Grant Update (Staff Contact: Emily S.
WPPDC 2020-13
#50131749
17
6. Selected Alternative
Considering constructability, project cost, and long-term sustainability, Water Alternative #2 and Sewer Alternative
#1 are recommended. Exhibit 6.0 is provided attached indicating the locations of the proposed utilities.
The water alternative includes extending waterline to the project participants, but will also include extending waterline
along Clark Street and tie into the existing 8-inch on Ringgold Road. This alternative will create a loop in the
residential neighborhood which supports water system resiliency and improved water quality, and will also tie-in 13
residents along Clark Street. If the loop is not refundable by the CDBG grant, it is recommended that the County
considers providing a match to complete the fully looped project alternative.
The gravity sewer extension from the northernmost side of Gunn Garland Road south to Gunn Garland Court, and
east along private property to tie into the existing gravity sewer along Witcher Road is recommended. Private
property easements will be required to extend the sewer cross country to connect Gunn Garland Road to Witcher
Road. However, there is an existing pump station on Witcher Road with adequate reserve capacity to serve Gunn
Garland Road. The alternative to build a new pump station would not be an efficient nor be as reliable of a solution
and will require increased maintenance and mechanical equipment that is otherwise unnecessary. Additionally,
annual operations and maintenance cost will be significantly higher with a pump station, ultimately making the
alternative a higher life cycle cost alternative. The chosen gravity system alternative is recommended for simplicity of
the system and ease of long-term operations and maintenance. Additionally, this solution will provide for additional
service capability to serve additional future residential or light commercial growth anticipated along its proposed
route.
Similar to the Witcher Road project, the waterline will be routed along the west side of the road, and the sewer will be
routed along the east side.
6.1 Life Cycle Cost Analysis
The table below shows the present worth considering 20 years. The annual operations and maintenance cost
estimated below is based on the fact this will be new infrastructure. To calculate the present worth of annual cost, a
term of 20 years and amortization rate of 3% is used.
Table 6.1.1 – Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Utility Capital Cost Estimated Annual Cost P/A, n = 20, i = 3% Present Worth
Water $941,500 $3,500 $52,071 $993,571
Sewer $885,900 $2,500 $37,194 $923,094
6.2 Total Project Cost Estimate
Table 6.2.1 – Project Cost Summary
Water Improvements $735,300
Sewer Improvements $676,700
Road Improvements $144,600
Construction Subtotal $1,556,600
10% Contingency $155,700
Construction Total $1,712,300
Engineering + Survey $169,600
Permitting $12,500
Inspection $33,300
Easements $23,200
Legal + Administrative $14,800
Project Total $1,965,700
6.b.a
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 2021.3.2 - Gunn Garland Infrastructure PER - Preliminary (2398 : Gunn Garland CDBG Grant Update (Staff Contact: Emily S.
GUNN GARLAND ROAD UTILITIES PRELMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VA
18
6.3 Non-Monetary Factors
• Though the recommended water alternative will cost more, it will ultimately be the most cost-effective way to
extend water down Gunn Garland and Clark Street by having the contractor install while they are procured
for this project. This loop eliminates a dead-end condition that can result in deterioration of water quality as
well as provide for improved resiliency through bi-directional service capability.
• Cost for easements were based upon land appraisal values provided on Pittsylvania County GIS. Temporary
construction easements are estimated to be 50% of cost per acre, and permanent easements are estimated
to be full cost per acre. The County may enter into an agreement with property owners to exchange
easements for free connections to the water and sewer system. The costs shown are for financial planning
purposes.
6.4 Permit Requirements
The following construction permits are anticipated for this project:
• VA DEQ General Construction Permit for stormwater and land disturbance
• Pittsylvania County Land Disturbance Permit
• VA DEQ Certificate to Construct and Certificate to Operate for sewer improvements
• VDH Authorization of Construction
• USACE Nationwide 12 Permit – potential for wetlands along sewer corridor near creek
• VDOT Land Use Permit
6.5 Project Schedule
Table 6.5.1 - Gunn Garland Road Utilities Preliminary Schedule
2021 2022
Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Condition Assessment and PER
Funding Approval
Design - 50%
Design - 75%
Design - Approvals/Final Bid Set Ready
Advertising and Bidding
Notice of Award
Notice to Proceed
Construction (Substantial Completion)
Final Completion
6.6 Conclusions and Recommendations
• Water recommendation – loop 8” waterline from Tom Fork Road, south down Gunn Garland Road (with
extension to Gunn Garland Court), west along Clark Street, and tie-in to existing 8” on Ringgold Road.
• Sewer recommendation – extend gravity sewer from Tom Fork Road, south down Gunn Garland Road to
the end of the project area, and east through private property easement to tie in at Witcher Road.
• Initiate design contract with an engineer to develop water and sewer improvements drawings and
specifications for bidding and construction.
• The County should initiate the easement acquisition process as soon as possible. This will require field
survey and development of easement exhibits by an engineer for County use.
• As noted in previous Management Team meetings, the County should contact VDOT to formally request
participation in the Gunn Garland Road and Court improvements. If VDOT will not participate, funds for the
improvements should be requested by DHCD. The County needs to consider if they will fund the road
improvements if no partners choose to participate in cost sharing. Preliminary cost estimate is provided in
Table 5.8.5.
6.b.a
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 2021.3.2 - Gunn Garland Infrastructure PER - Preliminary (2398 : Gunn Garland CDBG Grant Update (Staff Contact: Emily S.
PROJECT PROJ. NO.
TITLE DATE SHEET NO.
DRAWING NO.
REVISION
551 Piney Forest Road
Danville, VA 24540-3353
434.797.4497
Dewberry Engineers Inc.
00000000
N/A FIGURE
6.0
50131749
1/22/2021
GUNN GARLAND ROAD
WATER AND SEWER PER
SELECTED ALTERNATIVES
(LOOP WATER, GRAVITY
FOR SEWER)500'0'1000'SCALE: 1" = 500'250'OPTION 18" GRAVITY SEWERFROM TOM FORK RDTO WITCHER ROADPUMP STATIONOPTION 2CONTINUE 8" WATERLINEFROM GUNN GARLANDCOURT TO RINGGOLD RDPump StationPump Station6.b.aPacket Pg. 24Attachment: 2021.3.2 - Gunn Garland Infrastructure PER - Preliminary (2398 : Gunn Garland CDBG Grant
www.dewberry.com
6.b.a
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 2021.3.2 - Gunn Garland Infrastructure PER - Preliminary (2398 : Gunn Garland CDBG Grant Update (Staff Contact: Emily S.
Year Built O/R Roof Gutters Chimney Siding Paint Windows Doors Porches Crawl Sp. Insulation Extermin. Electrical Plumbing Heating Structural Appliance
TOTAL
BASE Green Bld Handicap Water/Sewer Addi Bdrm Asbestos Lead Survey
TOTAL
EXCEPTIONS
TOTAL BASE
+ EXCEP.Demo Sum
1960 O 900 5,000 500 3,500 1,500 800 500 2,000 800 2,500 1,000 6,000 25,000 2,500 2,500 27,500 27,500
1956 O 8,000 900 500 500 4,000 2,000 500 1,500 800 500 1,000 4,800 25,000 5,000 2,500 7,500 32,500 32,500
1940 O 5,000 600 4,500 2,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 1,000 3,500 800 5,500 5,500 6,000 25,500 1,500 68,900 4,000 3,000 1,000 8,000 76,900 7,500 84,400
1970 O 5,000 600 4,500 2,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 3,000 3,500 800 5,500 5,500 6,000 25,500 1,500 70,900 4,000 1,000 5,000 75,900 9,000 84,900
1970 O 5,000 600 4,500 2,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 3,000 3,500 800 5,500 5,500 6,000 25,500 1,500 70,900 4,000 1,000 5,000 75,900 9,000 84,900
1967 O 900 2,000 800 1,000 500 4,500 9,700 4,500 1,000 5,500 15,200 15,200
1965 O 900 500 1,000 1,500 2,500 1,000 800 4,500 4,500 6,500 23,700 2,000 2,000 25,700 25,700
1950 O 5,000 900 4,500 2,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 1,000 3,500 800 5,500 5,500 6,000 25,500 1,500 69,200 6,000 4,000 1,000 1,000 12,000 81,200 9,000 90,200
1980 O 5,000 900 4,500 2,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 1,000 3,500 800 5,500 5,500 6,000 25,500 1,500 69,200 4,000 1,000 5,000 74,200 9,000 83,200
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
432,500 52,500 43,500 528,500
Substantial Reconstruction 427,600
Owner-Occupied Rehab 100,900
Investor-Owned Rehab
Gunn Garland Road Housing Rehabilitation Project
Construction Cost Estimates
Prepared by: Cedric Stovall
Pittsylvania County
6.b.b
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 2021 Cost Est Housing Budget Gunn Garland Planning Grant (2398 : Gunn Garland CDBG Grant Update (Staff Contact: Emily S.
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title: Solar Taxation Update (Staff Contacts: Emily S. Ragsdale and the
Honorable Robin C. Goard); (20 minutes)
Staff Contact(s): Emily D. Ragsdale/the Honorable Robin C. Goard
Agenda Date: March 16, 2021 Item Number: 6.c
Attachment(s):
Reviewed By:
Emily S. Ragsdale, Community Development Director, and the Honorable Robin C. Goard,
Commissioner of the Revenue, will be present to provide the Board a Solar Taxation update.
Related documents will be distributed at or before the Work Session.
6.c
Packet Pg. 27
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title: Reassessment Update (Staff Contact: Nicholas A. Morris); (30 minutes)
Staff Contact(s): Nicholas A. Morris
Agenda Date: March 16, 2021 Item Number: 6.d
Attachment(s): Property Assessment Update
Reviewed By:
Nicholas A. Morris, County Project Manager, and William Cole, of Brightminds, will be present
to provide the Board a County Reassessment Update. Related documentation will be
used/distributed at the Work Session. No action required. For informational purposes only.
6.d
Packet Pg. 28
HOW DO WE ASSESS PROPERTIES?
-COST AND VALUE DEFINITIONS
-CLASS OF CONSTRUCTION
-CLASS OF FRAME/FORM/ROOF/WALLS
-PROPERTY ASSESSMENT EXAMPLES
PROPERTY REASSESSMENT UPDATE –16 MARCH 21
6.d.a
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Property Assessment Update (2392 : Reassessment Update (Staff Contact:
COST AND VALUE
REPLACEMENT COST –The replacement cost of a building is the total cost of construction required to replace the subject
building with a substitute of like or equal utility using current standards of materials and design.These costs include labor,
materials,supervision,contractors’profit and overhead,architects’plans and specifications,sales taxes and insurance.The major
portion of the Marshall Valuation Service is devoted to the development of Replacement or Reproduction Costs by various
methods.
REPRODUCTION COST –The reproduction cost of a building is the total cost of construction
required to replace the subject building with an exact replica in all salient
characteristics or components.
With newer structures,the terms ‘reproduction’or ‘replacement’will be somewhat synonymous,
while with older structures,a reproduction approach endeavors to replace with like kind
where possible and is more akin to the Segregated Method.In the case of totally obsolete or unavailable
components,a true reproduction in its strictest sense may not always be possible
or desirable.
6.d.a
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Property Assessment Update (2392 : Reassessment Update (Staff Contact:
COST AND VALUE (continued)
PRINCIPLE OF SUBSTITUTION –An economic principle stating that the price of a commodity tends to be no higher than
the price of a substitute having equal utility, available without undue delay.This is the basis of the Replacement Cost approach
to value,where the costs found in the Marshall Valuation Service are obtained directly from the construction market.No system,
whateveritsdegree of sophistication or detail,can be better than the market-derived information on which it is based.
VALUE –Value has many classifications and meanings for various appraisal purposes.A few of these are Actual,Cash,
Amenity,Assessed,Book,Capitalized, Market,Economic,Depreciated,Historical,Intangible,Caprice,Loan,Physical,
Salvage,Leasehold,Tangible,and many others.In any kind of appraisal work,it is necessary to know the value which is sought
and to be sure that the value concept used is in conformity with sound practice and general understanding.
Section 3 has a discussion of some concepts of value which may apply to a given property interest.The Marshall Valuation
Service deals primarily with the development of Replacement Costs which may be used as an approach to any of several
concepts of value.
JUDGMENT -No book or service can be more than a guide to the appraiser. Each cost must be considered in light of actual
conditions encountered in a specific appraisal.For example,the demand for a particular occupancy is so strong that a premium
is paid for the privilege of immediate occupancy or for the chance of speculation.
The fact that some owners are willing,or are forced,to pay extreme prices
may not indicate true value.Speculators are building and buying on the premise that someone will pay an even higher price.
This does not necessarily mean that
6.d.a
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Property Assessment Update (2392 : Reassessment Update (Staff Contact:
CLASS OF CONSTRUCTION
The Class of Construction is the basic subdivision in the Marshall Valuation Service,dividing all buildings into five basic cost
groups by type of framing (supporting columns and beams),walls,floors and roof structures,and fireproofing.
Class A buildings have fireproofed structural steel frames with reinforced concrete or masonry floors and roofs.
Class B buildings have reinforced concrete frames and concrete or masonry floors and roofs.
Class C buildings have masonry or concrete exterior walls,and wood or steel roof and floor structures, except for concrete slab ongrade.
Class D buildings generally have wood frame,floor, and roof structure.They may have a concrete floor on grade and other
substitute materials but are considered
combustible construction.This class includes the pre-engineered pole-or post-frame,hoop and arch-rib-frame buildings.
Class E buildings have frames,roofs,and walls of incombustible metal.This class includes the pre-engineered metal buildings,
including slant-wall and Quonset structures.In each class,there will be variations,combinations,and subclasses,but for
purposes of pricing,the major elements of the building should be considered in selecting costs from the tables.Thus,if a
building,which is otherwise in Class B,has a wood or steel truss roof, the costs for the Class B building may still be
representative,or a Class C building may have concrete plank floors. Interpolations may be made if the appraiser feels the
building overlaps two classes sufficiently or the Segregated Cost Sections may be used to modify the cost.In most localities,
some buildings are built which are hybrids in construction,such as those with complete Class A framing,including columns
and girders,but with wood floor joists and sheathing.In all such hybrids,the appraiser must judge whether to adjust the costs or
interpolate between classes and qualities.
6.d.a
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Property Assessment Update (2392 : Reassessment Update (Staff Contact:
CLASS -FRAME / FLOOR /ROOF / WALLS
A Structural steel columns and beams,fireproofed with masonry,concrete, plaster,or other noncombustible material.Concrete or
concrete on steel deck, fireproofed.Formed concrete,precast slabs,concrete or gypsum on steel deck, fireproofed.Nonbearing
curtain walls,masonry,concrete,metal and glass panels, stone, steel studs and masonry,tile or stucco, etc.
B Reinforced concrete columns and beams.Fire-resistant construction. Concrete or concrete on steel deck,fireproofed.Formed
concrete,precast slabs, concrete or gypsum on steel deck,fireproofed.Nonbearing curtain walls, masonry,concrete, metal and
glass panels, stone, steel studs and masonry,tile or stucco, etc.
C Masonry or concrete load-bearing walls with or without pilasters.Masonry, concrete or curtain walls with full or partial open
steel,wood,or concrete frame Wood or concrete plank on wood or steel floor joists,or concrete slab on grade. Wood or steel
joists with wood or steel deck.Concrete plank.Brick,concrete block, or tile masonry,tilt-up,formed concrete,nonbearing
curtain walls.
D Wood or steel studs in bearing wall,full or partial open wood or steel frame, primarily combustible construction.Wood or steel
floor joists or concrete slab on grade. Wood or steel joists with wood or steel deck.Almost any material except bearing or curtain
walls of solid masonry or concrete.Generally combustible construction.
E Metal bents,columns,girders, purlins and girts without fireproofing, incombustible construction.Wood or steel deck on steel
floor joists,or concrete slab on grade.Steel or wood deck on steel joists.Metal skin or sandwich panels. Generally
incombustible.
6.d.a
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Property Assessment Update (2392 : Reassessment Update (Staff Contact:
CLASS OF CONSTRUCTION INDICATORS
E D C B A
6.d.a
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Property Assessment Update (2392 : Reassessment Update (Staff Contact:
CLASS OF CONSTRUCTION EXAMPLES –E GRADE 6.d.a
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Property Assessment Update (2392 : Reassessment Update (Staff Contact:
CLASS OF CONSTRUCTION EXAMPLES –D GRADE 6.d.a
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Property Assessment Update (2392 : Reassessment Update (Staff Contact:
CLASS OF CONSTRUCTION EXAMPLES –C GRADE 6.d.a
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Property Assessment Update (2392 : Reassessment Update (Staff Contact:
CLASS OF CONSTRUCTION EXAMPLES –B GRADE 6.d.a
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Property Assessment Update (2392 : Reassessment Update (Staff Contact:
CLASS OF CONSTRUCTION EXAMPLES –A GRADE 6.d.a
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Property Assessment Update (2392 : Reassessment Update (Staff Contact:
Pre-Flight After Flight
ASSESSING A PROPERTY 6.d.a
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Property Assessment Update (2392 : Reassessment Update (Staff Contact:
Municipality:
BRIGHTMINDS Valuing Your World
NEW CONSTRUCTION FORM
ESSEX COUNTY VIRGINIA
Assessor:
SMC
Building Permit #: 19-220 Building Style: RANCH Form Date:04/07/2020
Tax Map #: 33-6-1 Property Classification: 2 Source: BP/UAV
Picture #: ATTACHED Assessor’s Comment:
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT(s)
EXTERIOR INTERIOR OTHER VALUE FACTORS
Foundation: CONRETE/ BRICK Basement:
Rooms: 6 Heat Type: HEATPUMP
Bedrooms: 3 Fuel: ELECTRIC
Percentage Complete: 100
Year Built: 2019
Crawl Space: YES Full Baths: 2 CAC: YES Effective Year Built: 2019
Slab: Half Baths: Fireplace: NO Story Height: 1.00
Framing: WOOD Walls: DRYWALLChimney: NO Grade/Quality: C+5
Walls: VINYL Floors:CARPET Other: Condition: NEW/GOOD
Roof Type: GABLE Other: Other: Private Well/ Septic: YES
Roof Material: COMP.S. Other: Other: Public Water/Sewer:
SITE IMPROVEMENT(s): 12
1-CANOPY NCV
SKETCH:
12 WDK 12
48
33 1.0 STR DWELLING CRAWL
28
16 16
16 opf 16 5
New Dwelling/Building Permit
ASSESSING A PROPERTY 6.d.a
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Property Assessment Update (2392 : Reassessment Update (Staff Contact:
New Dwelling Process
ASSESSING A PROPERTY 6.d.a
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Property Assessment Update (2392 : Reassessment Update (Staff Contact:
Waterfront
ASSESSING A PROPERTY 6.d.a
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Property Assessment Update (2392 : Reassessment Update (Staff Contact:
Industrial Site
ASSESSING A PROPERTY 6.d.a
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Property Assessment Update (2392 : Reassessment Update (Staff Contact:
Commercial Property
ASSESSING A PROPERTY 6.d.a
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Property Assessment Update (2392 : Reassessment Update (Staff Contact:
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title:
Consultation with legal counsel employed or retained by a public body
regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by
such counsel. (Staff Contact: J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.)
Staff Contact(s): J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.
Agenda Date: March 16, 2021 Item Number: 8.a
Attachment(s):
Reviewed By:
(1) Legal Authority: Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A)(8)
Subject Matters: Cool Branch/Franklin EMS Agreement; Keeling VFD Board of
Directors Mass Resignation; Tax Legal Issue
Purpose: Legal Consultations/Advice Regarding the Same
8.a
Packet Pg. 46
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title:
Discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for a public
purpose, or of the disposition of publicly held real property, where
discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining
position or negotiating strategy of the public body. (Staff Contact: J.
Vaden Hunt, Esq.)
Staff Contact(s): Richard N. Hicks
Agenda Date: March 16, 2021 Item Number: 8.b
Attachment(s):
Reviewed By:
(1) Legal Authority: Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A)(3)
Subject Matters: Jail Land; Convenience Center Expansion Land
Purpose: Discussion of Related Property Acquisitions for a Public Purpose
8.b
Packet Pg. 47
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ITEM
Agenda Title: Closed Session Certification
Staff Contact(s): J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.
Agenda Date: March 16, 2021 Item Number: 9.a
Attachment(s):
Reviewed By:
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’
CLOSED MEETING CERTIFICATION
BE IT RESOLVED that at the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors’ (“Board”)
Meeting on March 16, 2021, the Board hereby certifies by a recorded vote that to the best of each
Board Member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the Open
Meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (“Act”) and identified in the
Motion authorizing the Closed Meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the Closed
Meeting. If any Board Member believes that there was a departure from the requirements of the
Act, he shall so state prior to the vote indicating the substance of the departure. The Statement
shall be recorded in the Board's Minutes.
Vote
Joe B. Davis Yes/No
Timothy W. Dudley Yes/No
Ben L. Farmer Yes/No
William (“Vic”) Ingram Yes/No
Charles H. Miller, Jr. Yes/No
Ronald S. Scearce Yes/No
Robert (“Bob”) W. Warren Yes/No
9.a
Packet Pg. 48