05-18-2010 Adjourned Meeting~~~.> ~~~
BOARD PACKET
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ADJOURNED MEETING
MAY 18, 2010
. ~C~ S~1 ~lr
4 t
~4 ~
O 0
a ~
d z
~ ~r
i~6~ /
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ADJOURNED MEETING
MAY 18, 2010
GENERAL DISTRICT COURTROOM
EDWIN R. SHIELDS COURTHOUSE ADDITION
AGENDA
1. Call to Order - 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Invocation
4. Pledge of Allegiance
5. Items to be Added to the Agenda
(a)(1) Ratify Proclamation-Day of Remembrance-Peace Officers' Memorial Day
-Pages -1-2
(a)(2) Premier Racing LLC-Cancellation of Performance Agreement -Pages-3-S
(a)(3) Tunstall Volunteer Fire Department Request Pages-6-8
5. (b) Approval of Agenda
6. Hearing of Citizens
7. Consent Agenda:
(a) Resolution 2010-OS-O1 - Hartzel Gillespie -Eagle Scout Award -Pages-9-10
(b) Expenditure Refunds -Pages-11-12
(c) Regional One-June -Page-13
(d) Project Lifesaver -Page-14
(e) State Restricted Seizure Funds-Sheriff -Page-1 S
(f) Library Opportunity On-Line Grant -Pages-16-17
(g) Reimbursement of Dewberry Contracts with Industrial Development Authority -
Pages-18-34
Public Hearings -
Rezoning Cases
Case 1: Jackie Ray Atkinson, Jr., & Jennifer K. Atkinson-Westover District; R-10-015
R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District to B-2, Business District, General
Case 2: Katie Alvis Barnette, Life Estate-Banister District; R-10-016
B-2, Business District, General to R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision Distric
Case 3: Brenda M. Blair-Callands-Gretna District; R-10-017
A-1, Agricultural District portion to B-2, Business District, General
Case 4: Withdrawn -R-10-018
Case 5: Parks I Limited Partnership-Banister District; R-10-019
R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District portion to RMF, Residential
Multi-Family District
Case 6: River Landing, LLC-Westover District; R-10-020
R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District to A-1, Agricultural District
8. (a) Proposed 2010 Comprehensive Plan -Pages-35-38
Unfinished Business
9. (a) Bond Proceeds Appropriation - 10 Day Layover- Page-39
(b) Proposed FY 2010/2011 County Budget -Pages-40-53
New Business
10. Roanoke River Basin -Kerr Dam Water Allocation -Pages-54-65
11. Danville Community College Off-Site Classes; Cascade Ruritan Building
-Pages- 66-67
12. Request for Appointment to Danville Utility Commission -Page - 68
13. Chatham Southern Railway Depot Restoration -Change Order #4; Phase II & III
-Pages-69-71
14. Change Order # 1; RT 40 Fire Booster Station -Pages -72-74
15. Camp 15-Architecture Amendment and Project Review -Pages - 75-76
Reports from Board Members
Reports from Officers and Committees
Reports from Leal Counsel
Reports from County Administrator
Appointments
16. Danville-Pittsylvania Community Services Board of Directors
Callands-Gretna District; Westover District; Banister District -Pages-77-79
Closed Session
17. Consultation with Legal Counsel and Briefings by Staff Members or Consultants
pertaining to actual or probable litigation, where such consultation or briefing in open meeting
would adversely affect the negotiating or litigating posture of the Public Body; and
consultation with Legal Counsel employed or retained by a Public Body regarding specific
legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such Counsel. Authority: Section 2.2-
3711 (A) (7) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
Subject Matter:
Smith vs Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors; Case GVIO-355
Smith, et als vs Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors; Case CL10-88
Purpose:
Review with Legal Counsel recent developments and discuss options.
Adiournment
ITEMS TO BE ADDED
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
Proclamation -Peace Officers' Memorial Day 05/18/2010 5(a)(1)
ACTION: INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST: CONSENT AGENDA:
Ratify Proclamation ACTION: INFORMATION:
Yes
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF CONTACT(S): Yes
Mr. Sleeper
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Each yeaz, the Pittsylvania County Sheriff's Department, along with other law enforcement agencies of
Pittsylvania County and Virginia, memorialize those officers who gave their lives in the line of duty to
protect the citizens of Pittsylvania County and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
DISCUSSION:
Attached hereto, is a proclamation from the Pittsylvania County Boazd of Supervisors for Officers' Memorial
Day in Pittsylvania County. Since this occurred on Thursday, May 13, 2010, I read this proclamation on the
behalf of the Pittsylvania County Boazd of Supervisors at the Pittsylvania County Sheriffs Department
Officer Memorial Day Service. I am requesting the Boazd of Supervisors ratify this proclamation into their
minutes for May 18, 2010.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Boazd of Supervisors ratify the proclamation on Officers' Memorial Day in
Pittsylvania County.
P1
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTYBOARD OFSUPERVISORS
PROCLAMATION
OFFICERS' MEMORIAL DAY
INPITTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VIRGINIA
May 13`"', 2010
Whereas, The Congress and President of the United States have designated May 1 S`h as Peace
Officers' Memorial Day, and the week in which May 1 S`~ falls as National Police week; and
Whereas, the members of the law enforcement agencies of Pittsylvania County play an
essential role in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of Pittsylvania County and
Whereas, it is important that all citizens know and understand the duties, responsibilities,
hazards, and sacrifices of their law enforcement agency, and that members of our law enforcement
agency recognize their duty to serve the people by safeguarding life and property, by protecting them
against violence and disorder, and by protecting the innocent against deception and the weak against
oppression; and
Whereas, the men and women of the law enforcement agencies of Pittsylvania County
unceasingly provide a vital public service; then
Now, Therefore, Be It Proclaimed that the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors call
upon all citizens of Pittsylvania County and upon all patriotic, civic and educational organizations to
observe Thursday, May 13, 2010 as a Day of Remembrance and Appreciation with appropriate
ceremonies and observances in which all of our people may join in commemorating law enforcement
officers, past and present, who, by their faithful and loyal devotion to their responsibilities, have
rendered a dedicated service to their communities and, in so doing, have established for themselves an
enviable and enduring reputation for preserving the rights and security of all citizens; and
Be It Further Proclaimed, that the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors call upon all
citizens of Pittsylvania County to observe the May 13, 2010 as Peace O, jficers' Memorial Day in
honor of those law enforcement officers who, through their courageous deeds, have made the ultimate
sacrifice in service to their community or have become disabled in the performance of duty, and let us
recognize and pay respect to the survivors of our fallen heroes.
Given under my hand this day 13`~ day of May, 2010.
Pittsylvania County Board
P2
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
Premier Racing LLC-Cancellation of Performance 05/18/2010 5(a)(2)
Agreement
ACTION: INFORMATION:
Yes
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: CONSENT AGENDA:
Cancellation of Performance Agreement ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Slee er REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Whereas the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors entered into a performance agreement with Premier
Racing LLC, a Virginia Corporation, on October 28, 2008, in order to develop Lot #8 in the Brosville
Industrial Park containing 11.65 acres and the creation of new jobs and private investment.
DISCUSSION:
Due to significant changes with the company as a racing team the actual performance agreement was never
instituted to be carried out. The land was not transferred nor was any development occurring during the
required period. Attached hereto is a letter received in January from Premier Racing LLC noting that due to
economic conditions they are requesting to convey all interest in said property, Lot #8, which was never
transferred back to Pittsylvania County or its assignee, to the Pittsylvania County Industrial Development
Authority (IDA). The Board of Supervisors should accept this letter and cancel and rescind the performance
agreement dated October 28, 2008. There should be no penalties involved as no changes of funding or
transfers of property have occurred.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors pass a motion to cancel and rescind the performance agreement
between the Board of Supervisors of Pittsylvania County and Premier Racing LLC dated October 28, 2008.
P3
.~,.'
r ~.
E
a~
January 13, 2010
Premier Racing, LLC
Mr. Scot Jones
3325 U.S. Hwy 29N, Suite A
Danville, VA 24540
Mr. William D. Sleeper
County Administrator
21 N. Main Sz
Chatham, VA 245431
Mr. Sleeper,
I regret to inform you that after much consideration and deliberation that we at
Premier Racing will not be able to meet the performance criteria as outlined in the
performance agreement entered into with the county.
In consideration of these facts and current economic conditions of our industry. We
knowingly and willfully convey any interest we had in said property in Brosville
Industrial Park back to Pittsylvania County or its assignee's We do this under the
understanding that there is no penalty under the performance agreement and all
parties agree to t)te remedy as proposer
P4
In closing we would like to thank the county for the opportunity and wish you all the
best
Respec ully,
/~ ~ ~~
low ~ ~ j ~.-
Scot Jones
Managing Member
Premier Racing, LLC
P5
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
Tunstall Volunteer Fire Department Request 05/18/2010 5(a)(3)
ACTION: INFORMATION:
Yes
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Request for Funding -Tunstall Volunteer Fire CONSENT AGENDA:
Department ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Slee er REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Tunstall Volunteer Fire Department received $30,000 from the Board of Supervisors for funding to build a
new fire station near Tunstall High School, utilizing a USDA grant from May 2005. In 2006, the department
had to hire an architectural firm to do the necessary architectural work and utilize the funds the Board of
Supervisors had given towards a new fire station. Subsequent to that date, they have continued building
and/or working on Tunstall's new fire and rescue station such that at the end of May 2008, the cost exceeded
$850,000.
DISCUSSION:
In order to find ways to pay the unexpected cost increases for their building Tunstall Volunteer Fire
Department is requesting the Board of Supervisors to help with an emergency request for funding to assist the
department in paying off their current loan. They are requesting $200,000 interest free or a low interest loan
over a 12 year period from the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff submits this to the Board of Supervisors for their review and consideration and cautions the Board this
would put them in competition with banks for loaning money even to volunteer fire departments and rescue
squads. The Fire Truck and Ambulance Program operates on a needed basis for departments that actually
need their equipment. If the equipment is not needed they move the request to the next available department
that needs the equipment rather than specifically funding an amount each year to a fire department.
P6
TUNSTALL
FIRS and R~~"CZI~
P.O. Box 575, Danville, Va. 24543 - 740 Tunstall High Rd., Dry Fork, Va. 24549
Phone:434-724-6677 Fax:434-724-6568
DIAL 911 E-mail: tunstallfrna,eamewood.net Web: tunstallfd.ora DIAL 911
Mr. Dan Sleeper
County Administrator
Pittsylvania County
Dan,
Detailed Project History
As you know, the Tunstall Vol. Fire & Rescue building project was approved and publicized to
begin in 2005. At that time, the department had covered every detail as to how the project would progress
and how it would be paid for. However, in early 2005, complications began to arise. At that time, no local
financial institutions could meet the needs of the project, so the deparhnent signed with the US Department
of Agriculture for a low interest loan in May 2005 (At this time the project cost was estimated at $625,000).
This seemed to be the right thing to do so that the project could continue. The USDA application process
continued throughout 2005, with the department trying to meet all of the requirements for the loan. In
February 2006, the USDA advised that the project could not go forth without the department hiring an
architect. (This was totally opposite of what was agreed upon in May 2005). So the department began a
search for an architect. In April 2006, the department signed with an architect. ($35,000) Once the architect
was signed on, the process basically began again. Throughout the rest of 2006 into early 2007 the department
worked with the USDA and the architect to meet all of the requirements. Also during this time, the architect
changed quite a bit of the building specifications. In early 2007, the project was put out for bids. The bids
returned, and a contract was awarded to a local contractor in spring of 2007.(At this point, with the time
delay and the change in building specifications, the building price was $757,000, which was higher than the
overall anticipated project cost in 2005.)Work on the building itself began in the summer of 2007 and
continued through spring of 2008. It was during the construction phase that the fuel prices spiked as never
seen before. The rise in fuel prices had a tremendous effect on the project. Because of the fuel prices,
materials, supplies and the parts of the project, such as the driveway, that was not under contract basically
doubled in price. These price increases added substantial cost to the project. Construction on the project was
completed in May of 2008 at a cost of $854,410.00
Request Information
Even though the construction of the building is complete, the project is not. Due to unexpected
delays and unforeseen expenses, the cost soared to $854,410.00 which was 27% above original cost
estimate of $625,000.00. This increase in cost coupled with the current economy and the inability to sell our
old building thus far, has led to financial dire straits for the department. Because of this, the department
ended up financing $589,000.00 for forty (40) years. At this time, we still have an outstanding balance of
approximately $568;000.00 on that long-term loan. Our original goal was not to borrow over $300,000.00
which could have been paid off in 12 to 15 years. The current balance requires an annual payment of
$30,468.00 which is double of what was anticipated. This double payment is creating a true financial
hardship for the department. In 2008 & 2009, our donations were down approximately 10% and 2010 is
showing the same trend. With this being said, the department is requesting assistance from Pittsylvania
County to help with our project. This is an EMERGENCY REQUEST for help.
P7
Specific Request & Request Budget
We have currently negotiated a $225,000 interest free loan with the George and Sarah Buchanan
Foundation (G&SBF), to be paid in 12 years. The G&SBF loan combined with the cash we have on hand
still leaves a shortfall of approximately $200,000 needed to pay-off our current loan. We have made
applications to several other foundations, for the balance of funding needed, but have been unsuccessful.
Also, we have contacted local banks about borrowing the balance. So far, only one bank has committed to
help, but with an interest rate of 6.2 % adjustable after five years.
Our specific request to Pittsylvania County is fora $200,000.00 interest free or low interest loan,
over 12 years (hopefully less than 12), to be paid with annual payments to offset the balance needed. This
funding will allow us to pay-off our building in 12 years instead of the 38 years. This will save the
department & essentially the county, approximately $595,000.00 in interest payments. This would be a huge
accomplishment for the department and the county
Summary
It is imperative that we find funding for this balance. The bank offer is OK, but with the adjustable
rate, it is very risky. Please consider our request. Thank you.
Note:
Tunstall Vol. Fire & Rescue is scheduled to receive funding for a fire truck and an ambulance within
the next 12 years. This funding totals $170,000. If this funding can be utilized for this purpose, it would
reduce the loan amount to $30,000.
Thank You,
Jeff Guill
Board of Directors
P8
HEARING OF CITIZENS
CONSENT AGENDA
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution #2010-OS-O1, Eagle Scout Hartzel
Gillespie
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Honoring an Eagle Scout
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Sleeper
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
OS-15-2010 7 (a)
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
Yes /
ATTACHMENTS:
Yes
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors supports our citizen working toward public support on volunteerism.
DISCUSSION:
Hartzel Gillespie has attained the rank of Eagle Scout and the County supports this program. Attached
hereto, you will find a resolution from the Board of Supervisors congratulating Mr. Gillespie on this
accomplishment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve this resolution and approve its presentation.
P9
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RESOLUTION
2010-OS-O1
WHEREAS, Hartzel Gillespie has successfully completed the requirements for the
rank of Eagle Scout; and
WHEREAS, the rank of Eagle Scout is the most outstanding, prestigious, and
highest rank that can be obtained by a member of the Boy Scouts of America; and
WHEREAS, the requirements and tasks put forth to obtain this prestigious standing
are a test of a man's ability to resolve problems, and deal with his innermost capabilities to
face the challenges at hand; and
WHEREAS, the successful completing of this accomplishment will follow Hartzel
Gillespie throughout his life assisting him in the day-to-day challenges allowing him to
persevere through the decisions that he has to make demonstrating the strengths that are
emblematic of the characteristics required to achieve the rank of Eagle Scout; and
WHEREAS, Hartzel Gillespie joined Troop 184 at the age of six, where he had
gone through all of the ranks of the Cub Scouts of America through Webelos; and
WHEREAS, Hartzel Gillespie climbed through the ranks of Boy Scouts of America
from Tenderfoot through the prestigious standing of Eagle Scout; then
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors
congratulates Hartzel Gillespie, on achieving the "Eagle Scout" status bringing honor and
recognition, not only to his Troop but to his County, Church and Family in showing the
leadership and sportsmanship of an outstanding citizen of Pittsylvania County; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to
Hartzel Gillespie, on the behalf of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Pittsylvania
and the Citizens of Pittsylvania County at the Eagle Scout Court of Honor on May 29, 2010
at Wayside Park, Hurt, Virginia.
Given under my hand this 18~' day of May 2010.
Henry A. Davis, Jr., Chairman
Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors
William D. Sleeper, Clerk
Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors
P10
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA DATE:
AGENDA TITLE: 5-18-10
Expenditure Refunds ~ ACTION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
CONSENT AGENDA:
Budget Amendment for expenditure refunds ACTION:
Yes
ATTACHMENTS:
Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Sleeper, VanDerHyde
ITEM NUMBER:
7(b)
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
Attached is a list of expenditure refunds for the month of April, 2010 for review. As discussed earlier with
the Board, the simple routine of putting every refund back in the budget is extremely time consuming and
leaves room for errors. To stay in balance with the Treasurer, we need to reappropriate refunds into the
budget so the budget would increase with every expenditure refund.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the reappropriation of funds as follows: $120.00 to Sheriff-Parts (100-4-031200-6030),
$303.00 to Fire & Rescue (100-4-032200-5540), $28.00 to Jail-Extradition (100-4-033100-5550), $1,575.00
to WIA-Other Operating (251-4-353856-6014).
P11
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
VIRGINIA
;~ T ' ~~
Finance Department * i
P.O. Box 426
Chatham, Virginia 24531 * * O
,. nee ~ /
MEMO TO: William D. Sleeper
County Administrator
FROM: Kim Van Der Hyde
Finance Director
SUBJECT: April Expenditure Refunds
DATE: May 13, 2010
Phone (434) 432-7740
Fax (434) 432-7746
Gretna/Hurt (434) 656-6211
Bachelors Hall/Whitmell (434) 797-9550
The list below shows all expenditure refunds that were sent to the Finance Department
during the month of April. I am recommending that all of the following expenditure
refunds be reappropriated by the Board of Supervisors:
100-4-031200-6030 Sheriff-Service Costs-Parts 120.00
Insurance Reimbursement
100-4-032200-5540 VF&D-Training 303.00
Training Reimbursement
100-4-033100-5550 Jail-Extradition 28.00
251-4-353856-6014 WIA-Other Operating 1,575.00
Reimbursement
TOTAL APRIL EXPENDITURE REFUNDS $ 2,026.00
P12
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
AGENDA DATE:
5-18-10
ITEM UMBER:
7(c)
Consent Agenda: Regional One-June
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Approval of Contract Payment
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
Yes
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Sleeper, VanDerHyde
ATTACHMENTS:
No
BACKGROUND:
At an adjourned meeting, December 22, 2008, the Board of Supervisors approved to begin paying Regional One
for back-up ambulance service to the County. At that time, the Board requested that payment to Regional One be
approved on a monthly basis. A total of $70,000 has been appropriated for Regional One in the 2010 Budget.
DISCUSSION:
It is time to approve payment for Regional One for the month of June. The amount due to Regional One is
$5,833.33. These funds have already been budgeted in the 2010 budget and do not require an appropriation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve payment to Regional One for June 2010.
P13
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
AGENDA DATE:
5-18-10
ITEM NUMBER:
7(d)
Consent Agenda: Project Lifesaver
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Sheriffs Office -Project Lifesaver Budget
Amendment
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
Yes
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Sleeper, VanDerHyde
ATTACHMENTS:
No
BACKGROUND:
Project Lifesaver is a program that was implemented by the Pittsylvania County Sheriff's Office in June,
2000, to assist in locating missing Alzheimer and dementia patients.
DISCUSSION:
The program is currently self-supporting, operating on donations. During the month of April, 2010 the
Sheriff's Office received $333.00 in donations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board amend the Sheriff's Office budget and appropriate the $333.00 to line item
100-4-031200-5882.
P14
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
AGENDA DATE:
5-18-10
ITEM NUMBER:
7(e)
State Restricted Seizure Fund
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Appropriation of State Restricted Fund Balance
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Sleeper, VanDerHyde
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
Yes
ATTACHMENTS:
No
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
During the budget process, a minimal amount of funds are budgeted in the restricted seizure fund accounts.
The State Restricted Seizure Fund for the Sheriff had an original appropriation of $20,000.
DISCUSSION:
Currently, the appropriated balance in the State Restricted Seizure Fund has been over-expended by $22,508.
The State Restricted Seizure Fund has a cash balance of $187,244.58. Staff recommends that $50,000 of this
balance be appropriated to line item 241-4-031700-6010-Police Supplies in the State Restricted Seizure
Fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board appropriate a total of $50,000 (241-4-031700-6010) to the State Restricted
Seizure Fund from their fund balance. This request does not require a 10-day layover because these funds are
not from the General Fund.
P15
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
AGENDA DATE:
5-18-10
ITEM NUMBER:
7(f J
Consent Agenda: Opportunity On-Line Library Grant ~ ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: ACTION:
Yes
Appropriation of Gates Foundation Opportunity on
Line Grant ATTACHMENTS:
Yes
REVIEWED BY:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Sleeper, VanDerHyde, Mills
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
The Library was awarded a grant in the amount of $3,900.00 from the Gates Foundation. The PPL
Foundation provided the local match of $3,900 for this grant. The Board of Supervisors has already
appropriated the local match for this grant. The Board needs to appropriate the remaining $3,900 for a total
grant amount of $7,800.00.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that $3,900.00 be appropriated to the Opportunity On-Line Grant (250-4-073313-6021).
P16
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Opportunity Online Hardware Grant Program
Matching Funds Verification Form
LIBRARY 4-
of VIRGINIA
INSTRUCTIONS: The Gates Foundation requires all information requested below. Please provide all details for quickest
processing of your grant payments.
• Use a separate form to document Phase One and Phase Two matches.
• Mail completed and signed form to: The Library of Virginia, Attn: Carol Adams, Assistant Director for Library
Development and Networking, 800 E. Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23219. Call Carol with any questions 804-692-3774
or email at carol.adams@Iva.virginia.gov.
1. LIBRARY NAME: ~~Trsifl JQy~i R. CCU v~~U ~~~~~L ~-"b'r~
2. WHAT PHASE ARE YOU DOCUMENTING: Phase One ^ Phase Two*
3. TOTAL AMOUNT OF REQUIRED MATCH THIS PHASE: ~ 3gon . e o
*NOTE.• You may purchase all computers in Phase One if desired; keep in mind however that Phase Two grant funds
will be disbursed starting May 2009, pending completion of grant requirements (ALq/FSU Survey, TechAt/as
inventory).
4. DESCRIPTION OF MATCH SOURCE(S): Check all applicable box(es) below. Provide supporting amt of funding
details as requested. Use a separate page for additional information if needed. from this source
^ EXISTING LIBRARY TECHNOLOGY BUDGET FUNDS. (Government Funds) Briefly $
describe the source of the existing funding including contact info.
Date funds were committed to your library:
Date funds will be disbursed or available to the library:
^ NEW LIBRARY TECHNOLOGY BUDGET FUNDS . (Government Funds) Briefly describe $
the source of the new funding including contact info.
Date funds were committed to your library:
Date funds will be disbursed or available to the library:
NONGOVERNMENTAL DONATIONS OR GRANTS (e.g. private donors, community $ 3500 , 0 0
foundation grants, local business sponsors, etc.). list donor contact information below or on
separate page.
PPL Fckr~dc.~;m; Po ~~ Si`~7 Cl.~rfi.c.rn l~E y-}53i
Date funds were committed to your library: C
Date funds will be disbursed or available to the library: h ~ ~ =,1 Zt: e
^ MONIES DERIVED FROM FUNDRAISING EFFORTS (e.g. book sales, library fundraisers, etc.) $
Date funds were committed to your library:
Date funds will be disbursed or available to the library:
Total from all sources (should equal #3 above) $
5. CERTIFICATON: By signing below, the Trustees and the Administration of the library certify that the funds
committed above will not supplant local funds already dedicated for the library or computer workstations.
p/J/ 6
Authorize Signature ' Date
L 11a ~ r~ ger ~~I c~ 1 rt.: s ~ ems Authorized Signer's Title
P17
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
AGENDA DATE:
5-18-10
ITEM NUMBER:
fi(g)
Consent Agenda: Reimbursement of Dewberry ACTION:
Contracts with the Industrial Development Authority
(IDA)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
Yes
ATTACHMENTS:
Approval of using Economic Development funds to Yes
reimburse the IDA for 3 Dewberry Contracts
REVIEWED BY:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Sleeper, VanDerHyde, Bowman
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND: .
The IDA currently owns the Ringgold East Shell Building. The Shell Building has been targeted as a
potential site for a new economic development prospect.
DISCUSSION:
The IDA has entered three separate contracts with Dewberry & Davis to provide a conceptual floor plan, a
site/civil plan and a cost estimation for retrofitting the shell building for this potential client. These three
contracts total $23,800. The IDA wishes to be reimbursed for the total cost of these three contracts.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve a total reimbursement of $23,800 to the IDA from
Economic Development Funds. The IDA will submit reimbursement requests as the expenditures occur.
P18
551 Piney Forest Road 434 797 4497
~ ~ Danville, Virginia 24540-3353 434 797 4341 fax
,;. Dewberry P.O. Box 1509 • Danville, Virginia 24543-1509 www.dewberry.com
CONFIDENTIAL
Mazch 4, 2010
Mr. David Long
Chairman
Pittsylvania County Industrial Development Authority
P.O. Box 426
Chatham, VA 24531
RE: Proposal for Site/Civil Planning
Ringgold East Shell Building
Ringgold, VA
Deaz Mr. Long:
Per our recent discussions, Dewberry & Davis, Inc. (Dewberry) appreciates the opportunity to
submit herewith our proposal for engineering services.
UNDERSTANDING OF PROTECT
It is our understanding potential tenants are evaluating property and available industrial building
space within the limits of the industrial parks located within the County. The industrial space of
interest is the Ringgold East Shell Building. It is our understanding the Ringgold East Shell
Building continues to provide interest because of the proximity to Cane Creek Centre, which
houses Swedwood and with the highway access from U.S. Route 58.
Pittsylvania County Industrial Development Authority (Owner) currently owns the 60,000 SF
facility located within the park. We understand the current prospect would like for the Owner to
evaluate the cost of the required building improvements to outline a cost for a possible lease. It is
our understanding the Owner would like for Dewberry to assist with this effort by generating a
preliminary construction cost estimate for the proposed usage/expansion to the building.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
1. En>;ineering Services
Dewberry will utilize the existing civiUsite construction plans of the Ringgold East Shell
Building site and/or the most recent aerial photography for the base map of the proposed site
development. It is our understanding the site development could include but not limited to
vehicular access, vehiculaz pazking, truck access and truck routing for product delivery.
Based on our understanding existing onsite utilities (i.e. water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer
and electric) will not be impacted; therefore, will not need to be relocated. It should be noted
that this plan will be submitted to seek comments from the local approval agency
(Pittsylvania County Planning) to ensure all site requirements have been met. Once the plan
Dewbeny & Davis, Inc.
P19
Mr. David Long
Page 2
March 4, 2010
is preliminarily approved, Dewberry will prepare a preliminary construction cost estimate of
the proposed site improvements.
SCOPE CLARIFICATIONS
1. Dewberry will not perform any surveying as part of this scope of work.
2. Dewberry will utilize the existing civiUsite topographic, utility and building mapping.
3. This site plan is preliminary in nature and will be used for cost estimating only. A detailed
site plan would be required prior to construction.
COMPENSATION
Pittsylvania County will compensate Dewberry for the following services:
Scope Item 1. Engineering Services ................................................................. Lump Sum $7,800
STANDARD TERMS & CONDITIONS
This proposal is subject to our Standard Terms & Conditions included herewith as Attachment A.
Sincerely,
ment
SLH/slh/vnl
Attachment A -Standard Terms & Conditions (3/03)
cc: William D. Sleeper, Pittsylvania County
Ken Bowman, Pittsylvania County
R:~Proposal L.etters~Engineering~2009.03.04.Ringgold East Proposal Site Planning REVISED.docx
~ Dewberry'
P20
Senior Vice President
Office Manager
Mr. David Long
Page 3
March 4, 2010
The foregoing proposal of De
.~'a~
c
/~
is,'Tnc. is accepte~
r" ~~ ~-
;_~ _~1
Print (Type) Individual, Firm, or Corporate N
Signature of Authorized Representative ~ V Date
Print (Type) Name of Authorized Representative and Title
Dewberry'
P21
ATTACHMENT A
STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS
These Standard Tams and Corditions (-STCs")are incorporated by rcfercrxx imo the foregoing agreement, or proposal (the "Agreemax'7 beaveen Dewberry ('"we" a'1rs" a
"our") and its eliem t"You' or'your"1 for the perfomauxx of vchitectural. engineering, survrying, planning, a other services ("Services"). These STCa ate fully binding upon
you just as if they were fully set forth in the body of the Agreement. and shall supersede any term a provision elacwherc in the Agroerrretx in confliA with thge STCs.
I . Period of ORer. Unless we deride, in writing, to extend the period for stxxpurrce by You of our proposal, You have 90 drys from our propoesd dae to accept our
propo~, We lave the right to withdraw the proposd n cry time before you accept. Delivery of a signed proposal-whether original aDopy-to us-corelitules Yarr accept'
esrroe of the proposal. including attaehmerxs txprculy incorporated into the proposal by reference. The proposal and irxarporated anacMxrks slrll eortttitute Ate entire ngree-
max betwearyou and ro.
I fyo„ request us a rends Services before you deliver a signed proposal to us, and we rerda Services in accordance with the ProP~. Ya >~ thu ~ P'°P°i~
and these STCs.canstittxe the Ageemen- between You and es even if you fail a return • signed proposal a tb.
2. Scope of $ervkn. Fa the fee ser forth in the Agreement, you .agree thu we shell only be obligated to render the Services expressly described in the Apermem.
Unless the Agreement ezpreuly requires. in ra evax do we hve cry obligation a resportsibiliry for:
a• The corteetneu and completeness of arty document which was prspared by aradta entity.
b. The corr'ect-xss esrd completerres of arty drawing prepared by us. unless it was properly sealed by • professiorwl on our behdf.
a Favorable a timely eonartem a setion by any gtrvemmennl ertcry on the wbmission of arty eonstrtrction docurronb, land nx•or feasibility studies, appals.
petitions for exceptiorts a waivers, a other requests a documents of arty nature whatsoever. -
d. Taking info account off-site eircumstar~ces other than Uax akarlY visible end aawlly known to us from orrsite work.
e. The actual location (a characteristics) of arry portiort of a txiliry which is not entirely visible from A-e surface.
t To famish a verify sperificnions a requirerrrerrls related a PCB trerofomta removal, disposal, or related services.
& The axrectrress of arty geotedarleal services performed by oAtea, whether a rtot our wbcorteractars.
h. The aceuracY of earth worts estimates end quarxiry uke•otfs, a the balance of eardt work cut srd fill.
Should shop drawrrtg review ~ into the Services, we shall peu upon the shop drawings with reawrobk prompurers. Clredring cad approval of shop
drawing vrrll be gerwal, for eonfortrona with the design ooocept of the projett a which this Agreement relates (`Project•~ and eanpliesrtce wish the arferrrraabn gavan in Ate
~~pon doeumertts, aril will not include quarxitie, detrikd dimertsiorb, nor edjusimenb of dimabiorb to acnttl heW condidorts. Approvd shaft not be oabtrued as per-
mitting airy dePertrxe from eorttract «qurerrtatts nor as nlieving the CorxrWOr of the 'bgny-fa arytmttran derails, diraeaaorb a.ahawise Thal snay sxiss.
We do not provide legal, aooourxtrrg. a inwrance xrvioes. atthority from you. mry oral-
3. Yorr Orsl DeeFaNns. You. a arty of your directors, offioas. partrras, members, managers. arrployees or agents having appaent
h,: (a) eke dacisioro relating m Services a the AgroemeM; (b) requet a cMnge in fire scope of Services order the Agreemem; a (cl requet e a reader additiaral cervices
under dte', ffeierneM. wbjert a our rigix to require you W wbmit the request in writing before your derision a regtrest shall be corrsidaed a hrrve ban dkotivdy made. You
may, a arty time. limit the authority of any a all persons to au orally on your brdnlf under This Paragraph 3, by giving us seven 7 days advance wripett nodes
~. Proprieaary Rigl~- The dreswirrgs, speeifiatian end other docurnems prcpaed by to order this Apeemem ere irtnrtrrtenb d err swioa for use solely fa Ate
~j~.~ antes odtavnix provded. we still be deen-ed dre author of these doeumertb aril shall reuin all common law. steuaory and other reserved ~ ~~; ~
copyright. You strait be permitted a main copies, including reprodueibk copies of our irotnanems of eerviee for informatior and reference for the Project. ~~ Yov rrreske en
ti+n+.ot fa compktiori offhis•Projeetby uelKfOtofe>ai°nds•
ifiatioro;err alrer docwrrerxs strait arot be used by you.a.othen on. otlra prnjectsla_arry regulatory req in eomertiott with the Project
for strclr use suisfactory to es. Submission a dism'bution of doerxrtenb a meet official alrlmenb a for similar purposes
is not a be eoretrued as P~i~10" ineOnH~ with our reserved riglxs.
5. Fees and Cempewtkn. If you request ra to render services not specifially described in the Agrearrer->, a, if wc, or trryane in our errdoY, is celled upon to
be , a to testify. in es masts. in which we are rat ^ romed party. that ,relates a otu Services. you agree ro oomPerbale us for such service in esotardarra with Ate hourly
rates as xtioM on AnaehrneM A of this Agreemax a in any wMequartly efteetive sclteduk, unless a written agreement.has been signed by bodt you and m adrutrng Ara fx
a etrrrga. If ra eompertsation rate is set WrAr on Anerhmerx A. a through wriaen agreemenx between you and us, we shall be oompatsesled
basis of such esddidoral services We rroy unilateral rrrereasc om lump sum a unit bitting rates on each anniversary of your eeoaptaae of Ihb Apamerx e
fa such services r our then crrrerx hourly roves. lY • rtgtan), wlricireva is 10
much a five Piet a the paoaxaEe irrerease in the CPI-W (U.S. Oepartmax of labor Corowner Price Indar-Washi {~~• ~' razes are >~
periodic revision a our discretion. t and the eomperoatiort provided for rider the Agroemerx Mve been established in amieipedort of the rtrder-
6. Period of Serriee. The provisions of this Agreemerr be red 10 oorrtplesa the Services in an
h aril egpinuous progreu.of the Project. Our obliption to rerrda xrvices will extgd Dray for Ave period which may reasorrbly regal
orderly end eorrdnuous manna end we mry then. a our sole option, temrimte Are Agreerrrem.
7. Coasbatetloa C~• CO1wn~On cosh are defirrad as the wtal avert coat a estirrased cost to you of all elerrrerxs of the'project deigned a specified by us
exeludirrg our fees. Wes essstrrrrc ra resporrsrbiliry fa airy Projat a oorbtruaion cost estimates a opinions given to you as we have no control over the cost of labs, n-aaials.
equipment, or services famished by others, a ova competitive bidding a mesrka oond'niorb.
!. ~n(saraatik Espemes. Unless the Agmenrent othruwix Provides. you stall reimles+x tss, or our affiliates, for all expense we irtenr a reader the Services for
us fiflear percent. We may wbmit invoices for reimbursable expenses sepesrately flan invoices for Services.
you under this Apeement. PI We ~Y submit invoices a cry time a you for Services and for reimbursable experoes incurred. Imroias ere payable wfArn 30 days of the
9. Peyrnent Ternd. nanth on cry unpaid balesnoe not received by us within 30 days of tlx: invoice dtxt ittvoias
invoice date. esrd you agra w pry a firtenec charge of one and one half percent per
may be based either upon our estimate of the proportion of the total xrvices acnnlly oompl~d at the time of billing for lump sum a fixed fee services. a in the ease of hottalY
~~ ~ rerrdenrtg of the Services. If cry invoice is rat pad within 30 days of the invoice dae, we shill live the right either q sus¢ad the •ddib'orralof h• shall
Ain 3(1 drys past due ere fully paid a so tamirrte the agrxment and w initiate ptoceedirtgs to recover aratax3 gwed by Yov-
urxil all invoices rrrae an or ux of any drawings a doctxnerxs prepaed by us for you order this or cry orbs a0earorrt with you urttA all delirtquerx
have the rigfil to wrthlad frO1A Y0° ~
invoices are Paid in firll.' You shaft n3i ottsd prymeMS of our mvoiees by >M' smounts due, a claimed to be due dor any reason.
If you do not give a written ratice disputing an invoice within 20 days of the invoice date. the invoice shall conclusively be deemed correct. Alp ~ dir
you should sperify Ara irrvoice aumben being paid. If we receive prymems that do not sperify the invoices being paid. You agree th-t we may apply PaY
uetiort. Timc is d the esr~ of YOe payment obligaliorb; and your fitltese,meslte full and dmey pryment shall ;bt deemed a material braaeh.
10. latorrrartka From Yw cad PrrDlk Soarea. You shall famish us ell plans, drawings, wrveys, deeds and other douarterxs retested a Ara services in your Fos'
session and shall inform m in writing above :11 sperid criteria a requirerrterxs rehtcd w Services (together, `Infomtation'} We mry obtain deeds. Ply. ~ ~ ~ otlK:r
information filed with m published by MY governnterxal emiry (togalrer, "Public Informestiort"} We may rely on Inforrrtaion and Public lnforrrtaion in rendering Services. We
shall not be responsible for errors a omissioro a additional costs arising ow of our reliance on information a Public Infrxrrtaion. ~We shall not ~ ocetesteroe flit dGcts the
eriteries or requirerrtems related b our Swiss race rxpressly acted in the Agreemenx. You agree to give promp notice w us of Lary devebpMrx
of the Saviors.
scope a timing d Services. or any defect in the Tirol work srrbrrtitted by us, a errors a omissaro of others 1 '~ esdeeisions. sa required fix the adaly propasFroPas ~ ~ ~~
cgaequerrce arising in whole or in pen from your hiltre a prov'tdaeeeuntc a timely irrfomraion, approves for al. However. it mry be rreaeaesry, in ceder t0 save Yonr
11. Pha Pr>teeaesesiq. We mry wbmi- plans and retried. or gher, doeumems a public agencies appmv aOdra doetesrterxs from agency
interests and nods. for us a perform speeid prxasing, such as attending meetings and confercnoes with differem agencies, hard carrying plain
I.SM 3/03
~ Dewberry
_ - ._ _
__ ._
~~.~.
P22
551 Piney Forest Road 434 797 4497
® Danville, Virginia 24540-3353 434 797 4341 fax
~!! Dewberry P.D. Box 1509 Danville, Virginia 24543-1509 www.dewberry.com
CONFIDENTIAL
March 4, 2010
Mr. David Long
Chairman
Pittsylvania County Industrial Development Authority
P.O. Box 426
Chatham, VA 24531
RE: Proposal for Architectural Planning
Conceptual Floor Plan/Building Code Review
Ringgold East Shell Building
Ringgold, VA
Dear Mr. Long:
Per our recent discussions, Dewberry & Davis, Inc. (Dewberry) appreciates the opportunity to
submit herewith our proposal for architectural and engineering services.
UNDERSTANDING OF PROTECT
It is our understanding potential tenants are evaluating property and available industrial building
space within the limits of the industrial parks located within the County. The industrial space of
interest is the Ringgold East Shell Building. It is our understanding the Ringgold East Shell
Building continues to provide interest because of the proximity to Cane Creek Centre, which
houses Swedwood and with the highway access of U.S. Route 58.
Pittsylvania County Industrial Development Authority (Owner) currently owns the 60,000 SF
facility located within the park and based on the current prospect would like to evaluate the cost
of the required building modifications to project a cost for a possible lease.
In order for Dewberry to generate a preliminary construction cost estimate for the proposed
usage/expansion to the building a conceptual floor plan will need to be generated. Dewberry will
also perform a building code review to ensure the proposed usage/expansion is in compliance
with local and state occupancy codes.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
1. Conceptual Floor Plan -Building Code Review
Dewberry will utilize the existing architectural construction plans of the Ringgold East Shell
Building while preparing a conceptual floor plan of the entire facility. We understand the
Owner will provide Dewberry a schematic floor plan (Attachment B) of the proposed
equipment layout, which will be provided by the tenant. It is our understanding the provided
schematic floor plan will illustrate the proposed equipment location within designated spaces
Dewberry 8~ Davis, Inc.
P23
Mr. David Long
Page 2
March 4, 2010
of the existing facility along with truck dock relocations, office space upgrades, restroom
locations, meeting rooms, cafeteria, etc. The process layout shall be provided to Dewberry in
AutoCAD format in order to be implemented into the building. While preparing the
Architectural Floor Plan, Dewberry will review the Virginia Site Uniform Building Code
2006 to ensure all proposed items will be in compliance.
SCOPE CLARIFICATIONS
1. Dewberry will not perform any building measuring as part of this scope of work.
2. Dewberry will not provide any construction plans as part of this scope.
COMPENSATION
Pittsylvania County will compensate Dewberry for the following services:
Scope Item 1. Architecture Services ................................................................. Lump Sum $8,500
STANDARD TERMS & CONDITIONS
_ This proposal is subject to our Standard Terms & Conditions included herewith as Attachment A.
Sincerely,
Dewberry vis, Inc.
Sh no u
Manager of Economic evelopment
~ ~ ~
V'
Larry W. Hasson, AIA, LEED AP
Senior Associate
Senior Architect/Project Manager
SLH/slh/vnl
Attachment A -Standard Terms & Conditions (3/03)
Attachment B -Industrial Building Fit Out Requirements
cc: William D. Sleeper, Pittsylvania County
Ken Bowman, Pittsylvania County
R:~Proposal C.etters~Engineering~2009.03.04.Ringgold East Proposal Arch Planning REVISED.docx
Dewberry'
P24
Mr. David Long
Page 3
March 4, 2010
The foregoing proposal of
r ,~
~~
avis, IncGis-acc~pt~d:~
,~ ) (,~
r
Print (Type) Indivi~l, Firm; of Corporate Name
Signature of Authorized
Date
Print (Type) Name of Authorized Representative and Title
~ Dewberry'
P25
ATTACHMENT A •
STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS
' 1 matt betv+eat Dewberry ("we" «'1n' «
These Standard Tams and Condhions ('STCs") are incorporated by rcferata into the foregoing agreement. «other seserviees ("Services 1. These STCs arc fully bitdirtg upon
-ptr") end its eliaa ('you' or'Y~ ~) f« the performance of architectural, crag raring, surveying, pl
yott just as if they were fully set forth in the body of the Agrtxntatt and shall supersede any tam «provision elsewhere in the Agreettant in eonflia with thtae STCs.
1. Period of Offer. Unless we decide. in writing, to extend the period f« soeeptatrce by You of o« proposal, you have 90 days from otv proposal disc to accept our
ro withdraw the proposd at airy time before you accept. Delivery of a signed proposal-whether ori6ind «twPY-t° useotectultx you aocep-
We have the right
P1°P°Sv including attaehmeras expressly inwrporated into the proposal by reference. The proposal and incorporued uuchmerus still oortstittae the entire attee-
anoe of the proposal.
meat between you and us. that the proposal
If you request a w render Services before you deliver a signed proposal to ua, and rR rcrder roSesrvices in accordance with the proposal, You agree
and rtrse STCs.eoati~ the Agreement between You and a even if you fail k rerun a signed proptre
2. Scope et Servkes• F« the fa set forth in the Agreemrnt, You tigree thu vie mall only be obligated to render the Servioa expressly dacrt'bed in the /-pament.
Unku the Agreement expressly regtrircs, in rto event do we have any obligation «resporribiliry for.
a. The correctness end completeness of any document which was prepared by another eiitiry.
b. The correeness and ee-rtgtlaerrcss of arty dewing prepared by us. unkts it was properly satkd by a profexsiotal on ou behdL
e. Favorable « timely eomrrrett « anion by any gewemmatnl story on the submission of any consataxion docttrrtatet, land usr« fauibility stadia, appals.
pditiom f« exceptiota or waivers. «aher requests «eloeunents of tiny ruturc watsoeva.
d. Taking into accoua off-site circumstances other than those ekerly visible and tttatrlly known to us front on-site work.
e. The actual loeuion (a clrraasistics) of any portion of a utility which is not emirely visible from tlr surface.
t To famish «verify t;pecificuiorr «regwrements rdued b PCB trensf«tnar naitoval. disposal. «relued servitxs.
& .I.a ~~ e f yty gsAlt,clutiexl services performed by shat, whether or act our strbeortaacsors.
h. The accuracy of esrdt work atirrtnes sd quauiry ulreoflt, « the balance of earth work cut and fill.
Sib daft drawing review be bncorporated into dtc Services, we shall past upon the shop drewirrts with rgsorabk prompatat Clrckirit and apprwd of shop
drawings will be taarel, [« eonfoenrrtce with the design wrtoept of the project w which this Atreenrat slates ("Project') and oompl'wiee vridi ~ irdoarrtioa riven in the
and will not irtdude quataities, detailed dimerriorts. nor adjttstmeMS of dimarions a acual heW oondi0orts. Ap!poval shell tat be oonatnad a per-
ue from exrrttacl requireirrras nor es aTinnng the Contractor oT the~aporrtb'iliry f«+nY ert« in daails.dirneraiorn or,odtawise fat may erdst.
mining arty depart aooourahtt. «irourtce sexvioes.
We do rot provide kcal, rnembas. rransters, artployeus or starts having apparent authoeiry fiorrt Y°Y• ~' °~'
;. Yewr Ors( fJaMiw. You, or airy of your direerors. olfieers. panrtexs. • « c is a raider additi«al services
h,: (s) eke deeiaiair renting to Service «the Agrartau: fb) request a change in the scope of Services Coder the Agreement. () regtast
trader Ute Atreemeu. sublccl to ou ritM to require You to submit the request in writing bafare your decision «request shall be wnsidsed so have btxit etffeaively made. You
nay, u any time, limit the wdtonb of any « all penorts a as orally on yestr beaN under this Peratraph 3, by giving us se:vsi 7 days advarioe wrltkn riodoe.
Rkhb• The drnrirtts. fpaifiatiats end ealts doerrrtair prepsed by es coder this Atresnsa are ittsaunwas ttf our asvioe for rise solely t« to
1, preprksary
peojoel erd. unless odtawise PfO"'~• vie call be deemed the audit of these doerrneres and slap retain all contnton b-w, sntutay. aced otlrr reserved tithes. indttdkg
You stall be pertttitted q troteia copies, includirit rcproduu'bk copies of our irrtrtrraras tsf service f« infortnaaion end ieference for tie ProjeG. ~ derdrevria m~ettpec-
shall cot be steel by you ac-ealan on.oths poojeras~~Y~« f« gompleti«i~of'ihis'ProjecTltij~ celwxPtofesdertek.
ifieatiora;w otlar deetrrterMS uiremertts «t« similar purposes in eoierctioa with die Project
etrerriru f« arelt use stafstactory a a. Submission «dismbutan of doeunair a meet official eetnktory req
a rrrt m be extrstrtiad a publtession inoontistait with err reserved rithts. «. if we, « arryetra in our employ. is celled upon a
S. Fees sad Cgepewatkn. If you request us to raider services na specifically described in the Atreartan4 ~ f« such services in aee«dartee with the hourly
be deposed, « W testify, in a muter. m which we are not a rimed parry. ChM • relater to~ow Serviea. You agree OOr~ ties bean si both yw sad m irdiatirtt to tee
run es set i«dt to ApaehrnaM A of this Agreeniemt « in airy subsequently effeaivc sehethrk, unless • written etrearanl. 1p~ ~ we still be ooaipatsated
If ro eoertperuuion rate is set forth on Atuchmeu A. «thrwigli wriaen atreemaa between ytw and us.
basis of such additiaral services «elrnga. as
f« tech services u our then etrrerr hourly rates. We may unilaterally inerase our lump turn « unit billing noes ern each aroiversary of yesu acoepwtoe of this Apeanera w
much es fivepsexm «the peseeraate ineresse in the CPI-W (U.S. Departiirra of Labor Consun-er Price Index-Wsshiritton), whichever is treats. Hourly rises ere subject
p~odie revision u our discretion. and the compernatiori provided f« under the Agreement eve ban established in antk(peaioa of the order
6. Period of Sen'iee. The provisiora of this Atrexmera which may ressonbly be required b wmpkte der Servwa m m
b and coraiirrous P"~ of the Project. Our obligaion to rends services will extend only f« Chu period
orderfY and wrainisoirs rrarrrr ~ we may then. u otr sole e-ption, temtierte die Atreenserw
7. Ceastresetlea Casts. CaerstniAion exits are defirrd es the tout actual cost « estimued coat to you of all ekmaaa of the projeer desitned « speafad by es
exeludint our fees. We e~"a no resporriMlity f« arty Prgxt « oartruuiori rust estiwirta « opinions riven a you a vie eve ro coeard over the eon M kbor, aaoterids,
equipmera, « services ftrrtished by °~°~ «esver wmpedt)ve bfddtrtg or niaAcet exsnditiorr. we irteer a render the Sexvices f«
g. Rdrabaesatik Esptrses. Unless the Agreeetient orlserwiu provides. You call rtiimburse att. «ar affiliates, f« all e:xperra
us 6fkat percent. We mry subma invoices f« reimbusabk expaves separftely from invoices f« Ssvioa. ~~ ~ ekys of the
you under this Apeairn4 f+l We ~Y sttbinit rnvoiea u arty time a you tot Ssvitxs and f« reimbersabk expernes incurred. Invoices are payable
9. Payaieat Teak. balance not received by es wfdritt 30 days titer invoice rkte, lrtvoices
invoice dare, and yoe >~ 1O ~' a firartcc carte of one and one elf plant ps month an arty wtpaid
~, ~ based eidter upon our tstimate of the proportion of the total servfoa acadly exriipkted u the time of hillier f« lump sum «fisred fee ferviess, « in ta~ Service
services. upon reridenng td ~ Services. If arty invoice is na Pad within 30 days elf the invoice date. we call eve the taint eidrr q sus~aid fly, vie fhdl
rasa( all invoices mere drat 30 ms's f~ due are fully paid «to tsrtnieale the ageemsa and to rnitiak proceedirits to mover amass etiwed by Y~•
«use of drawints «doctattams p'aParod by us f« you under this a airy other a~eaitsa with you crag all deslingtrera
true die ritht to witlilield fiO1" yon ~ ~ ~
irnroioes art paid m full. You call riiii offsd peymaits of wr mvt-ica by arty amoiras due, err clamed w be due d« say reason.
If you do not pve a wntten name dispuiret an invoice within IO days of the invoice date. the invoice call earidusively be dearied exreteet All payitr+as made by
you should spesify fir invoice nunbert berm Paid' 1 f we receive pegmeras that do not specify the invoices being paid, You agree that we mty apply payiraats in our sole dis-
of our mesa ciMituiors: reel Yar fiilure,make full and timely payment shall ;be deemed • trrtsial break.
union Time is of the cassias Y pay
10. laferrmtba Freai Yon swd Prblk Seurexs. You sail famish us all plans, drawings, surveys. deeds and otlar doarastts rekled b the services m Y~~r
session anti still inform us in writing about all special criteria «requirerranas rekted to Servrxs (torahs. `Infonnatron') We may esbtain deeds. !shat. maps sad trry We
infoneiuion filed with «pebl~ by mY ~vertireieeaal amity lbt~• "Publk lnforrration"). We rnaY rely on Inforrtiuion and Public lrttormstiou is tetideriret Setvioas.
shall not be rcspersibk for ertars «omiuias « edditiortal costs arising era of ~reliana on~lntoraat ~ ~iw~ cenw«~f~ury~devslopnt~arttaor tat atleots dr
~~ or ~ related a err Services not expressly stated in the Agrosne
sc~ «tiirti~ t~ gervioes. « any defect in the final work earbrrtiaed by res. «errors « tteniasiotr of cabers a dry arc dacovered. We fall not be resporribk for tray adveae
end decisions, as regtrieed f« to erduly Protest of to Ssvkes
opaoquenee arisint m whole «in pan feom ytwr failure to providaaoeurue «timely irdorrrtuion. apprewals« al. However, it may be neoeasy. in order so serve your
1 t. Plan PrscessMig. We may submit phsns and rehied. « ealrr, doeumerrs a public atencia aDPe'ov «eaher dociaaeras from a¢~Y
interests and Creeds. f« es to perform special processing. such as utatding meetirtts and eonfercrices vrith differem sgertcies.and carrying f~
ISM 3103
~ Dewberry
~~--- _ _ _
P26
ATTACHMENT B
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING FIT OUT REQUIREMENTS
QUESTIONNAIRE
Name of Company:_Axxor
Location of Current Facility:
N/A
Contact Person: Robert Boerrigter
Title: Pres., co-owner Axxor N.A
Phone No.•
Fax No.:
Description of Product Produced: Cell No.:_502-939-3870
Honeycomb Core Email Address: R.Boerrigter@Axxor.eu
ARCHITECTURAL:
Building Breakout
Space Sgµare.
Foota a Sq. fogt~ge
future Clear'Height Sq~ar~~te~r~;at
stet
Office 3,300 5,000 304
Raw Material Storage 11,300 11,300 24 1053
Finish Product
Stora e 19,100 38,000 20 1782
Mf .Process 25,300 50,000 28? 2349
Additional enclosures 6,000 6,000 548
Total 65,000 110,300 6,038
• What is your total building square footage required? 65,000_
hat is total building square footage with expansion? 110,000
• What are raw materials stored and amounts? Paper rolls, Glue
Raw Material Amount Flammabilit
Glue _ Gallons / max 6 tanks of
23m3 No
Paper rolls _ Lbs. max 1100 metric
tons No (yes over long intense
heat)
Packa in materials S .meters 150 m2 Yes
Any hazardous material, locations, or process material?_Batteries (forklift trucks)
What if any chemicals are used in your process?_N/A, other than glue
P27
• Number of anticipated employees at 100% capacity? 50 - 75 in 5 years.
• Minimum column bay spacing requirements, if any? ?
• What is typical storage height of raw materials
Rolls paper: 3x2.40 meter=7.20 meter=24 feet;
o Finished goods: 4x1m50cm=6meter=l6 feet (4 pallets high)+rack space = 20 feet.
This could be as low as 3xl.2meter = 3.6 meter=l2 feet
• How are materials moved throughout facility (i.e. forklifts) (propane, electric), etc.?
Forklifts electric, less dirt). Possible moving track for paper rolls. Possible conveyor
from production line to wrapping area. Possible AGV (Automatic Guarded Vehicle) for
connection between production and conveyor
• What are your programmatic requirements (i.e. break rooms, locker rooms, restrooms,
mechanical rooms, machine rooms, shipping/receiving offices, general office space, etc.?
Ro4~n/S ace
Descri tion Approx.
SF Fut}rr'e
(5 earl. Number
Peo i~
Total office space
Of which: 3,300 5,000
Cafeteria break room Coffee, lunch table, drink
machines 20
Office -plant
mana er + flex 2
Office -int. sales, 2
flex, site engineer,
tannin 6
Office admin 2
Server room 0
Restroom Male 4
Female 2
Meeting room 1 10
Meetin room 2 6
Changing locker
room -men's 8
Changing/locker
room -women's 2
Production hall 25,300 50,000
Raw materials
stora e 11,300 11,300
Re-charge/ storage
area Batteries forklift, etc.
Re airs/maint area
Rework area
Room for paper
waste (also can be
trucked off)
Office -logistics In dock area 1
P28
Shower/bathroom for 1
truck and for
personnel (by
logistics office)
Warehousing finished 19,100 38,000
product
** Grounds must allow for additional expansion of 45,000-50,000 sq. ft
STRUCTURAL:
• Any special requirements for floor slabs (i.e., isolation of slabs, extraordinary
equipment material weights, recessed slabs, or pit designs).
.Area De~cxi tion
Non-offices ace Floor (3 tons .meter) = 6001bs/ s . ft.
Non-offices ace Thickness of floor (8 inches)
Non-offices ace Reinforced floor (Steel fiber)
Machine area Foundation blocks (vibration) 4x5 meter. '/s meter thick
reinforced floor plus below 1,5 meters of granulate.
Every reel stand a small pit for a lifting table and a gutter for a
rail to move to reel in the machine
Need to be able to separate production area from other areas by internal walls.
Any areas require overhead crane access? If so, maximum tonnage of crane? No
Any special equipment that is suspended by existing structural members? No
MECHANICAL/PLUMBING:
• What areas are required to have air conditioning and/or humidity control?
Area Descri tion
Production area: Need conditioned building.
Humidity control -Humidity kept 50 or 55 +/- lOdegrees RH
(between 40-65%).
Heating -yes -Temperature around 68 degrees F (20 Celsius)
A/C -yes.
Finished storage area Humidity control -yes. Humidity kept 50 or 55 +/- lOdegrees
RH (between 40-65%).
Heating -Min 15 Celsius (some tolerance).
No A/C
P29
little lower.
At production equipment we
will have to work with more
work area spot lighting that we
will ut in ourselves.
What about energy
incentives?
Any task lighting requirements at individual equipment? Axxor will provide.
Security requirements, if any? -Yes, security system desired with badge access.
Any areas require uninterrupted power and or generators?
-Area Re uirements
Do we want to go ahead and set
this up? Downtime can be
terribly expensive. What would
this take? Discuss, own transformer? Backup power generator?
Server will be equipped with its own battery pack fo
Emergenc shut down
•
Hours of operation? 6 days per week, 24 hours per day.
Number of working shifts per day? 2-3
Number of deliveries and pickups in a 24 hour period?
(2 machines)
Delivery Trucks: 5-10 per day
Pickup product trucks: 5-10 per day
• Any there any requirements for rail access? Possible delivery of paper, possible shipping
(future). We may decide to make use of this for shipping to Midwest?
• Any exterior storage needs or equipment? No
P:\ddi780\adm\2010.01.18.INDUSTRIAL BUILDING FIT OUT REQUIlZEMENTS
P32
P33
O `+
~ _S
~ N
Z f
O O
Attachment B
IU F
~ 3
h ~
O
f
onob
f
A
N
3
N
t
O
3
N
~I.J~J~MMJ
~W~MMJ
3 (~~1/1
a ~ W~
.~ ~
o ~ (~~/~y~yy~~/yy~~
p 3lJV~.M~/`l
3
U I
A
~ r'
~ N ~ ^ VIJ~J`JLJ
~ ~;
+~
V~-
N ~.,~~r'y'y~
3~.
~l l~ I 1 ~
~1
I
I
I
I i
A f
Z P
N UI
A S
3
f0
Pad voor rollentra
w
0
A
3
N
~ n L L1~ L LJ L1J
~ o _ _ _
Q
Q
~ ~
no
h
~
o
,~
3
Q
z
o
0
3
I
V + O
~
`~ ~
~a7 V N V
Wa~OD
n
"
C
j ...I ~ O O
~
~ I
I
I' I I
L
1J
L
L I ~
LW I 1
J
~ ~ < ~ ~ _
N ~
~ X
Z ~ ~
C
~ h
J~ ~
D o
6 i
7 ~ ~ 7C A
O r
r
p
p
~
~ ~ ~ ~
~.<U
1 ~ Q ~ I
O ~
~ ~
/0 ~ ~
~ O ~
3
0
n ~
~3
0
o <
~ v
O ~ ~ ~+N
h A
3
~ C
~
~ s
F ~ Q `0
Q ~
O I Q 1
G
Z ~
N L
I
1
1
J L
L W
P _ __
_ .
~ _
_
uigoo}.god
^ort ~~~sl6o~
I i-
c~ ~ r r- r
~ m o 0 0 0
f o o p p
,~ o Q Q Q Q
~
.+
7C
A
W
fU ~.
~
~
n (r
.
~ ~
~
n
~
3
co
0
3
a
~o
0
Q
0
h
P34
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(BOOKLET and/or ENCLOSURE)
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
Public Hearing -Proposed Comprehensive Plan- 05/18/2010 8
2010 Update
ACTION: INFORMATION:
Yes
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: CONSENT AGENDA:
Public Hearing ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Slee er REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Pittsylvania County Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 2, 2010, to receive public
input on the update of the Pittsylvania County Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission unanimously
recommended the draft plan to the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors.
DISCUSSION:
The County has advertised for a public hearing for the Pittsylvania County Comprehensive Plan update dated
January 2010. The public hearing will receive citizen input on the Pittsylvania County Comprehensive Plan
update. The Pittsylvania County Comprehensive Plan was advertised as required in the May 4`~ and May
12~', 2010 Chatham Star Tribune, requesting citizen input at this public hearing. A full copy of the
Pittsylvania County Comprehensive Plan update draft for January 2010 is on the County webpage with a
direct link showing each chapter and the maps required for the public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors hold the required public hearing, receive citizen input, and vote
to approve the Comprehensive Plan as presented from working draft #3, January 2010. This vote is in
compliance with § 15.2-2204; § 15.2-2224; § 15.2-2226; § 15.2-2227; § 15.2-2229 of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended. § 15.2-2223.1 requiring the designation of urban areas is not required in Pittsylvania
County since we do not meet the growth requirements designated in that section, therefore the 10 growth
areas are not urban areas, but are just growth areas in Pittsylvania County. This requires a roll call vote as
this is an approval of a required plan. This is not an ordinance of the County but carries the same weight as
an ordinance.
P35
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
VIRGINIA
'C~ L V~ ~,
Gregory L. Sides ~4ti ~~ Phone (434) 432-7974
Assistant County Administrator o ~ ,~ p Fax (434) 432-7714
Planning & Development a ~i
P.O. Box 426 d ~ o .or z Gtetna/Hurt (434) 656-6211
Chatham, Virginia 24531 J' ~ y Bachelors Hall/Whitmell (434) 797-9550
i~~~
Greg.Sides@pittgov.org L~„ _,, p,
Memorandum
To: William D. Sleeper, County Administrator
From: Gregory L. Sides, Assistant County Administrator ~>'~
Date: May 4, 2010
Subject: Planning Commission Recommendation on Pittsylvania County
Comprehensive Plan
The Pittsylvania County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Mazch 2, 2010,
to receive public input on the updated Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission
voted unanimously to recommend the draft plan for approval by the Pittsylvania County
Board of Supervisors.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 432-7974.
Cc: Odie H. Shelton, Jr., Director of Code Compliance
P36
Star -Tribune
May 5, 2010
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors will hold a public
hearing on Tuesday, May 18, 2010, to receive citizen input on
the proposed 2010 Pittsylvania County Comprehensive Plan.
The meeting will be at 7:00 p.m. in the General District Court-'
room, second floor, of the Edwin R. Shields Courthouse Addi-
tion in Chatham, Virginia. A copy of the proposed plan will be
available for review in the Office of the County Administrator,
21 North Main Street, Chatham, Virginia and the Office of Code
Compliance, 53 North Main Street, Chatham, Virginia between
the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
The 2010 Comprehensive Plan is also available online on the
Pittsylvania County web site, www.pittgov.org.
P37
Star -Tribune
May 12, 2010
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors will hold a public
hearing on Tuestlay, May 18, 2010, to receive citizen input on
the proposed 2010 Pittsylvania County Comprehensive Plan.
The meeting will be at 7:00 p.m. in the General District Court-
room, second floor, of the Edwin R. Shields Courthouse Addi-
tion in Chatham, Virginia. A copy of the proposed plan will be
available for review in the Office of the County Administrator,
21 North Main Street, Chatham, Virginia and the Office of Code
Compliance, 53 North Main Street, Chatham, Virginia between
the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
The 2010 Comprehensive Plan is also available online on the
Pittsylvania County web site, www.pittgov.org.
P38
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE:
5-18-10
Bond Proceeds Appropriation
ACTION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: No
Appropriation of funds received to pay closing costs CONSENT AGENDA:
associated with the refunding of School notes and ACTION:
bonds
ATTACHMENTS:
No
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Sleeper, VanDerHyde
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
9(a)
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
The County received a total of $39,000 for the recent refunding of Series 2010(A) School Notes and Series
2008B School Bonds. These funds are to pay closing costs associated with this refunding. A list of these
costs is listed below:
Verification Agent (The Arbitrage Group) $ 2,500.00
Printing (RR Donnelly) 4,000.00
Standard & Poor's 15,000.00
Moody's Investors Service 17.500.00
TOTAL $39,000.00
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors appropriate and amend the School Bund Fund Budget in the
amount of $39,000 to pay the closing costs listed above. This has met the 10-day layover requirement.
P39
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA DATE:
AGENDA TITLE: 5-18-10
Proposed FY 2010/2011 County Budget ACTION:
Yes
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
CONSENT AGENDA:
Approval of FY 2010/2011 County Budget ~ ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Sleeper, VanDerHyde
ITEM NUMBER:
9(b)
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
It is a statutory requirement that the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors hold a public hearing for
citizen input on the county's budget. A public hearing was held on Monday, May 3, 2010 to hear citizen
input on the proposed FY2011 Pittsylvania County Budget with a total budget of $171,819,358.
DISCUSSION:
Attached is the budget resolution along with exhibits A & B that discuss the FY2011 budget and outlines the
categories associated with the total budget of $171,819,358. The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors
has met all the statutory requirements regarding the FY2011 budget for Pittsylvania County.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the total FY2011 budget of $171,819,358 for
Pittsylvania County.
P40
Presented: May 18, 2010
Adopted: May 18, 2010
RESOLUTION 2010-OS-02
VIRGINIA: At an adjourned meeting of the Pittsylvania County Boazd of
Supervisors on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 in the General District Courtroom in the Edwin R.
Shields Courthouse Addition in Chatham, Virginia, the following resolution on the
annual budget for Fiscal Yeaz 2011 was presented and adopted.
WHEREAS, the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia require the governing
body to prepare and approve a budget for fiscal and planning purposes, not withstanding
additional requirements for the schools, including revenues and expenditures for the
ensuing year by May 1, 2010, the Board of Supervisors approved a school budget,
Monday, May 3, 2010, the next business day following May 1; and
WHEREAS, the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia control the distribution
of funds by appropriations giving the Board of Supervisors authority to set such
appropriations at such periodic basis as outlined in Section 15.2-2506 of the Code of
Virginia, being further identified in this Resolution with Exhibit A and Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, two sepazate public hearings were properly advertised for the
School Boazd and the Board of Supervisors. The School budget public hearing was held
on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 and the County budget public hearing was held on Monday
May 3, 2010 , in accordance with state statute as shown by the affidavit of the publisher;
then,
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Boazd of Supervisors of the County of
Pittsylvania, that there be hereby adopted and appropriated a budget for Fiscal Yeaz 2011,
the full and complete budget is contained in the document entitled:
"PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY ADOPTED BUDGET"
FISCAL YEAR 2011
JULY 1, 2010 -JUNE 30, 2011
TOTALING: $ 171,819,358
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the estimated budget total of $171,819,358
includes $14,089,803 total local effort for the Pittsylvania County Schools, and $811,869
in reallocated carryovers for Capital Improvements, $628,638 carryover for Industrial
Development Local. Included in this budget is an approval of supplements for employees
P41
of the Sheriff's Department including the jail. In addition, it includes a continued
supplement of $10,000 each for the Commissioner, Treasurer, Commissioner of Revenue
and Clerk of Courts and $5,000 for the Commonwealth's Attorney for salary
supplements.
BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED, that the funds of the School Budget,
the Library Board, and the Welfare Board shall be expended only by order and approval
of those respective boards and that no money shall be paid out for such contemplated
expenditures unless and until there has first been made an appropriation for such
contemplated expenditures by the Board of Supervisors; and,
BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED that the School Budget estimate for FY
2010-2011 be set at $82,647,285 with the local funds provided by the Board of
Supervisors set at $14,089,803 to be funded by classification as allowed by the Code of
Virginia, 1950 as amended, and the school board to report back in amounts requested to
be funded in each classification if different than shown in the approved budget.
The local funds include the following:
General Fund Local $14,089,803 (Includes $45,000 Solid Waste)
BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors shall
receive quarterly revenue and expenditure reports comparing receipts and expenditures to
the approved budget from the Office of the County Administrator; and,
BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED, that the unit tax levy for the year
commencing January 1, 2010 shall be as follows:
Real Property:
Mobile Homes and Barns:
Machinery and Tools:
$.52 per $100 of assessed value, 100%
market value
$.52 per $100 of assessed value, 100%
market value
$ 4.50 per $100 of assessed value at 10%
of original cost
Personal Property: $8.50 per $100 of assessed value, 30% of
market value.
In accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 58.1-3524 (C) (2) and Section
58.1-3912 (E) of the Code of Virginia, as amended by Chapter 1 of the Acts of Assembly
(2004 Special Session 1) and as set forth in Item 503.E (Personal Property Tax Relief
Program) of Chapter 951 of the 2005 Acts of Assembly any qualifying vehicle sitused
within the county commencing January 1, 2010, shall receive personal property tax relief
in the following manner:
P42
^ Personal use vehicles valued at $1,000 or less will be eligible for 100% tax relief;
^ Personal use vehicles valued at $1,001 to $20,000 will be eligible for 50% tax
relief;
^ Personal use vehicles valued at $20,001 or more shall only receive 50% tax relief
on the first $20,000 of value; and
^ All other vehicles which do not meet the definition of "qualifying" (business use
vehicles, farm use vehicles, motor home, etc.) will not be eligible for any of tax
relief under this program.
Generating Equipment: $.52 per $100 of assessed value, 100% of
mazket value
Capital Merchant Tax: $ 2.75 per $100 of assessed value, 30% of
inventory value
Motor Vehicle Tax: $38.75 per vehicle, except as specified by
ordinance
Consumer Utility Tax: 20% of the first $15.00 monthly for
residential users and 20% of the first
$100.00 monthly for commercial or
industrial users, except as required
for Gas and Electricity, as defined by
Chapter 6 Section 13 of the
Pittsylvania County Code 1975 as amended
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Pittsylvania County Boazd of
Supervisors that, for the fiscal yeaz beginning on July 1, 2010, and ending on June 30,
2011, the following sections aze hereby adopted.
Section 1. The cost center shown on the attached table labeled Appropriations
Resolution, Exhibit A, aze hereby appropriated from the designated
estimated revenues as shown on the attached table labeled
Appropriations Resolution, Exhibit A. This appropriation does
include the unappropriated surplus. Funds may be appropriated by
the Boazd of Supervisors as needed during FY 2011 subject to the
Board's by-laws for appropriations.
Section 2. Appropriations, in addition to those contained in this general
Appropriations Resolution, may be made by the Boazd of
Supervisors only if there is available in the fund unencumbered or
unappropriated sums sufficient to meet such appropriations.
P43
Section 3. All appropriations herein authorized shall be on the basis of cost
centers for all departments and agencies excluding schools. The
regular school fund is specifically appropriated by category as
listed on Exhibit A.
Section 4. The School Board and the Social Services Board are sepazately
granted authority for implementation of the appropriated funds for
their respective operations. By this resolution the School Boazd
and the Social Services Boazd aze authorized to approve the
transfer of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one
line item of expenditure to another within the same classification in
their respective funds in any amount. Transfers between
classification or funds require approval of the Boazd of
Supervisors.
Section 5. The County Administrator is expressly authorized to transfer any
unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one line item of
expenditure to another within the same cost center for the efficient
operation of government.
Section 6. All outstanding encumbrances, both operating and capital, at June
30, 2010 shall be reappropriated to the FY 2011 fiscal year to the
same cost center and account for which they are encumbered in the
previous year. A report of which shall be submitted to the Boazd.
Section 7. At the close of the fiscal yeaz, all unencumbered appropriations
lapse for budget items other than the School Cafeteria Receipts
Fund 209, the State Restricted Seizure Fund -Sheriff 241, the
Federal Restricted Seizure Fund 242, the State Restricted Seizure
Fund -Commonwealth's Attorney 243, the Animal Friendly Plates
Fund 245, the Grants Fund 250, the Work Force Investment Act
Fund 251, Law Library Fund 260, the Library Memorial Gift Fund
265, Cash Bonds Fund 305, the County Capital Improvements
Fund 310, the Jail Inmate Management Fund 311, the Courthouse
Maintenance Fund 312, the Jail Operating Fund 313, the
Courthouse Security Fund 314, the Jail Processing Fund 315, the
Rural Roads Fund 320, the Industrial Development Local Fund
325, the Industrial Development Cyclical Fund 330, the School
Bond Fund 410, the Landfill Bond Fund 415, the Social Services
Bond Fund 420, the Debt Service Reserve Fund 425, the Bond
Fund-Schools 435, the Special Welfaze Fund 733 and the
Pittsylvania County Employees Health Plan 734. Thus, all
cancelled cash balances shall revert back to the General Fund.
P44
Section 8. Appropriations designated for capital projects will not lapse at the
end of the fiscal yeaz but shall remain appropriated until the
completion of the project or until the Board of Supervisors, by
appropriate ordinance or resolution, changes or eliminates the
appropriation. Upon completion of a capital project, the County
Administrator is hereby authorized to close out the project and
transfer to the funding source any remaining balances. This section
applies to all existing appropriations for capital projects at June 30,
2010 and appropriations in the FY 2011 Budget. The County
Administrator is hereby authorized to approve construction change
orders to contracts up to an increase of $10,000.00 and approve all
change order for reduction of contracts.
Section 9. The approval of the Board of Supervisors of any grant of funds to
the County shall constitute the appropriation of both the revenue to
be received from the grant and the County's expenditure required
by the terms of the grant, if any. The appropriation of grant funds
will not lapse at the end of the fiscal yeaz but shall remain
appropriated until completion of the project or until the Boazd of
Supervisors, by appropriate resolution, changes or eliminates the
appropriation. The County Administrator may increase or reduce
any grant appropriation to the level approved by the granting
agency during the fiscal year. The County Administrator may
approve necessary accounting transfers between cost centers and
funds to enable the grant to be accounted for the in correct manner.
Upon completion of a grant project, the County Administrator is
authorized to close out the grant and transfer back to the funding
source any remaining balance. This section applies to
appropriations for grants outstanding at June 30, 2010 and
appropriations in the FY 2011 Budget.
Section 10. The County Administrator may reduce revenue and expenditure
appropriations related to programs funded all or in part by the
Commonwealth of Virginia and/or the Federal Government to the
level approved by the responsible state or federal agency.
Section 11. The County Administrator is authorized to make transfers to the
various funds for which there aze transfers budgeted. The County
Administrator shall transfer funds only as needed up to amounts
budgeted or in accordance with any existing bond resolutions that
specify the matter in which transfers are to be made.
Section 12. The Treasurer may advance monies to and from the vazious funds
of the County to allow maximum cash flow efficiency. The
P45
advances must not violate County bond covenants or other legal
restrictions that would prohibit an advance.
Section 13. All purchases with funds appropriated herein shall be made in
accordance with the County purchasing ordinance and applicable
state statutes.
Section 14. It is the intent of this resolution that funds be expended for the
purposes indicated in the budget; therefore, budgeted funds may
not be transferred from operating expenditures to capital projects
or from capital projects to operating expenses without the prior
approval from the Board of Supervisors. Also, funds may not be
transferred from one capital project to another without the prior
approval of the Board of Supervisors.
Section 15. The County Administrator is authorized, pursuant to state statute,
to issue orders and warrants for payments where funds have been
budgeted, appropriated, and where sufficient funds are available. A
warrant register shall be presented to the Board of Supervisors not
less frequently than monthly.
Section 16. Subject to the qualifications in this resolution contained, all
appropriations are declared to be maximum, conditional and
proportionate appropriations -the purpose being to make the
appropriations payable in full in the amount named herein if
necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues
collected and available during the fiscal year for which the
appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all the appropriations
in full. Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be
payable in such proportion as the total sum of all realized revenue
of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated
to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors.
Section 17. All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board
of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Social Services
Board not included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of
the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not
be expended by said agency under the control of the Board of
Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Social Services
Board without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being first
obtained. Nor may any of these agencies or boards make
expenditures, which will exceed a specific item of an
appropriation.
P46
Section 18. Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution
by any or all county departments, bureaus or agencies under the
control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and
employees for expense on account of the use of such officers and
employees of their personal automobiles in the discharge of their
official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by
the Internal Revenue Service and shall be subject to change from
time to time to maintain like rates.
Section 19. The County Administrator is directed to establish four (4) petty-
cash accounts under non-departmental from funds in this budget
for central purchasing, the landfill, building inspections, and
zoning, in accordance with Section 15.2-1229 of the Code of
Virginia as amended, 1950 with management plans as directed by
the County Auditor.
Section 20. All previous appropriation ordinances or resolutions to the extent
that they are inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution
shall be and the same are hereby repealed.
Section 21. This resolution shall be effective on July 1, 2010.
Given under my hand this day May 18, 2010
Henry A. Davis, Jr., Chairman
Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors
William D. Sleeper, Clerk
Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors
P47
EXIIIBIT A
May 18, 2010
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, EXHIBIT A
EXPENDITURES BY COST CENTERS
FOR FY 2011
COST CENTERS
TOTAL
ADOPTED ADOPTED
BUDGET BUDGET
ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
OF GOVERNMENT:
Board of Supervisors 114,856
County Administrator 263,165
County Attorney 95,300
Auditors 74,000
Commissioner of Revenue 526,214
Treasurer 580,812
Central Accounting 254,732
Information Technology 284,961
Central Purchasing 108,638
Grants Administration 69,803
Board of Elections 78,765
General Registrar 118,822
Non-Departmental 122,056
Total Administration and
Management of Government 2,692,124
PUBLIC WORKS:
Public Works 154,579
Building and Grounds 916,735
DMV Abandoned Vehicles 10,000
Zoning 216,924
Public Works 1,298,238
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE:
Circuit Court 128,202
General District Court 14,161
Magistrates 4,827
Court Services 423,858
Halifax Court Services Unit 4,900
Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court 13,671
VJCCCA - J & D Court Services Grant 51,718
Misc -Records Preservation 5,000
Commissioner of Accounts 960
Clerk of Circuit Court 561,461
P48
EXHIBIT A
May 18, 2010
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, EXHIBIT A
EXPENDITURES BY COST CENTERS
FOR FY 2011
COST CENTERS
TOTAL
ADOPTED ADOPTED
BUDGET BUDGET
Commonwealth Attorney 661,597
State Restricted Seizure -Commonwealth Attorney 5,000
Law Library Fund 16,000
Byrne/JAG Criminal Justice 30,750
Victim/Witness Grant 69,317
Total Administration of Justice 1,991,422
LAW ENFORCEMENT:
Sheriff 5,440,388
Corrections 3,767,242
State Seizure - Sheriff 20,000
Federal Seizure -Sheriff 40,000
Medical Examiner 2,940
PADRE (School Resource Officer) Grant 43,492
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) 23,400
DMV Grant 95,000
CVTS Traffic Enforcement Grant 2,000
Checkpoint Strikeforce Mini-Grant 3,000
DUI Selective Enforcement Grant 43,000
Criminal History Records Improvement 108,000
Jail Inmate Management Fund 13,600
Jail Processing Fund 2,200
Courthouse Security 40,000
Total Law Enforcement 9,644,262
PUBLIC SAFETY:
Volunteer Fire/Rescue Departments 1,397,435
VA Fire Program Grant 170,000
Four for Life - DMV 70,000
Fire Marshal 89,514
The Community Foundation-Fire Marshal Grant 14,000
State Forestry 34,000
E91 ] Wireless Grant 297,376
Regional Wireless Grant-Pitts Cty/Danville 1,000,000
Regional Wireless Consultant Grant 51,000
VA Emergency Management 18,605
VFSB Training Mini Grant 10,000
Comm. Emer. Response Team (CERT) 25,000
COPS Technology Grant 50,000
VFIRS Computer Grant 5,000
Triad Crime Prevention 2,500
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Grant 38,000
P49
EXHIBIT A
May 18, 2010
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, EXHIBIT A
EXPENDITURES BY COST CENTERS
FOR FY 2011
COST CENTERS
TOTAL
ADOPTED ADOPTED
BUDGET BUDGET
Regional Crime Info Sharing Network 25,000
Fire Prevention & Safety 18,000
Animal Control 250,329
Building Inspections 281,027
Rural AED Grant GEMS 50,000
Emergency Management Services 1,180,466
Total Public Safety 5,077,252
ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION
AND PROTECTION:
Solid Waste Collections 966,467
Solid Waste Disposal 765,298
Litter Control Grant 19,000
VPI & SU Extension 62,193
Resource Conservation 127,832
Total Environmental Preservation
and Protection 1,940,790
HUMAN AND SOCIAL SERVICES:
Public Health 490,000
Mental Health 147,882
Comprehensive Services Act -Pool 7,629,806
Social Services Administration/Administrative Expense 5,070,098
Public Assistance 2,276,474
Family Preservation 45,000
Baby Caze Grant 49,039
Total Human and Social Services 15,708,299
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:
Industrial Development -Local 6,534,746
Agricultural Economic Development Specialist 80,019
Economic Development 179,166
Industrial Development Authority 24,500
Workforce Investment Boazd 5,012,258
Community & Industrial Development 364,402
Total Economic Development 12,195,091
P50
EXHIBIT A
May 18, 2010
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, EXHIBIT A
EXPENDITURES BY COST CENTERS
FOR FY 2011
COST CENTERS
PLANNING. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT:
TOTAL
ADOPTED ADOPTED
BUDGET BUDGET
Planning Commission 140,900
Regional Foundation-Recreation Grant 25,000
Chatham Train Depot Restoration 390,500
CDBG - Clarkstown 3,000
IRP - Clarkstown 1,000
CDBG -Wither Road-Water 154,496
CDBG -Wither Road-Sewer 5,750
CDBG -Witcher Road Improvement 244,200
Total Planning, Housing and Community
Development 964,846
PUBLIC LIBRARIES:
Libraries 846,397
State Library Grant 163,737
Library Memorial Fund 65,000
Total Public Library 1,075,134
CAPITAL INVESTMENTS:
Debt & Interest 8,921,261
Computer Capital Outlay 16,500
Solid Waste -Capital Outlay 75,500
Landfill -Capital Outlay 225,000
Building & Grounds Capital Outlay 65,000
Fleet Management 111,662
Community & Industrial Development Capital Outlay 1,577,874
School-High School Renovations 5,000,000
Landfill Expansion 3,000,000
Rural Road Capital Outlay 25,000
Total Capital Investments 19,017,797
P51
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
Roanoke River Basin-Kerr Dam Water Allocation 05/18/2010 10
ACTION: INFORMATION:
Yes
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Kerr Dam Water Allocation Proposal CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF CONTACT(S): Yes
Mr. Sleeper
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Roanoke River Basin Bi-State Commission established an Ad Hoc Committee in March 2009. That
committee met March 2010 and released a status report that recommended 5 alternative allocation
approaches to the Roanoke River Basin Bi-State Commission.
DISCUSSION:
Attached hereto, you will find a copy of the status report with the 5 alternative allocation approaches
recommended from the committee to the commission. In addition, you will atwo-page report from the Smith
Mountain Lake Association who also met and reviewed the Ad Hoc Committee report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending the same alternative as the Smith Mountain Lake Association, that being Alternative
#2 shown on Page 5 of your report, which allows the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to handle the allocations
with certain guidelines, one of which should restrict allocation of water resources outside of an existing
basin. State recommends the Board of Supervisors authorize the County Administrator to send a letter to the
Roanoke River Basin Bi-State Commission recommended a modified Alternate #2 as identified by the Smith
Mountain Lake Association.
P54
Roanoke River Basin Bi-State Commission
Water Allocation Ad Hoc Committee
March 2010
Status Report
P55
3-25-2010
INTRODUCTION
The Roanoke River Basin Bi-State Commission at their March 27, 2009 meeting formed the
Water Allocation Ad Hoc Committee. The ad hoc committee's assignment is to develop a draft
document of understanding that can be used by the States of Virginia and North Carolina, and
the U.S. Army of Engineers (USAGE) regarding the allocation and withdrawals of water from
the John H. Kerr Reservoir (Kerr). Kerr is a federally authorized project built and managed by
the USAGE.
The committee has met several times and is using a wiki' to collaborate on the development of
the draft agreement and to share reference materials.
SUMMARY OF JOHN H. KERR STORAGE
Kerr was not authorized with a water supply storage pool. The use of Kerr for water supply
requires a reallocation of the power pool. Based on the Water Supply Act of 1958 (WSA) up to
50,000 ac-ft can be reallocated to water supply. To be able to reallocate more than 50,000 ac-ft
would require Congress to change the project's authorization. Currently 21,379 ac-ft of the
50,000 ac-ft is allocated to 4 water users. The following table is a summary of the current water
supply users.
Summary John H. Kerr Water Supply Storage
Kerr
Old Burlington Lake City of VA Dept
City of Industries Regional Virginia of Mecklenburg
Clarksville Intake WS Beac62 Corrections eneration
Conservation Pool
Between 268 & 300
ft-msl 1.050% 1.066% 0.0024% 0.063%
Estimated Storage
ao-ft 10 291 10,447 24 617
Current estimated
yield Avg Usage Avg Usage
m d < 0.3 ~ 4 20 20.3 0.047 1.2
No
Contract A Bement No A reement 3/17/2006 1/13/1984 1/2S/1989 6/5/1991
The USAGE estimated firm yield for the 50,000 ac-ft is 97.2 mgd based on the drought record
(2002). The USAGE is working with the allocation holders whose contracts were negotiated
prior to 2002 to see if their contracts need to be adjusted because the 2002 drought lowered the
yield estimates that the contracts were based on.
If someone was to purchase the remaining 28,621 ac-ft the estimated FY2010 cost is
$11,567,177.15 with an annual operations and maintenance (O&M) cost of $42,931.503. 'The
USAGE estimated firm yield for the remaining unallocated storage is 55.6 mgd
' A wiki is a collaborative website whose content can be edited by anyone who has access to it.
Z The storage is based on a 60 mgd 90 day seasonal demand.
s T'he annual O&M cost vary annually but will likely rise overtime.
Page 2 of 9
P56
3-25-2010
DRAFT AGREEMENT
The committee started by developing a set of basic allocation principles that became parts I
Purpose and II Declaration of Policy in the draft agreement. A set of five alternative allocation
approaches were developed for the Commission's consideration. The following is the start of a
draft agreement which will be completed based on the Commission's guidance as to which
alternative they want the committee to expand upon.
PART I. PURPOSES
The purposes of this agreement are:
1. For the State of North Cazolina and the Commonwealth of Virginia to provide the U.S. Army of
Engineers a set of guidelines for allocation of John H. Kerr water supply allocations.
2. To preserve and protect the water resources of the Roanoke River $asin.
3. To facilitate integrated comprehensive water resources planning of the Roanoke River Basin.
PART II. DECLARATION OF POLICY
The following principles constitute the policy that shall govern the allocation of John H. Kerr water
supply storage.
1. AllocationsJreallocations will enhance public health, safety, and welfare by fostering efficient and
sustainable use of water in satisfaction of economic, environmental, and other social goals; factors
that contribute to this end include:
• Stimulation of economic growth
• Protection of water quality
• Protection of ecological integrity and diversity
• Encouragement of water conservation
• Minimization of drought impacts on all water uses
• Minimization of conflict among competing water uses
• Maintenance of an appropriate balance between instream and offstream water uses
• Protection of property values and water infrastructure investment
2. The States and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall coordinate the planning and decisions pertaining
to water allocation, and shall adapt and update plans and hydrologic models to ensure that actual and
projected water consumption in the basin plus the water needed for instream uses does not exceed
the water supply. The allocations shall be made so as to conserve the waters of the basin through
suitable policies and by encouraging private efforts to conserve water and avoid waste.
3. The States and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall protect the public interest in the waters of the
basin by providing an orderly strategy to allocate available water efficiently and equitably in times
of water shortage or water emergency.
4. No person using the waters of the basin shall cause unreasonable injury to other water uses made
pursuant to valid water rights, regardless of whether the injury results from the quality or the
quantity impacts of the activity causing the injury.
5. Uses of the waters of the basin on nonriparian or nonoverlying land are lawful and entitled to equal
consideration with uses on riparian or overlying land in any administrative or judicial proceeding
relating to the allocation, withdrawal, or use of water or to the modification of a water right.
Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to authorize access to the waters of the basin by a
person seeking to make a nonripazian or nonoverlying use apart from access lawfully available to
that person.
6. The reasonably foreseeable future water needs of users with their service areas located primarily
outside the Roanoke River Basin aze subordinate to the reasonably foreseeable future water needs of
users with their service areas located primarily in the Roanoke River Basin. The States shall protect
the reasonable needs of the basin of origin through the regulation of withdrawals.
Page 3 of 9
P57
3-25-2010
PART III. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
This section will be completed after Part IY is finished.
PART IV. ALLOCATION OF JOAN H. KERR WATER SUPPLY STORAGE
The Committee will draft this section of the agreement based on the guidance of the Commission.
PART V. STATE AND FEDERAL RIGATS
Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed to impair or affect the existing rights or powers of the State of
North Carolina, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the United States of America or its agencies to plan,
regulate, and control and use of those waters of the Roanoke River Basin.
ALTERNATIVES FOR ALLOCATING JOHN H. KERR WATER SUPPLY STORAGE
The following are five alternative strategies developed by the Water Allocation Ad Hoc
Committee for the commission's consideration.
1. Status Quo - USACE's process is adequate and no changes are needed.
The current allocation of storage to municipal and industrial M&I water supply in reservoirs
owned and operated by the USACE is controlled primarily by the Water Supply Act of 1958
(WSA). The WSA provides that M&I storage can be included in project design as an
authorized purpose under specified conditions and allows limited reallocation to MBtI
purposes from other authorized purposes. The principal condition associated with inclusion
of M&I storage in the original project design is that use of such storage requires contractual
arrangements for repayment of costs associated with the M&I purpose by the water user.
Reallocation of storage to M&I water supply is constrained by the condition that such
reallocation "... which would seriously affect the purposes for which the project was
authorized, surveyed, planned, or constructed, or which would involve major structural or
operational changes[,] shall be made only upon the approval of Congress" (WSA sec. 301).
Thus, only relatively minor reallocations can be implemented by USACE without
Congressional approval. The WSA does not provide guidelines for determining when a
serious effector major change has occurred. USACE regulations allow for reallocation
without Congressional approval if the total project reallocation to water supply storage does
not exceed the lesser of 15% of total project storage capacity or 50, 000 acre feet. Recent
court rulings have reflected a more restricted view of USACE authority to reallocate storage
without Congressional approval.
Since USACE decisions about use of reservoir storage space are not intended to resolve
water rights issues associated with use of the water and do not constitute an allocation of
water, deliberations concerning a request for assignment of storage rights primarily focus on
satisfaction of requirements for repayment and, in the case of a reallocation of storage,
determination of whether Congressional approval is needed. The absence of water allocation
authority precludes a comprehensive approach that attempts to anticipate and manage
basinwide water supply conflicts and issues. While some consideration is given to
environmental and broad water supply issues, they tend to be secondary to narrower issues of
project management consistent with federal mission and mandates. This approach tends to
Page 4 of 9
P58
3-25-2010
treat allocation on a "first come, first served basis" due to its more limited perspective and the
lack of a principal federal role in water allocation.
This option will not impair or affect the existing water management authorities for either the
State of North Carolina or the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Pros
1. Requires no new program development or additional resources.
Cons
1. Offers potential for incompatibility between federal storage allocation decisions and state
water supply plans and management programs.
2. This approach provides for less certainty on how much water is and will be available for
water supply. In large part because of Atlanta's water supply problems and the USACE's
handling of Lake Lanier it is likely the WSA will be modified or replaced and if that
occurs, the 50,000 ac-ft assumption is probably no longer valid.
2. Modified Status Quo -Let the USACE handle the allocation with some guidelines provided
by States.
The current approach, with relatively modest modification, could provide a framework for a
more comprehensive approach to water supply management that better integrates allocation
of reservoir storage into broader water supply management programs of the affected states.
The primary mechanism for improved coordination between federal reservoir managers and
state water supply management would be a joint federallstate workshop for identification and
analysis of related issues associated with proposals for new or expanded allocations of
reservoir storage for M&I purposes. Such proceedings could inform federal decision makers
about potential water supply conflicts between proposed storage allocations and alternative
water development plans in the affected area. The expanded procedure would allow earlier
identification of future conflicts and facilitate development of cost effective solutions. Such
an approach could be structured in various ways, but the limitations of a single meeting for
analyzing complex issues and developing appropriate solutions suggest that atwo-stage
format would be advantageous. The first meeting would focus on stakeholder and issue
identification and would involve establishment of groups of interested parties to further
analyze major issues and develop alternative strategies for resolution following the meeting.
These recommendations would provide a basis for a second meeting where consensus would
be sought on the best way forward. To avoid lengthy delays, the second meeting should be
scheduled within a relatively short time of the initial meeting. The fmal meeting would not
necessarily result in agreement on the appropriate course of action; unresolved issues would
likely remain to be addressed through currently existing mechanisms. But the fact that the
process provides an opportunity for a more comprehensive view of water supply issues
improves the information base and should facilitate subsequent decisions.
Page 5 of 9
P59
3-25-2010
This option will not impair or affect the existing water management authorities for either the
State of North Carolina or the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Pros
1. Increases coordination between federal water storage allocation and overall state water
supply management.
2. Requires less disruption and fewer additional resources than approaches adopting more
substantial changes to existing storage allocation procedures.
3. If both States agree the USAGE would be able to implement today.
Cons
1. Requires program development and additional resources.
2. May increase the time needed for allocation decisions.
3. This approach provides for less certainty on how much water is and will be available for
water supply. In large part because of Atlanta's water supply problems and the USACE's
handling of Lake Lanier it is likely the WSA will be modified or replaced and if that
occurs, the 50,000 ac-8 assumption is probably no longer valid.
The States purchase the remaining storage and handle allocations.
As stated eazlier, the current allocation of storage to M&I water supply in reservoirs owned
and operated by the USACE and the allocations are based primarily by the WSA. The
USACE and the WSA do not provide for a good way to include one of this agreement's key
policy statements -The States and USAGE shall coordinate the planning and decisions
pertaining to water allocation, and shall adapt and update plans and hydrologic models to
ensure that actual and projected water consumption in the basin plus the water needed for
instream uses does not exceed the water supply.
An allocation approach similar to the current Jordan Lake water supply allocation process
would provide for a model on how to allocate water from Kerr based on the needs of water
users in the basin. To be able to implement this approach both States will need purchase their
agreed-upon share of the remaining unallocated water supply storage in Kerr. Each State
would also have to pass the necessary statutory authorities and administrative rules to assign
storage and receive repayment from local governments for their allocation. The statutory
authorities would be based on principles and polices of this agreement. This approach will
work best if it includes the development of a bi-state basin wide water supply plan.
If the Kerr allocation process were to be similar to the Jordan process the basic steps for an
allocation would be:
• A local government would submit a request for a new or increased allocation. This
typically only occurs once every 5 to 8 years.
• The States would hold a joint information meeting announcing the start of an
allocation process.
• The States would work with potential applicants and other water users in the basin to
update the basin hydrologic model and water supply plan.
• The applicants would submit their allocation request requested based on the needs
identified in the basin water supply plan.
Page 6 of 9
P60
3-25-2010
• Each State would make allocations for requests from applicants in their State based
on their remaining unallocated water guided by the basin water supply plan.
As part of the allocation the States will review existing allocation holders to determine if
adjustments aze needed for the current allocations. Based on NC's experiences with Jordan
bake it takes about 2 years to update the basin water supply plan and process allocation
applications, if there is no interbasin transfer involved. That is compared to the USACE's
current process that takes 2 or more years.
This option will not impair or affect the existing water management authorities for either the
State of North Carolina or the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Pros
1. One of the advantages of this approach aze it provides a mechanism to base allocations on
the long-range needs and protects the instream needs by using updated models and
planning.
2. The contracts between the States and allocation holders provide for an opportunity to
include additional water efficiency and drought protection measures.
3. Also, this approach provides for more certainty on how much water is and will be
available for water supply. In large part because of Atlanta's water supply problems and
the USACE's handling of Lake Lanier it is likely the WSA will be modified or replaced
and if that occurs, the 50,000 ac-ft assumption is probably no longer valid.
Cons
1. This approach is expensive and lengthy, both to setup and process allocation applications.
For both States find funds to finance their share of the S 11,567,177.15 and pass the
necessary statutory authorities will likely take at least 2 years.
4. Interstate Compact.
The interstate compact scenario would entail the development of a compact between the
State of North Carolina, the Commonwealth of Virginia and potentially the Federal
Govenvnent outlining a process for management of the Roanoke River Basin's water
resources, including the allocation of water storage in Kerr Reservoir. This scenario could
incorporate the purchase of the remaining storage allocation by the states. The compact
would need to meet federal requirements, be ratified by both states, and would likely result in
the establishment of a Commission with staffthat would be funded at least partially by the
signatories. Compacts in other watersheds have resulted in the creation of Commissions with
a range of responsibilities. For example, the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River
Basin serves a largely planning role while the Susquehanna River Basin Commission and the
Delawaze River Basin Commission each hold regulatory authorities.
The committee was tasked with making recommendations for water allocations from Kerr
Reservoir. Unlike the other alternatives reviewed, this option is broader and will address
basinwide water management issues.
Page 7 of 9
P61
3-25-2010
This option could impact the existing water management authorities for either the State of
North Carolina or the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Pros
1. A commission established by an interstate compact would have authority to assist in
resource management in both states.
2. Cooperation between the states and efficiencies may be enhanced by the process of the
creation of the compact.
3. This scenario may allow for the incorporation of principles limiting water transferred
outside of the basin (pro for some, con for others).
Cons
1. The establishment and approval of the compact would likely be a lengthy process.
2. The establishment of a commission would result in additional costs and staff during a
tough budget climate.
5. Identify a third party to purchase the allocation.
The third party purchase scenario would entail the purchase of all or a significant portion of the
remaining Kerr Lake storage allocation by an entity other than the State of North Carolina or the
Commonwealth of Virginia. The most likely candidate for such a purchase would be a group of
municipalities. The purchasing entity would be responsible for determining the process of
managing the storage and allocating and distributing the purchased storage to its members or
other interested parties. While the states could play an advisory role in the development of the
process for managing the allocation, the purchasing entity would ultimately be responsible.
Under this scenario, applicable water withdrawal permitting requirements of the respective states
would remain applicable.
An analogous arrangement is the Cooperative Operations for Water Supply on the Potomac
Section (CO-OP) of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB). CO-OP
was created by an agreement between ICPRB and the three major Washington, DC area water
utilities. CO-OP is responsible for coordinating the water resources of the three utilities as one
entity during periods of low flow in order to maximize efficiency. Each utility gives up some
autonomy for the benefits of improved operations and reliability during a drought.
Page 8 of 9
P62
3-25-2010
This option will not impair or affect the existing water management authorities for either the
State of North Carolina or the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Pros
1. Cooperation between the actual users of the water would be enhanced and may result in
improved efficiencies.
2. The likelihood of "water grabs" may be reduced if the members of the purchasing entity
establish a mutually beneficial management agreement.
Cons
1. This scenario could result in the transfer of significant portions of the remaining
allocation to areas outside of the Roanoke River drainage basin.
2. The states role in determining the distribution of the allocation could be limited.
NEXT STEPS
The Committee is asking the Commission for guidance on two parts of the draft agreement. First
has the Committee lri PART I PURPOSE and PART II DECLARATION OF POLICY satisfactorily
included the basic principles for allocating Ken water supply storage? Second based on the
guidance of the Commission the Committee will complete a draft agreement based on the
Commission's preferred allocation alternative.
Page 9 of 9
P63
~~` M 0 UN~,
y` ~ 92
9~~ ~~O
gSSO~~P
SMITH MOUNTAIN LAKE ASSOCIATION
400 Scruggs Road, Suite 2100 - Moneta, VA 24121
PROTECTING THE INVESTMENT OF SML RESIDENTS
Date: 3 May 2010
Delegate Charles Poindexter
Legislative Member, VA/NC Bi-State Commission
CC: Tammy Stephenson at DEQ (tmmy.stephenson@deq.virginia.gov).
The following is SML Association's reply to your April 8, 2010 request for our input in
response to the Roanoke River Basin Bi-State VA/NC Commission water allocation for the
John H. Kerr Reservoir. This request is as a result of North Carolina's request for the
remainder of the Kerr Reservoir water allocation and the resulting Inter Basin Transfer.
The VA/NC Bi-State Commission water allocation ad hoc committee has prepared a March
2010 report that we are referencing.
The Smith Mountain Lake Association (SMLA) represents 1250 families and property owners
around Smith Mountain Lake. We are anon-governmental, citizen organization representing our
association members' interests. The SMLA Board of Directors and the Association members are
against any inter-basin water transfers in general and specifically this one proposed out of Kerr
Lake and into the Tar and Neuse River Basins and to be sold in part to support additional growth
in Raleigh, North Carolina.
SMLA's position is that inter-basin water transfers create artificial and unsustainable
development and growth within the receiving water basin. They also penalize growth,
development, and economies in the donor basin. People within the donor water basin, their
livelihoods, their families and the directly related economies including businesses, industries,
tourism and recreation, even taxes are negatively impacted. This occurs when the water needed to
attract future and to support current businesses and jobs is no longer available within the donor
basin.
We agree with the three stated purposes as stated in PART I. PURPOSES. We also agree
with PART II. DECLARATION OF POLICY.
We do not understand how the Ad Hoc Committee arrived at the five alternative strategies
proposed. From our collective SMLA perspective, none of the five alternatives are
consistent with the declaration of policy principles as all contemplate the allocation and
transfer of water outside the Roanoke River Basin. We also recognize the purpose of the
Kerr Dam as being primarily power generation and floodwater management and especially
not as a source of water to be transferred outside the Roanoke River Basin. If water is
transferred for sale to Raleigh N. C., it will stimulate growth in that region beyond what is
sustainable with that region's water resources.
P64
If SMLA is required to choose between the five alternatives, our recommendation is
alternative #2 with further modification by incorporation of the condition that regardless no
water shall be allocated for transfer outside the Roanoke River Basin. The Army Corps
would continue to allocate water resources on a first-come basis to users within the
Roanoke Basin. Additionally, the Corps should encourage the return of treated wastewater
to the river to reduce net withdrawal amounts. Also, water withdrawals should be limited
during a declared drought, based upon the amount of water retained in Kerr Reservoir
allocated for withdrawal purposes. As reservoir levels fall, withdrawals should be reduced
to conserve supplies and to allow limited withdrawals for a longer period. This approach is
somewhat consistent with North Carolina legislation that states the first priority is for use
of water within a basin. Regarding inter-basin transfer, there is no way long term impacts
can be assessed to "prove" that a donor basin will not be adversely impacted.
Additionally, we recommend that both American Rivers and The Nature Conservancy be
asked to provide input in this matter before it is concluded. We are sending both
organizations a copy of our letter to you. Their contact information is provided below.
Sincerely,
Larry Iceman
Larry Iceman
President, Smith Mountain Lake Association
CC American Rivers
1101 14th Street N W
Suite 1400
Washington, DC 20005
Phone:202-347-7550
Fax:202-347-9240
John Seebach (202) 347-7550 jseebach@americanrivers.org
The Nature Conservancy
490 Westfield Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Phone: (434) 295-6106
E-Mail: clongman@tnc.org
P65
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
Danville Community College Off-Site College 05/18/2010 11
ACTION: INFORMATION:
Yes
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Relocation of Off-Site Classes CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF CONTACT(S): Yes
Mr. Sleeper
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Danville Community College has been working with the Cascade Ruritans for sometime operating anoff--site
classroom for computer science. This met the requirements for Danville Community College's remote and
rural outreach, similar to the Riddle Center in the Pittsylvania County Library in Gretna.
DISCUSSION:
After 5 years of offering classes in the Cascade Community Center, which is very small, the Cascade Ruritan
organization had secured a modular unit from Pittsylvania County and intends to convert it into a classroom
and commuter lab. This will require approximately $6,000 of support that they are requesting from the
Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors. Danville Community College supports this initiative and will do
everything they can in developing the computer lab.
RECOMMENDATION:
If the Board sees fit to fund the request of the Cascade Ruritans for $6,000 to outfit and convert the modular
unit to a computer lab, these funds may be transferred from non-departmental 100-4-091200-230000 BC VS
Share. This is due to good health operations and less required transfers of County share health insurance.
P66
C~anville Community College
May 5, 2010
Mr. W. Dan Sleeper
County Administrator
P. 0. Box 426
Chatham, VA 24531
Dear Dan:
As you know, Danville Community College has been committed for years to expanding access to
educational opportunities for the citizens in the service region, particularly in the more remote and rural
areas. For example, we offer dual enrollment classes in all the County high schools and other locations,
such as the Riddle Center in Gretna.
Approximately five years ago, we began offering classes in the Cascade area. While the initial
results were promising, there has been a decrease in participation for several years. I understand that
the Ruritan Club has secured a modular unit from the County and wishes to convert it into a
classroom/computer lab. Danville Community College supports this new initiative and will do everything
possible to make it successful.
I hope we can assist the Ruritans and other local citizens in the Cascade area to improve their
employability skills. In other words, I believe this project is a potential win-win for the citizens in the
region.
Very sincerely,
-" "7
B. Carlyle Ramsey
President
gb
P67
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
Request Appointment to Danville Utility Commission 05/18/2010 12
ACTION: INFORMATION:
Yes
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request Appointments from Pittsylvania County CONSENT AGENDA:
Boazd of Supervisors to Danville Utility Commission ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS•
No
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Slee r REVIEWED BY•
BACKGROUND:
The Boazd of Supervisors received explanations from Mr. R.B. Sloan and City Manager Joe King at the last
meeting of the Boazd of Supervisors concerning costs for Danville Electric power. At that meeting it was
discussed that the Board of Supervisors would like to consider an appointment of at least 2 members to the
Utility Commission due to the 368 square miles of service azea in Pittsylvania County for the Danville Utility
Commission.
DISCUSSION•
The Honorable James Snead has requested this be placed back on the agenda and will request a letter to be
written to the Danville City Council. That request being the Pittsylvania County Boazd of Supervisors be
able to appoint 2 members to the Danville Utility Commission due to the services provided in the Pittsylvania
County area that consists of approximately 368 square miles.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff submits this to the Board of Supervisors for their review and consideration.
P68
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Chatham Southern Railway Depot
Restoration -Phase II & III
AGENDA DATE:
05/18/2010
ITEM NUMBER:
13
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Change Order #4
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Sleeper and Mrs. Mills
ACTION: Yes
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Yes
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
The construction contract for the Chatham Southern Railway Depot Restoration -Phase II & III was awarded
to Thor, Inc. at the November 17, 2009 meeting of the Board of Supervisors. The contract amount is
$350,000.
Notice to Proceed was issued December 23, 2009 with work to commence on or before January 11, 2010.
The date of substantial completion is July 12, 2010.
The original contract plus proposed change orders 1, 2, and 3 totals $387,402.
DISCUSSION:
Attached hereto, you will find a copy of change order #4 submitted by Dewberry and Davis on May 5, 2010.
This change order totals ($18,000) and is for the reduction in the brick point-up allowance. The new contract
sum including this change order will be $369,402.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve change order #4 with the
reduced amount of ($18,000), which is for the reduction in the brick point-up allowance, pending approval of
the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Department of Historic Resources. Total $369,402.
P69
~= • Document G101 TM - 2441
Change Order
PROJECT (Name and address:
Renovations to the Chatham S~ntthern
Railway Depot - Phase 11 & Itl
106 Dept Street
Chatham, VA 24531
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 004
DATE: May O5, 2010
OWNER:
ARCHITECT:
TO CONTRACTOR (Name and nddressJ: ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NUMBER: 50019121
CONTRACTOR:
FIELD: ^
'Thor,lnc. CONTRACT DATE: December 16, 2009 GLENN GILES:
P.O. Rox 13127 CONTRACT FOR: General Conswction
Roanoke, VA 24540
THE CONTRACT IS CHANGED AS FOLLOWS:
(/nckrde., where applicable, anp undisprded amount aNributnble ro previously executed Corutrircrion Chan~~e Di-•rcrives)
The original Convact Sum was 5 350,000.00
The net change by previously authorized Change Orders S 37,402.00
The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was S 387,402.00
The Contract Sum will be decreased by this Change Order in the amount of S (IR,000.UO)
The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be S 369,402.00
The Contract Tirtte will be unchanged by 7.ero (0) days.
The date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is July 12, 3010
NOTE:
NOT VALID UNTIL SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT, CONTRACTOR AND OWNER.
Dewberry & Davis, Inc. Thor, Inc. Pittsylvania County
ARCHITECT (Firm name) CONTRACTOR {Firm Hume) OWNER (Finn rurnte)
P.U. Box L509, Danville. VA 24543 P.O. Box 13127, Roanoke, YA 24540 P.O. Box 426, Chatham, VA 24531
ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS
BY (Signature) BY (Signature.) BY (Signature)
John J. Ranson Mike Sexton V1'itliani U. Sleeper
(T~ned name) (Tjperl Home) (T~ped name)
DATE DATE DATE
AIA Document G701 ra -2001. Copyright ~ 1979, 1987, 2000 and 2001 by The American Institute of Arctdtects. A~ rfphts reserved. WARNING: This AIA
Document Is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and Intemalional Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIAy Document, a any
portion of H, may result in severe civil and criminal penallles, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. TtWS document was
produced by AIA software at 14:20:11 on 05/05/2010 under Order No.1295871943 1 which expires on 6/30/2010, anti is not for rt~ale.
User Nales: (2389745467}
P70
THOR INCORPORATED
P. O. Box 13127
Roanoke, VA 24031-3127
Te1:540-563-0567
Fax:540-563-0577
To: Dewberry & Davis Inc
Attn.; John Ransom _
Aridness: P.O. Box 1509 _
Danville, yrginia 24543
Te1:434-797-4497 Fax:434-797-4343
CHANGE ORDER PROPOSAL
Number: 13
oats: 4/28/10
Project Name: /Location:
Renovation to the
Chatham Southern RaiP
Phase II & III
17
1 Date Of Exlstino Contract:) December 16.2009 1
We here by ro a the followin than s to the Contract as specified be low:
Reduang the brick point-up allowance _ __
_ - - - - - _
the current contract brick point-up allowance, $10/sf x 3,600 sf = $36,000
the extent of the point-up to filling in any holes -including removing wood plugs
b reducin
g ($18,000.00)
_
_
and nails - or aps, "buttering" joints as needed to blend areas while leaving the existin
mortar in place. Thor can reduce the square foot allowance from $10/sf to $5/sf for 3,600 sf **
**we interpret 3,600 sf to be the entire exterior of the building and will perform this point-up
accordingly over the entire exterior of the building _ _ _
SUBTOTAL: ($18,000.00)
Note: Approval of this Change Order become part of and in conformance with the existing contract.
We Agree hereby to make the change(s) specified above at this price: (518,000.00)
Authorized
Si nature:
Authorized
Date•
Accepted -The above price and specifications of this Change Order
Proposal are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. This accepted
Change Order Proposal shall be fumed into a Change Order to the
Contract Agreement and shall change the Contract Amount and Contract Acceptance
Date•
ime according to the proposal above. All work to be performed under
same terms and conditions as specified in the original contract unless
otherwise stipulated. Client
Signature:
P71
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
Change Order #1; RT 40 Fire Booster Station 05/18/2010 14
ACTION: INFORMATION:
Yes
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Change Order to RT 40 Fire Booster Station CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF CONTACT(S): Yes
Mr. Sleeper
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Pittsylvania County Boazd of Supervisors has a contract with George E. Jones & Son for the installation
of a booster station and force main line for the RT 40 West waterline in order to provide necessary fire flow.
The original contract price is $172,600.
DISCUSSION:
Attached hereto you will find Change Order #l. Due to conditions found at the existing water tank at the
Town of Gretna, it is necessary that the contractor install two 8-inch 22.5° pipe fittings in order to get the
current HDPE pipe to connect to an existing Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP). This change order requires $800, for a
new total of $173,400.
RECOMMENDATION:
Due to the timeliness of needing to get the pipe in place and parts order, the County Administrator has signed
this contract within his approval granted by the Board of Supervisors and am requesting the Boazd of
Supervisors approve this change order and ratify the County Administrator's approval of the $800
expenditure.
P72
Change Order
No. l
Date of Issuance: May 4, 2010 Effective Date: A
27, 2010
Project: SR 40 Fire Booster Station Owner: Pittsylvania County Owner's Contract No.:
Contract: SR 40 Fire Booster Station; Gretna, VA Date of Contract: March 30, 2010
Contractor: George E. Jones & Sons, Inc. Engineer's Project No.: 50037605
The Contract Documents are modified as follows upon execution of this Change Order:
Description:
Contractor request additional payment for installation of two (2) 8-inch 22.5° pipe fittings not originally included
in the contract. Fittings were needed to make preferred connection to 8-inch DIP rather than HDPE.
Attachments (list documents supporting change):
Letter dated April 27, 2010 from George E. Jones & Sons, Inc.
CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE:
Original Contract Price: n """"'''""''^"~ n `'^'°"''^"''^"°
~c~c"r'vaii~rciarEeiiipi@t~ei,-(c`~~u^`y=s-er-~ `.
$172,600.00 ~e~=z~°° ~~^' ~ eta-(~~s~I-fat°`•
'~~ to '~~=
Contract Price prior to this Change Order:
$172,600.00
[Increase] {Reel-•ease} of this Change Order: rT,,,.,.°^~°, rT>°,.,.°^~°, „~+t,;~ r-~,^.,,.° n,.,,°..:
~o~t-a~rti al-ee~leEie~~.r~at° `•
$800.00 ;t°~=-f,..=~~a3T-ora^+°~.
Contract Price incorporating this Change Order: ~'°~+~^°+ -r;-~°~ ' '~+'' ^" ^ '°~"-'''^~~'° n,.,~°"°:
$173,400.00
REC MENDE ;
By: .!~'~f
Eng' r (Authorized Signature)
Date: ~-~ ~ ~a
By:
Owner (Authorized~5ignatur~
Date: S to 'l0
ACCEPTED:
By:
Contractor (Authorized Signature)
Date:
EJCDC C-941 Change Order
Prepared by the Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee and endorsed by the Construction Specifications Institute.
Page 1 of 1
P73
GEORGE E.
ONES
8~ SONS. INC.
C3ENERAL CONTRACTORS
April 27, 2010
Bryce Simmons
Dewberry
P. O. Box 1509
Danville, VA 24540
Re: SR 40 Fire Booster Station
Pittsylvania County, Virginia
Dear Bryce:
We are requesting a change order for 2 additional 8" 22.5° fittings due to a conflict at the
connection point with existing HDPE casing and carrier pipe.
Our price for this work is $800.00.
If you have any questions or need additional information please let me know.
Sincerely,
GEORGE E. JONES 8~ SONS, INC.
Robert J. Deddens
Project Manager
RJD/ds
210 S. Main Street, Suite 102 • Post Office Box 1256 • Amherst, Virginia 24521
Phone (434) 946-5455 • Fax (434) 946-5023
P74
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
Camp 15 Architectural Design Amendments 05/18/2010 15
ACTION: INFORMATION:
Yes
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST: CONSENT AGENDA:
Necessary changes to complete planning study ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Slee r REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Pittsylvania County Boazd of Supervisors contracted with AECOM out of Virginia Beach for $62,000 to
do a planning study for the Virginia Department of Corrections in order to certify the Camp 15 site to become
Pittsylvania County Jail.
DISCUSSION:
In order to complete the planning study there are 3 items not identified in the AECOM contract nor were they
originally discussed as part of the Request For Proposal. These are: 1) a required geotechnical report, $3,500;
2) hazardous material testing and radon testing, $7,500; and 3) a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for
$2,600. The total amount is $13,600. These requirements aze necessary for the Department of Corrections to
certify that the site meets the safety requirements for housing prisoners.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Boazd of Supervisors authorize the County Administrator to develop independent
subcontracts through AECOM for the identified special testing reports and environmental assessments in
order to complete this study, and transfer $13,600 from New Jail Construction in the 310 account to the Jail
Expansion Architect Study in the 310 account. The County Administrator will explain the current status of
this project as requested by the Honorable Marshall Ecker. The County Administrator is working in
cooperation with the Honorable Coy E. Harville and representatives of the Governor's office and the Virginia
Department of Transportation and the Virginia Department of Corrections.
P75
Yage 1 of 1
Dan Sleeper
From: Garrison, Paul [Paul.Garrison@aecom.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 2:56 PM
To: Dan Sleeper; Otis Hawker; Pittsylvania County Sheriffs Office; Kim Vanderhyde
Cc: Super, Brian
Subject: CHATHAM JAIL ANNEX
Attachments: Front End Specs.pdf; A102-2007 -Working Draft - 001.pdf
All,
After our discussions Tuesday, I have the following updates:
5. AECOM will execute subcontracts for the following services and amounts upon
authorization from the Owner:
a. Geotechnical report - $3500
b. Hazardous Materials testing & Radon testing - $7500
c. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment - $2600
Total = $13,600
11. Confirm requirement for Digital Video Recording storage. - We typically see 90 days
max at a resolution of CIF (Common Intermediate Format or a resolution of 352 x 240)
and recording frame rate of 7.5 frames per second (fps).
I have also attached a copy of typical front end specifications and a draft AIA Owner-
Contractor contract as requested.
As I mentioned, I will be out on vacation next week. Please communicate with Brian
Super as needed.
Regards,
Paul
Paul T. Garrison, PE, CEM, LEED AP
Projects Director
Planning, Design + Development
D 757-306-6723 C 757-620-1342
paul.garrison@aecom.com
AECOM
448 Viking Drive, Suite 145, Virginia Beach, VA 23452 USA
T 757.306.4000 F 757.306.4001
www.aecom.com
4/ 1 /2010
P76
Reports from
Legal Counsel
r
PRESENTATIONS/
APPOINTMENTS
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY
Board of Supervisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Danville-Pittsylvania County Community Services
Board of Directors Vacancies
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Appointments
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Sleeper
AGENDA DATE:
05/18/2010
ACTION:
Yes
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Yes
ITEM NUMBER:
16
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
The Danville-Pittsylvania Community Services Board of Directors will have 3 vacancies as of July 1, 2010.
1). Ms. Betty M. Pickral, of the Callands-Gretna District, will complete her second 3-year term on June 30,
2010 and has expressed interest in continuing to represent the County in this capacity. She is eligible for a
third 3-year appointment beginning July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2013.
2). Dr. Roy N. Ford, Jr., of the Westover District, will complete his second 3-year term on June 30, 2010
and has expressed interest in continuing to represent the County in this capacity. He is eligible for a third 3-
year appointment beginning July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2013.
3). Mr. William H. Pritchett, of the Banister District, will finish his third 3-year term on June 30, 2010 and
will not be eligible for reappointment at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff submits this to the Board of Supervisors for their review and consideration.
P77
Danville-Pittsylvania Communinnnnnn~ Services .,
"Unlocking Potential With ~ach~'urtr~~'~~ ~; ~~~,~~ ~-
~ R---~ ; ~ ~- - 'I
~ ' ~ I ,
Executive Director ! j
James F. Bebeau, LPC
Administration ~ i ~ rnt ctual Disabilit Services
434-799-0456 ~ ~ ~`~11 ~Y ,.~ ;:U ~~ , ~ ~, y
434-799-0456 '.I, .. J r 434-799-0456
_I
Behavioral Health Services ', -------" -- "" "' 'prevent nand Quality Assurance
434-793-4931 ~ 434-799-0456
April 29, 2010
Mr. William D. Sleeper
Pittsylvania County Administrator
PO Box 425
Chatham, Virginia 24531
Dear Mr. Sleeper:
I am writing in regard to three upcoming vacancies that Pittsylvania County will
have on the Danville-Pittsylvania Community Services Board of Directors as of
July 1, 2010.
Ms. Betty M. Pickral, 1120 Crown Road, Gretna VA 24557, of the Callands-
Gretna District, will complete her second three-year term on June 30, 2010. Ms.
Pickral is eligible for a third three-year appointment beginning July 1, 2010, to
June 30, 2013, and has expressed interest in continuing to represent the County
in this capacity.
On June 30, 2010, Dr. Roy N. Ford, Jr., 216 Walnut Road, Danville, VA 24541, of
the Westover District, will complete his second three-year term. Dr. Ford is
eligible for a third three-year appointment beginning July 1, 2010, to June 30,
2013, and has expressed interest in continuing to represent the County in this
capacity.
The third successive three-year term for Mr. Wii{iam H. Pritchett, 6545 Ofd
Richmond Road, Danville VA 24540, of the Banister District, will expire June 30,
2010. Unfortunately, Mr. Pritchett is not eligible for reappointment at this time.
Ms. Pickral and Dr. Ford have represented the County well in their capacity on
the Danville-Pittsylvania Community Services Board of Directors. Ms. Pickral is
current Chairperson of the Behavioral Health Services Committee, and Dr. Ford
is a member of the Budget and Finance Committee. Both are active members of
our Board of Directors, and we are certainly pleased that they are eligible and
interested in continued service on our Board.
°Fr~~c+ 245 Hairston Street, Danville, Virginia 24540
F~'~°Yti., z 434-799-0456 Fax 434-793-4201 TDD 434-799-0198
~~, -,' Gretna Office 111 Center Street, Gretna, Virginia 24557 ~
°^`;-._.__....~-~ From Gretna 434-656-8201 From Danville 434-797-2116 Fax 434-656-8204 ••• ~'m ••
'~ssw4• www.dpcs.org
P78
Mr. William D. Sleeper
April 29, 2010
Page 2
We regret that Mr. Pritchett will not be a member of our Board after June 30. He
is current Chairperson of the Board of Directors and is a member of the
Prevention Services Committee. His presence and contribution of time and
talents will be missed.
On behalf of the Danville-Pittsylvania Community Services Board of Directors, I
respectfully ask that the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors favorably
consider the reappointment of Ms. Pickral and Dr. Ford to a third term effective
July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2013, and that the necessary action be taken by the
Board of Supervisors to appoint a citizen from the Banister District to fill the
vacancy created by the term expiration of Mr. Pritchett. I have spoken with Mr.
Pritchett regarding the vacancy, and he is currently considering a suggestion for
citizen appointment from the Banister District to our Board of Directors.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you need additional
information, please call me at 799-0456 Ext 3018.
Sincerely
/ ~~~
James F. Bebeau, LPC
Executive Director
JFB:phb
c: Betty M. Pickral
Roy N. Ford, Jr.
Vtiiliiam H. Pritchett
P79
CLOSED MEETING