The URL can be used to link to this page

06-22-1983 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES June 22, 1983 Supervisors in Attendance: Mr. J. Royall Robertson, Chairman Mr. R. Garland Dodd, Vice Chairman Mr. C. L. Bookman Mr. Harry G. Daniel Mrs. Joan Girone Mr. Elmer C. Hodge Assistant County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Mr. Stanley Balderson, Dir. of Planning Mr. James GilLentine, Nursing Home Admin. Mr. Phil Hester, Director, Parks & Rec. Mr. Robert Masden, Dir., Human Services Mrs. Arline McGuire, County Treasurer Mr. Steve Micas~ County Attorney Mr. Jeffrey Muzzy, Dir., Comm. Dev. Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir., Budget & Accountin~ Dr. Howard Sull]ns, School Superintendent Mr. Robert Wagenknecht Director of Libraries Mr. Robertson called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 10:00 a.m. (EDST). Mr. Daniel gave the invocation. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved the minutes of June 8, 1983. Vote: Unanimous 2. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS Mr. Elmer Hodge, Assistan't County Administrator, stated th3t Mr. Hedrick would not be present today as he was participating in a conference and that the Deputy Clerk to the Board, Joan Dolezal, would not be present as she was on vacation. Mr. Hodge stated that at the last meeting, the Board had passed resolution opposing the action of the State Board of Social Services regarding caseload standards. He stated that Mr. Masden was present with further information on this matte~?. Mr. Masden stated ~.hat the Board had achieved success with its resolution. He stated that this Board was the first Board to pass such a resolution and that numerous other Boards in the State had followed our example by adopting the same resolution and the State Board of Social Services had reversed its decision. He stated that the caseload standards would have shown Chesterfield County to be overstaffed and put a substantial burden on the Board to pick up a large amount of costs of the Social. Services operation. He sta[~ed that the State Board had reversed themselves and will study the caseload standards further. Mrs. Girone stated that there had been a large turnout, at the State Board meeting. She stated the matter had only been deferred by the State Board of Social Services and would be considered ~gain 83-320 in September. this matter. Mr. Robertson thanked Mrs. Girone for her work on 17.A. PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND GENERAL PLAN 2000 Mr. Hodge stated that if there were no objections, this item would be deferred until after the Executive Session at lunch. There were no objections. 3. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING JUDGE MURPHEY'S RETIREMENT On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Douglas Woodfin Murphey served the County of Chesterfield in the Police Department as Patrolman fro 1942 through 1947 and ss Detective from 1947 through 1949; and WHEREAS, Douglas Woodfin Murphey served the Judicial System of Chesterfield County as Judge of the Count}, Court from 1957 through 1973; as Judge~of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court from 1973 through 1974; and as Judge o Circuit Court from 1974 through 1983; and WHEREAS, Douglas Woodfin Murphey has served the County in various capacities continuously from 1942 in such offices as Commissioner of Accounts, Justice of the Peace, and Commissioner in Chancery: and WHEREAS, Douglas Woodfin Murphey will retire from the Bench as Circuit Court Judge for Chesterfield-Colonial Heights on June 30, 1983. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby recognizes and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County appreciation for the dedicated and loyal service of Douglas Woodfin Murphey for over thirty-three years which experience w~ll be sorely missed; AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that a plaque inscribed as follows be presented to Douglas Woodfin Murphey: IN APPRECIATION FOR THIRTY-T~[REE YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO CHESTERFIELD COUNTY WHILE SERVING AS PATROLMAN, DETECTIVE, JUDGE OF COUNTY COURT, JUDGE OF dUVENtLE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT AND JUDGE OF CIRCUIT COURT Vote: Unanimous Mr. Hodge stated that Judge Murphey was not present this morning and that the Board would present this resolution to him a't a dinner in his honor this evening. 4. PUBLIC }{EARING 4.A. REFUNDS FOR OFF-SITE A~ID OVERSIZED SEWER AND W~rER LINE INSTALLATIONS Mr. Hodge stated that this date and ti~e had been scheduled for public hearing to consider revisions to the County policy on refunds for off-site s~]d oversized sewer and water line installations. He stated that in AFri], the staff had presented a report on this subject an~ at that time the matter was defecre( for 60 days to give staff t~.me to meet with developers, engineer~ and contractors and bring back re> the Board, a report. Welchons stated that the ordinance was changing the method of acquiring bids or establishing refunds when a refund is due. The ordinance provides for the Ccni]lty 'to establJ sh the prices fo. refunds for on-site oversized extens'kons based on material costs fi3-32.!. and for off-site extensions based on set cost for labor and material for these extensions. He further stated that the ordinance provides an alternative to using a set price schedule by use of a public bidding procedure. He stated that this had been reviewed by the developers, engineers and contractors and they were basically in agreement with the County's proposal. He stated that there are members of this group present today and they may wish to make some remarks. Mr. Micas handed out some revised copies of the ordinance to the Board members. Mr. Bookman stated that. the ordinance called for an annual setting of prices for materials and he suggested a semi-annual price setting for material costs. He stated it would be more fair to update the material costs every six months and the labor costs once a year and invited comments on this change from those present. Mr. Daniel asked if the figures would be available every six months. Mr. Welchons stated that the figures are available monthly in Engineering News Record. He stated that a semi-annual update of the material costs for oversized on-site installations would not cause a problem, but for offasite, it could get complicated, but that it could be done. Mr. Welchons stated that when you are working on figures for off-site construction, the bids are generally not broken down into materials and labor. Mr. Hodge suggested that this amendment be made and if it did not work out, to bring it back to the Board. Mr. John Henson was present and stated that he was Chairman of the committee that studied the off-site policies. He stated that the ordinance presented to thei Board incorporated the committee's suggestions and that they were glad to have had an opportunity to have some input in this process. Mr. Dodd stated that one of the prime concerns of the Board was that this process would not drive up the cost of installing water and sewer that would ultimately be borne by the purchasers of homes and asked Mr. Henson if this had been achieved. Mr. Henson stated that Henrico County had an annual bid, which would not be done in Chesterfield, but whoever compiled the unit prices would take into consideration the unit prices used in Henrico County, the Cit~ of Richmond and areas in Chesterfield County and those figures would be composited in a conservative request and that it would be more fair than using a unit prices. Mr. Dodd thanked Mr. Henson for his work on this matter. Mr. Bookman asked Mr. Henson if he had any problems with a semi-annual update of material costs. Mr. Henson stated that he did not have any problems. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 20-10 and 20-32 RELATING TO REFUNDS FOR OFF-SITE AND OVERSIZED SEWER AND WATER LINE EXTENSIONS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: 1. That Sections 20-10 and 20-32 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield are amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 20-10. bursements. Water line extension requirements; costs, reim- The Board of Supervisors will authorize the installation of water extensions to extend the county's water system at the expense of developers and refund to developers the total cost or part thereof, to the extent permitted by this section, out of connection charges made on such lines in accordance with the following policy. o c o (c) The entire cost, including the actual cost incurred and paid out of the county, plus a fixed overhead charge of twenty percent, of extending wa%er ma:ins shall be paid for by the person 83-322 or persons making the extension when work is performed by county forces. When contract work is performed by an approved contractor, an inspection fee of three percent will be charged based on final actual cost. The estimated amount of such fee shall be deposited at the time the contract is executed. The county will pay the difference in cost between an eight-inch main and a larger main installed for off-site extensions, except when it is determined that a larger main is needed to serve property being developed. The difference in cost between the eight-inch main and the larger main installed shall be the difference in material and labor costs, as determined in accordance with this section. The County will only refund the difference in material costs for on-site oversizing of water lines unless the project is bid in accordance with this section. Refunds from connection fees shall be allowed for the cost of off-site and oversizing of water lines in accordance with the requirements of this section. The total amount eligible to be refunded shall be computed by the utilities department based on an annual set price reimbursement schedule for labor costs and a semi-annual set price reimbursement schedule for material costs developed in accordanc~ with procedures adopted by the utilities department. The person eligible for refunds may, upon written notice to the county, choose to publicly advertise the work for a sealed bid opening al a particular date and time. If such a bid process is chosen, bids shall be opened at the developer's engineer's office. The engineer shall supply the county with a certified bid tabulation and the potential refund shall be calculated by using the bid most advantageous to the county. The developer is obligated to use the. lowest responsible bidder to complete the work in order to receive refunds. Prior to receiving any refunds, the engineer must certify that all applicable bid procedures have been followed and that the low bidder has been paid the actual construction cost based on the bid. Each bidder must sign an affidavit as a condition of bidding that his bid was indepen- dently arrived at without collusion or communication with other contractors or developers and that he stands ready and willing to perform the work at the bid price. The Utilities Department may adopt rules and regulations further governing bid procedures. A separate service shall be required for each house, each unit of duplex homes or separate business establishments. Where one meter serves a trailer court, apartment or other property approved by the board, the county shall require a minimum water service charge for each unit served on such property. No more than one dwelling unit or business establishment may be connected to a service line except those approved by the board upon proper application. o o o Sec. 20-32. Sewer extension policy. (a) When it is determined that a project contributing above normal flows will overload the sewerage facilities immediately, the county may prohibit the construction of the project or require the developer to replace or parallel the overloaded facilities. (b) If the county permits a developer to make an extension outside of his subdivision or development or if he is required to install a sewer larger than required for his development or constructs a pumping station or treatment facility, the county may reimburse the developer one hundred percentum of the con- nection fee paid within the developer's project, not to exceed the actual cost of the additional improvements. The county may, at its own option, elect to .pay for the additional improvements when the facilities are completed or to apply a portion of funds received from others who may connect to these facilities. Refunds from connection fee'~ shall be allowed for the cost of off-site and oversizing o~ sewer lines in accordance with the requirements of this section. The County will only refund the difference in material costs for on-site oversizing of sewer lines unless the project is bid in accordance with. this section. 83-323 The total amount eligible to be refunded shall be computed by the utilities department based on an annual set price reimbursement schedule for labor costs and a semi-annual set price reimbusement schedule for material costs developed in accordance with procedures adopted by the Utilities Department. The person eligible for refunds may, upon written notice to the county, choose to publicly advertise the work for a sealed bid opening at a particular date and time. If such a bid process is chosen, bids shall be opened at the developer's engineer's office. The engineer shall supply the county with a certified bid tabulation and the potential refund shall be calculated by using the bid most advantageous to the county. The developer is obligated to use the lowest responsible bidder to complete the work in order to receive refunds. Prior to receiving any refunds, the engineer must certify that all applicable bid procedures have been followed and that the low bidder has been paid the actual construction cost based on 'the bid. Each bidder must sign an affidavit as a condition of bidding that his bid was independently arrived at without collusion or communication with other contractors or developers and that he stands ready and willing to perform the work at the bid price. The Utilities Department may adopt rules and regulations further governing bid procedures. No refund will be made for an extension of two hundred feet or less. o o o 2. That this ordinance shall be effective January 1, 1984. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel asked that the cost be closely monitored as he did not want to the citizens to pay higher prices as had happened in Henrico County. He stated that Chesterfield County had received some good bargains in their sewer construction costs over the years. 4.B. LATE-FILING AND LATE-PAYMENT PENALTIES FOR REAL ESTATE Mr. Hodge stated that this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Sections 8-12(a), 8-13(a) and 8-13(b) to increase the late-filing and late-payment penalties for real estate, tangible personal property and machinery and tools taxes. He stated that earlier in the year the penalty for failure to pay business license taxes had been increased from 5% to 10% and the same was being requested for real estate, personal property and machinery and tools. Mr. John Smith was present and stated that he felt the Board was not doing the right thing by increasing this penalty. He stated that most people who cannot pay their taxes, cannot pay whether the penalty is 5% or 10%. He suggested a 5% penalty for the first month after the filing date and 1% penalty per month thereafter. He further stated that the County should cut out free services, such as lighted tennis courts. Mr. Dodd remarked that you couldn't borrow money anywhere for 5%, which is what is occurring when you do not pay your taxes. Mrs. Arline McGuire was present and stated that this increase is in line with other localities and that the Board could have made this increase in 1980, when the General Assembly raised the penalty for late payment from 5% to 10%. She stated that it cost more to carry a delinquent account, bill the citizen an~ collect the money, than the amount collected so it is costing the taxpayer more to carry these accounts. She further stated that when the budget is set, the money is needed for the curre~)t year and if it is not collected, then the Board would have to make other arrangements ~or funding the expenses of the County. She stated that although this proposal did no't originate from her office, she was in favor of it. Mrs. McGuire stated that on the first billing, 91% of ta×es are collected and 9% do not pay until the notices are continually sent and an effort is made to 83-324 collect. She pointed out that at this time, the Treasurer's Office had collected 99.58% of taxes owed. She stated that she had talked with people who did not have the money to pay their taxes and she did have sympathy for them, but for the benefit of those who do pay on time, this increase should be made. Mr. Micas stated that this increase, if approved, would go into effect January 1, 1984. Mr. Bookman told Mr. Smith his comments did have merit, but due to the costs involved in accounting, it would not be effective to split the penalty up as he had suggested. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 8-12(a), 8-13(a) AND 8-13(b) RELATING TO PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO PAY REAL ESTATE, TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY AND MACHINERY AND TOOLS TAXES WHEN DUE AND FAILURE TO FILE TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY AND MACHINERY AND TOOLS TAX RETURNS WHEN WHEN DUE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia (1) That Section 8-12(a) of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and re-enacted as follows: Sec. 8-12. Payment of real estate taxes. (a) The tax levied on real estate situated in the county shall be due and payable in two equal installments, the first installment being due and payable on June 5 of each calendar year and the second installment being due and payable on December 5 of each calendar year. Any person failing to pav any such install- ment of taxes on or before the due date shall incur a penalty thereof of ten percent, which shall be added to the amount of taxes or levies due from such taxpayer on such installment, which, when collected by the treasurer, shall be accounted for in his settlements. o o o (2) That Section 8-13(a) and 8-13(b) of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, are amended and re- enacted as follows: Sec. 8-13. Payment. (a) The tangible personal property tax levied on personal property, including mobile homes, and the machinery and tools tax levied on machinery and tools, situated in the county shall be due and payable on June 5 of each calendar year. Any person failing to pay any such taxes on or before the due date shall incur a penalty thereon of ten percent which shall be added to the amount of taxes due from such taxpayer, which, when collected by the treasurer, shall be accounted for Jn his settlements. (b) Ail returns of tangible personal property, including mobile homes, machinery and tools subject to taxation shall be filed by every person liable for the tax with the office of the commissioner of the revenue, on forms furnished by it, on or before March 1 of each calendar year. Any person fa~ling to file such return on or before the due date shall incur a penalty thereon of ten percent which shall be added to the amount of taxes or levies due from such taxpayer which, when collected by the treasurer, shall be accounted for in his settlements. (3) That this ordinance shall be effective January 1, 1984. 83-3~5 Vote: Unanimous 4.C. ORDINANCE RELATING TO PURCHASING Mr. Hodge stated that this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider amendments to Article VIII, Chapter 2 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, relating to purchasing. He stated that this is a result of a changes at the State level and that the County ordinance had to be cha~ged accordingly. He stated that we are not entirely in favor or this change, but we have no choice. Mr. Micas stated that we are obligated to follow a more rigid State process for the hiring of professional services. He stated that because of the increased lack of rigidity the Board was being asked to make some changes in the ordinance that would increase from $5,000 to $10,000 our discretion to follow alternative procedures for the hiring of professional services below that amount and adding some discretion when the County chooses to advertise for small purchases. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY k~ENDING SECTIONS 2-40, 2-42 AND 2-43 AND BY ADDING SECTION 2-43.1 RELATING TO PURCHASING BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 2-40, 2-42 and 2-43 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, are amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 2-40. Competitive p~rchasing generally; exceptions. Ail county contracts with non-governmental contractors for the purchase or lease of goods for the purchase of services, or for the sale of obsolete or unusable goods, shall be awarded only after competitive sealed bidding or competitive negotiation as hereinafter provided in this article; provided, however, competitive sealed bidding or competitive negotiation shall not be required: (a) upon a determination, by the purchasing agent, in writing that there is only one source practicably available for the goods or services to be purchased, and such writing documents the basis for the determination; (b) upon a determination, by the purchasing agent, in writing that an emergency exists and such writing documents the basis for the emergency and for the selection of the particular contractor; (c) if the contract price is not expected to exceed $10,000 and the county purchasing agent has established alternate purchasing procedures for such contracts~ or Sec. 2-42. Competitive sealed b~dding; procedure; award. For all contracts that are required to be based on competi- tive sealed bidding pursuant to the provisions of sections 2-40 and 2-41 of this article, sealed bids shall be solicited by a written invitation to bid. P~blic notice of the invitation to bid may, in the discretion of the purchasing agent, be inserted at least once in a newspaper of county-wide circulation. Sealed bids shall also be solicited by sending the invitation to bid to prospective contractors an,~ by posting the invitation to bid in a public place. Bids shall be based on specifications, terms, con- ditions and any statement of requisite qualifications for potential contractors, all as contained in the invitation to bid. All contracts shall be awarded to the lowest responsive and 83-3?6 responsible bidder. Special qualifications of potential contractors, life cycle costing, value analysis and any other criteria such as inspection, testing, quality, workmanship, delivery terms and suitability for a particular purpose may be considered in evaluating bids. Any and all bids may be cancelled or rejected, provided the reasons for such cancellation or rejection are made part of the contract file. Any informalities in bids may be waived. Sec. 2-43. Competitive negotiation for non-professional services; procedure; award. (a) For all contracts for non-professional services that may be based on competitive negotiation pursuant to the provisions of section 2-41 of this article, proposals shall be solicited by a written request for proposal (RFP). The RFP shall indicate in general terms that which is sought to be procured, specifying the factors which will be used in evaluating the proposal and containing or incorporating by reference, applicable contractual terms and conditions, including but not limited to any unique capabilities or qualifications which will be required of the contractor. Public notice of the RFP may, in the discretion of the purchasing agent, be inserted at least once in a newspaper of county-wide circulation. Proposals shall also be solicited by sending the RFP to prospective contractors and by posting the RFP in a public place. (2) That the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended by adding the following section: Sec. 2-42.1. Competitive negotiations for professional services; procedure; award.. (a) For all contracts for professional services, proposals shall be solicited by a written request for proposal (RFP). The RFP shall indicate in general terms that which is sought to be procured, specifying the factors which will be used in evaluating the proposal and containing or incorporating by reference applic- able contractual terms and conditions, including, but not limited to any unique capabilities or qualifications which will be required of the contractor. Public notice of the RFP may, in the discretion of the purchasing agent, be inserted in a newspaper of county-wide circulation. Proposals shall also be solicited by sending the RFP to prospective contractors and by posting the RFP in a public place. (b) The purchasing agent, in conjunction with the staff of applicable departments, shall engage in individual discussions with all offerors deemed fully qualified, responsible and suitable on the basis of initial responses and with emphasis on professional competence, to provide the required services. Repetitive informal interviews shall be permissible. Such offerors shall be encouraged to elaborate on their qualifications and performance data or staff expertise pertinent to the proposed project, as well as alternative concepts. These discussions may encompass nonbinding estimates of total project costs, including where appropriate, design, construction and life cycle costs. Methods to be utilized in arriving at price for services may also be discussed. At the conclusion of discussion, outlined in this paragraph above, on the basis of evaluation factors published in the RFP and all information developed in the selection process to this point, the purchasing agent, in conjunction with the staff of applicable departments, shall select in the order of preference two or more offerors whose professional qualifications and proposed services are deemed most meritorious. Negotiations shall then be conducted, beginning with the offeror ranked first. If a contract satisfactory and advantageous to the County can be negotiated at a price considered fair and reasonable, the award shall be made to that offeror. Otherwise, negotiations with the offeror ranked first shall be formally terminated and 83-327 negotiations conducted with the offeror ranked second, and so on until such a contract can be negotiated at a fair and reasonable price. Should the purchasing agent determine in writing and in its sole discretion that only one offeror is fully qualified, or that one offeror is clearly more highly qualified and suitable than the others under consideration, a contract may be negotiated and awarded to that offeror. (c) Any and all proposals may be cancelled or rejected provided the reasons for such cancellation or rejection shall be made part of the contract file. Any informalities in proposals may be waived. (d) Proprietary information obtained from competing offerors shall not be disclosed to the public or to any offerors. (3) 1983. That this ordinance shall become effective on July 1, Vote: Unanimous 5. BUDGET ITEMS Mr. Hodge stated that the budget items were year-end housekeeping measures for the County to comply with the State Code and there were fewer adjustments this year than in past years. He stated that was a reflection on the procedures used to monitor department budgets during the year and complimented the Budget staff for their work. ,5.A. ADJUSTMENTS TO 1982-83 GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS Mr. Ramsey stated that six departments needed adjustments for a total of $59,800 and this money was coming from other departmental budgets where there was a surplus. He stated that the need for the adjustments were necessary for the most part due to the lack of turnover, as salaries are only 96% funded to allow for turnover of salaries. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board appropriated surplus funds to those departments requiring additional appropriations in the amounts shown below: DEPARTMENT ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS EXPLANATION Economic Development $ 7,000 The overrun in this area is primarily due to lack of turnover. Budget & Accounting Library 8,300 8,000 Lack of turnover and routine operating costs resulted in over expenditure of this budget. The Board authorized continuation of service levels which would have created a deficit of approximately $75,000 for the fiscal year but with instructions for management initiatives to reduce the deficit as much as possible. It now appears that expenditures will be very close to the original appropriation. This small additional amount is needed to insure ~hat unanticipated g3-328 expenses will not exceed the appropriation Personnel 13,000 Five thousand dollars will be used to pur- chase modular work stations in an effort to more efficiently utilize existing office space. Productivity of staff personnel will be improved by providing a semi-private working environment. Addi- tionally, space will be created for the testing of applicants. Eight thousand dollars will be utilized to purchase a displaywriter. This piece of equipment will reduce the number of staff hours required for routine and repetitious clerical tasks and will allow staff more time to be dedicated to more meaningful tasks. Clerk of Circuit Court 15,000 Under-estimated benefits cost and micro- filming expense caused over-expenditure in this department. Commonwealth Attorney 8,500 Lack of turnover and the cost of routine operations caused the overrun in this area. TOTAL $59,800 The following department's budgets to be reduced as follows: DEPARTMENT AMOUNT EXPLANATION Fire $44,800 Buildings & Grounds 15,000 Funds are available because the new fire station was opened latex than expected permitting recruits to be used in place of overtime. Funds are available because of savings in utility expenses. TOTAL $59,800 Vote: Unanimous 5.B. ADJUSTMENTS '.gO THE SCHOOL FUND APPROPRIATIONS On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board aproved the following adjustments to the 1982-83 and 1983-84 School Fund Appropriations: ae Increase Appropriations: 8]-329 Administration Instruction Adjustive Services Other InstrUctional Costs Decrease Appropriations: Operations $ 25,000 75,000 300,000 200,000 $600,000 $600,000 The above transfers are needed to cover increased costs of salaries and supplies. Funds are available in Operations because of savings in utility costs. B. Chapter I Summer Progra~ Current 83-84 Budq,et Additional Amount Requested 83-84 Budget Revenue $33,600 $24,800 $58,400 Expenditures Personnel 20,000 19,900 39,900 Operations 13,600 4,900 18,500 Total $33r600 $24,800 $58,400 C. In estimating the June 30, 1983 fund balance, it was assumed that $800,000 of the 1982-83 transfer to Schools would not be spent. It now appears that at least $800,000 to $1,000,000 will be returned to fund balance. Dr. Sullins has requested that any excess above the $800,000 original estimate be reapprop~iated for the purchase of school busses. The staff will not know the amount of excess funds available until the accounts are audited. Vote: Unanimous 5.C. THREE-CENT ROAD ACCOUNT BALANCES Below is a summary of the balances in the 3¢ Road accounts by District. No Board action is required for this item since balances are automatically carried forward at year end. DISTRICT UNCOMMITTED BALANCE JULY 1, 1983 INCLUDING 1983-84 APPROPRIATION OF $9,000 PER DISTRICT Bermuda Clover Hill Dale Matoaca Midlothian $ 10,793 22,684 27,262 46,435 ( 2,273) TOTALS $104,901 6. LITERARY LOAN PROJECTS 83-330 Dr. Sullins was present and stated there are three projects that go back as far as 1975 that have not been funded. They are the physical education facility and renovation of existing spaces at J. G. Hening, additional classrooms and renovation of existing spaces at Enon and a physical education facility and improvements to the library at J. B. Watkins School. He stated that Literary Loan funds had been frozen, however, the Governor is recommending the restoration of the Literary Funds. He stated that we are in a position to possibly get funding in 1985 or 1986 and the loans do not have to be paid back until the job is complete. Mr. Dodd asked if the construction was to start in 1985-86. Dr. Sullins stated that the School Board would like to start in several months and have the County advance them the funds as had been done in the past. Mr. Bookman stated that he had no problem with the three stated projects, but it was his understanding that tonight the School Board would rece~.ve between four and five million dollars more and he cautioned that before discussion took place on this matter, the Budget staff work with the School Administration to determine the impact. He stated that in the future the County may be faced with another bond issue and possibly toll road funding and the County could be faced with approximately eight million dollars in potential improvements. He also stated that it was his understanding that the citizens wanted the Enon School closed. Mr. Dodd stated that there is some feeling that the people do not want the annex closed, but the increase in school population is now showing that it is a growth area and that some trailers would have to be moved in next year. Dr. Sullins stated that the Budget staff and the School Board staff had worked together to anticipate the impact. He stated that next year the principal and interest payments would increase by appro×imately $98,000 total. He stated if the Board waited until the Literary Fund monies were available that could increase the interest. In 1985-86 there would be a decline in the principal and interest payment in the debt service starting at $31,000 and 1986-87 would be the payback year, a $795,000 reduction in debt service required by the schools. Mr. Daniel stated that he felt we should get as many applications on file now as possible and we could always pull back on the applications. He further stated we should have filed for as many as we could in 1981 when we had the opportunitv. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereas, the School Board for the County of Chesterfield, on the 22nd day of June, 1983, presented to this Board, an application addressed to the State Board of Education for the purpose of borrowing from the Literary Fund $750,000 for adding to or improving the present school building at J. G. Hening to be paid in 20 annual installments, and the interest thereon at 3 per cent paid annually. Resolved, that the application of the County School Board to the State Board of Education of Virginia for a loan of $750,000 from the Literary Fund is hereby approved, and authority is hereby granted the said County School Board to borrow the said amount for the purpose set ou~ ~n said application. The Board of Supervisors for said County will each year during the life of this loan, at the time they fix the regular levies, fix a rate of levy for schools or make a cash appropriation sufficient for operation expenses and to pay this loan in annual installments and the interest thereon, as required by law regulating loans from the Literary Fund. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereas, the School Board for the County of Chesterfield, on the 22nd day of June, ]983, presented to this Board, an application addressed ~o th~ State Board of Education for the 83-311. purpose of borrowing from the Literary Fund $1,500,000 for adding to or improving the present school building at Enon to be paid in 20 annual installments, and the interest thereon at 3 per cent paid annually. Resolved, that the aDplication of the County School Board to the State Board of Education of Virginia for a loan of $1,500,000 from the Literary Fund is hereby approved, and authority is hereby granted the said County School Board to borrow the said amount for the purpose set out in said application. The Board of Supervisors for said County will each year during the life of this loan, at the time they fix the regular levies, fix a rate of levy for schools or make a cash appropriation sufficient for operation expenses and to pay this loan in annual installments and the interest thereon, as required by law regulating loans from the Literary Fund. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereas, the School Board for the County of Chesterfield, on the 22nd day of June, 1983, presented to this Board, an application addressed to the State Board of Education for the purpose of borrowing from the Literary Fund $1,000,000 for adding to or improving the present school building at J. B. Watkins to be paid in 20 annual installments, and the interest thereon at 3 per cent paid annually. Resolved, that the application of the County School Board to the State Board of Education of Virginia for a loan of $1,000,000 from the Literary Fund is hereby approved, and authority is hereby granted the said County School Board to borrow the said amount for the purpose set out in sa~d application. The Board of Supervisors for said County will each year during the life of this loan, at the time they fix the regular levies, fix a rate of levy for schools or make a cash appropriation sufficient for operation expenses and to pay this loan in annual installments and the interest thereon, as required by law regulating loans from the Literary Fund. Vote: Unanimous 7. LONG-TERM CARE PLAN FOR ELDERLY Mr. Masden was present and stated that in the 1982 General Assembly session a law was passed that required each locality to develop a Long-Term Care Plan for the elderly which specified a Long-Term Care Coordinating Committee be established. He stated that the plan developed was a joint plan with the City of Colonial Heights and did not require the expenditure oE any funds at this time. He stated that the least expensive method of caring for the elderly is in their home and the most expensive is in a nursing home. Mrs. Girone stated that the Social Services Board had reviewed the proposed plan and passed it on with their recommendations for approva].. She stated that this was a very comprehensive plan and they were not suggesting more funding for this age group as opposed to others. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereas, the General Assembly of Virginia at its 1982 Session adopted legis]ati~n requiring localities in Virginia to develop a Long-Term Care Plan for iu~paired elderly; and Whereas, that same !ec'islation required the establishment of a Long-Term Care Plannin9 Co~mnittee to develop such plan; and 83-332 Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, in cooperation with the City Council for Colonial Heights, does hereDy present this Plan to the State of Virginia Long-Term Care Council in compliance with Virginia Code Sections 2.1-373.3 et seq. Vote: Unanimous 8.A. IMPROVEMENTS AT HARROWGATE PARK AND CAMP BAKER Mr. Dodd asked for 'the actual cost for the work to be done at Camp Baker. Mr. Hester stated it would cost approximately $8,900 to redo the road and a small parking area. On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board accepted the low bid of $40,155.55 from William T. Curd, Jr. Contractor, Inc. with $37,435.00 coming from the Matoaca 3¢ Road Funds and $2,720.55 coming from the Harrowgate Park bond funds, account ~330-1-95419. Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Bookman, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone Abstention: Mr. Dodd 8.B. SOCCER FIELD ON COALFIELD ROAD Mr. Bookman stated that he would like to take $5,000 out of his 3¢ Road Funds to help cover the total cost of $7,000 to build a soccer field on Coalfield Road. Mr. Micas questioned what type of controls the County had if this was to be a public facility located on private land. Mr. Hester stated that the County Attorney's Office has worked with his staff on a long-term lease agreement. On motion of ~4r. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board authorized the expenditure of $5,000 from the Clover Hill 3¢ Road Funds to construct a soccer field on land located on Coalfield Road, subject to the approval of the County Attorney and further authorized the County Administrator to execute the long-term lease agreement. Vote: Unanimous 9. LIBRARY FEES On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved an increase in the charge for a Library Deposit Card for for County visitors from $5.00 to $11.00 and further imposed a $2.50 charge for the collection of overdue materials from the Library by the library collector. Vote: Unanimous 10. COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDER PROGRAM On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board accepted and appropriated the State Grant of $137,850 for the Community Diversion tncentiYe Program for Misdemeanant Law Breakers for 1983-84 and appropriated $11,000 from the Board contingency account to the local courts portion of the CDI program effective July 1, 1983. Vote: Unanimo'us 11. HEALTH DEPARTMENT LEASE On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the Health Department ].ease with the State Heal. th Department for the )eriod of July l, 1983 to June 30, 1984. rote: Unanimous 12. COMPENSATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 83-333 Mr. Hodge stated that there had not been an increase in 'the Supervisor's salaries for the last three years and any action today would remain in effect for the next four years. This action would affect the 1984-88 Board of Supervisors and must be taken prior to July 1, 1983. He further stated that this BoardWs salaries are lower than other localities. Mr. Daniel stated three years ago when the Board got an increase, it was not a salary increase, but an $1,800 allowance %o cover expenses. He further stated that State law has placed a ceiling on salaries of $15,000. He suggested an increase in salaries to $12,000 which he felt was reasonable when you consider the size of the population of Chesterfield County, the size of the government to serve that population, the size of the districts that each Board member must represent, the complexities of issues and the time devoted to serving on the local government and the fact that you are voting on compensation for the next Board. Mr. Bookman stated that he would be in support of the benefits because when you are not employed, it is difficult to obtain hospitalization, retirement, workmen's compen~ation, etc. but he did not care about the pay. Mr. Robertson stated that he would not be affected by this increase because he would not be serving on the Board on the next term, but it takes time regardless of whether you have a business or not, you are ~pending your time on County affairs and the Board should come to an understanding of something that is reasonable, riot too high and not too low. He stated that he felt the suggestion of $12,000 was fitting. Mr. Dodd questioned if this figure would include the secretary. Mr. Micas stated that this figure would be all inclusive. Mr.~ Daniel suggested $3,000 as a supplement for the Chairman and $1,500 for the Vice Chairman. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the County underpaid the representatives to the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission. He stated Chesterfield's representatives received $1,200 and Henrico pays their representatives $3,000. He suggested an increase to $2,400. He suggested that tile Planning Commission salaries increase July 1, 1983 with the exception of the Board appointee. Mr. Micas stated that those compensation issues were not before the Board today and they did not have to be acted on before July I, 1983. He stated that if the compensation for Planning Co~nission members increased, it would have to affect all members equally, including the Board appointee. Mr. Daniel stated he was not acting as the representative of the Planning Commission regarding salaries and he would forgo an increase until the Board had a chance to appoint a new member. Mr. Bookman stated that the Planning Commission was only meeting once a month now and questioned whether an increase was necessary. Mrs. Gir~me stated that she considered the position of a Board member to be a volunteer job with the compensation only meant to cover expenses. Mr. Daniel stated that the increase was suggested only to maintain the level of expenses for a Board member. He stated if you consider the expenses of a member who serves outside of his business you will realize that it costs them to serve. Mr. Robertson stated that he did not feel %hah any of the Board members were serving for the money they were receivinc[ as compensation. Mr. Micas pointed out to the Board tha't in order for this motion to carry, three members of the Board would have to vote in favor. On motion of [~r. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Robertson, pursuant to ~14.1-46. 01 of ]:he Code of Vir¢[inia, 1950, as amended, the salary for a member of the Board of Supervisors entering office on January 1, ].984 shall be $i2,000, per annum with the Board member serving as Chairman receivJ, ng additional co~,[pensation of $3,000.00 per annum and the Board member serving as Vice-Chairman receiving additional compensati, on of $1,500.00 [)er annum. Each Board member may desiqnate a reasonable portion of such ~ompensation to be paid for secretar:[al assistance. Beginning 3anuary 1, 1984 members fr,.)m Chesterfield County servini7 on the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission and the C'.r~t_er Planning District Commiss:ion shall receive $2,400.00 annually as Dompensation for serving on such commissions, and members of the 2hesterfield Planning Commission. shall receive $3,000.00 annuat]y Is compensation for serving on such Commission. And further the Board amended the 1983/84 Appropriations Resolution to increase Expenditure Accounts 111-01100-1201 Part-time Salaries by $7,950.00; 111-01100-1311 FICA by $500.00; decrease Expenditure Account 111-31400-4123 Contingency by $8,450.00; and increase Expenditure Account 111-11141-1201 Part-time Salaries by $4,800 and decrease Expenditure Account 111-31410-4123 Contingency by $4,800.00. Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Daniel Abstentions: Mr. Bookman and Mrs. Girone On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Robertson, pursuant to §14.1-46.01 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, members of the Board of Supervisors entering office on January 1, 1984 shall receive the following fringe benefits: Social Security, Worker's Con¥~ensat~on, Health Care, Deferred Compensation, Credit Union, Cancer Insurance, Employee Discount Program, Use of Exercise Facility, Use of County Vehicle, Education Reimbursement, Travel Policy, Payroll Deductions and such other benefits as may be extended to County employees generally so long as such benefits may be extended to Board members pursuant to other provisions of law in addition to other compensation provided for by applicable law. And further the Board amended the 1983/84 Appropriations Resolution to increase Expenditure Account 111-01100-1331 Hospitalization by $2,900 and decrease Expenditure Account 111-31400-4123 Contingency by $2,900. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Bookman excused himself from the meeting but stated it was not due to a conflict of interest. 13. MULTI-COUNTY CONSORTIUM UNDER JOBS TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT Mr. Herb Sink was present to answer any questions. He stated that the agreement before the Board did include weighted voting. He stated that the other si~ counties in the consortium have approved this agreement. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, under the Federal Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) has designated the Counties of Chesterfield, Henrico, Hanover, Powhatan, Goochland, New Kent. and Charles City as a Service Delivery Area (SDA), and ~ WHEREAS, establishment of the Consortium among the parties would permit efficient and economical management of the delivery of employment and training services in a manner designed to meet local needs and accountable to ]<~cal elected and appointed officials, and WHEREAS, fo'~ these and other reasons, it is both necessary and appropriate that the t3arties provide jointly for the planning and deliverer of emplo~.,men~ and training programs through a mu]ti-jurisdictional agreement, and WHEREAS, Section 15.1-2], (:ode of Virginia, specifies ~ihat Counties may en%.:er into agreements with one another for joint or cooperative exercise of any power, privileges, or authority each is capable of exercising severa]].v, and WHEREAS, the counties of Che.~terfield, Henrico, [{anover, Powhatan, Goochland, New K~ent and Charles City, do no%~, mutually ~esire to provide said planning and del[very ~f program serv.Lces hnder the auspices of a seven ¢;ountv Consortium and th~?ough the means of a job training program im~[lemented by the Capital Area Training Consortium (the "Consortium"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Super- visors of the County of Chesterfield hereby authorizes the County Administrator to sign an Agreement on behalf of the County of Chesterfield, by and among 'the Counties of Henrico, Chesterfield, Hanover, Powhatan, Goochland, New Kent and Charles City for the establishment of the Capital Area Training Consortium. Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone Absent: Mr. Bookman 14. HU~N SERVICES NEEDS ASSESSMENT On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Board endorsed the Chesterfield County Human Services agencies in conjunction with other voluntary agencies funded by the United Way, to conduct a joint assessment of Human Service needs in Chesterfield County with no costs to the County. Ayes: Mr. Robertson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone Absent: Mr. Bookman Mr. Bookman returned to the meeting. 15. PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BY BENSELY FIRE DEPARTMENT Chief Easterwood of the Bensley Volunteer Fire Department was present and stated that this was one of the most active Fire Departments in the County. He stated that an additional parking area is needed during fire calls and for use when they sell County tags. Mrs. Girone asked if this was in the long range plans for a fire department. Mr. Daniel stated that it was not. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board authorized an advance of $53,450 to the Bensley Volunter Fire Department to assist them in purchasing a parcel to be used for additional parking provided that the Volunteer Fire Department agrees to enter into an agreement in which they will repay to the County the advance over a three year period and the County Attorney's Office will act as closing attorney with funds coming from the unappropriated surplus. Vote: Unanimous 16. CONSENT ITEMS ~6.A. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Dumaine Drive and Tanya Terrace in William Gwyn Estates, Section D, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Bookman seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Dumaine Drive and Tanya Terrace in William Gwyn Estates, Section D, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it. further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Dumaine Drive, beginning where State maintenance ends, Dumaine Drive, State Route 2606 and going .03 mile easterly to' intersection with Tanya Terrace, then continuous .03 mile easterly to a temporary turnaround; Tanya Terrace, beginning at intersection with Dumaine Drive and going .11 mile northerly to a cul-de-sac. These roads serve 22 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50' right-of- way for all of these roads. This section of William Gwyn Estates is recorded as follows: ' Section D, Plat Book 37, Page 56, October 28, 1980. 83-336 Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Willowbranch Drive, Willowbranch Court, Myra Drive and Summertree Drive in Willowhurst, Section A, Dale District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Willowbranch Drive, Willowbranch Court, Myra Drive and Summertree Drive in Willow- hurst, Section A, Dale District, be and they hereby are estab- lished as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Willowbranch Drive, beginning at the intersection with Iron Bridge Road, State Route 10 and running easterly .10 mile to the intersection with Willowbranch Court, then continuing easterly .09 mile to the intersection with Myra Drive, then continuing easterly .08 mile to the intersection with Summertree Drive, then continuing easterly .03 mile to end in a dead end; Willowbrsnch Court, beginning at the intersection with Willowbranch Drive and running northerly .04 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Myra Drive, beginning at the intersection with Willowbranch Drive and running southerly .02 mile to end in a dead end; Summertree Drive, beginning at the intersection with Willowbranch Drive and running northerly .09 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Again Summertree Drive, beginning at the intersection with Willowbranch Drive and running southerly .03 mile to end in a dead end. These roads serve 33 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50' right-of- way for all of these roads except Summertree Drive, north of Willowbranch Drive, which has a 40' right-of-way. This section of Willowhurst is recorded as follows: Section A, Plat Book 39, Page 72, September 30, 1981. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Crosstimbers Road and Crosstimbers Court in Crosstimbers, Section 1, Midlothian District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Crosstimbers Road and Crosstimbers Court in Crosstimbers, Section 1, Midlothian District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Crosstimbers Road, beginning at intersection with Sand~rid~e Parkway, State Route 2920, and going .04 mile westerly to intersection with Crosstimbers Court, then continues .01 mile westerly to tie into proposed Crosstir~ers Road, Section 2 of ~ ~ ~ Cros~.t~mbers; Crosstimbers Court, beginning at intersection withCrosstimbers~ Road and going .09 mile south- easterly to a cul-de-sac. These roads serve 16 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 40' right- of-way for Crosstimbers Court and a variable 50' to 70' right- of-way for Crosstimbers Road. This section of Crosstimbers is recorded as follows: Section 1, Plat Book 37, Pages 16 and 17, September 17, i982. Vote: Unanimous 8~-337 This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Baronsmede Road and Torrington Drive in Salisbury- Lakeview, Section 2 A portion of, Midlothian District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Baronsmede Road and Torrington Drive in Salisbury-Lakeview, Section 2 A portion of, Midlothian District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Baronsmede Road, beginning at intersection with Kingsmill Road, State Route 1019 and going .11 mile southerly to intersection with Torrington Drive; Torrington Drive, beginning at intersection with Baronsmede Road and going .03 mile southeasterly 'to a cul-de-sac. Again Torrington Drive, beginning at int. ersection with Baronsmede Road and going .16 mile northwesterly to a cul-de-sac. These roads serve 16 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50' right-of- way for all of these roads. This section of Salisbury-Lakeview is recorded as follow: Section 2, Plat Book 39, Page 20 and 21, July 27, 1981. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Burroughs Court, Grand Summit Road, Grand Summit Circle, Grand Summit Court and Logan Street in Grand Summit, Midlothian District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Burroughs Court, Grand Summit Road, Grand Summit Circle, Grand Summit Court and Logan Street in Grand Su~mlit, Midlothian District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Burroughs Court, beginning at intersection with Burroughs Street, State Route 1701, and going .06 mile westerly to intersection with Grand Summit Road, then continues .03 mile westerly to a cul-de-sac; Grand Summit Road, beginning at intersection with Burroughs Court and going .10 mile northwesterly to intersection with Grand Summit Circle, then road turns and continues .04 mile southwesterly to intersection with Grand Summit Court, then continues .07 mile southwesterly to intersection with Loqan Street; Grand Summit Circle, beginning at intersection with Grand Summit Road and going .04 mile north- westerly to a cul-de-sac; Grant Summit Court, beginning at intersection with Grand Summit Road, and going .05 mile northerly to a cul-de-sac; Logan Street, beginning where State maintenance ends, Logan Street, State Route ]705, and going .10 mile northerly to intersection with Grand Summit Road, then continues .06 mile northerly to a cul-de-sac. These roads serve 48 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Dep~rtment of Highways a 50' right- of-way for Burroughs Court and Grand Summit Road and a 40' right-of-way for Grand Summit Circle and Grand Su~nit Court and a variable 40' to 50' right-of-way for Logan Street. Grand Summit is recorded as follows: Plat Book 31~ Page 33, May 19, 1978. Vote: Unanimous 83-338 This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Durrington Drive, Durrington Circle and Durrington Place in Ashley Woods, Section E, Midlothian District. Upon consideration whereof, an on motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Durrington Drive, Durrington Circle and Durrington Place in Ashley Woods, Section E, Midlothian District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Durrington Drive, beginning at intersection with Bondurant Drive, State Route 2567 and going .18 mile westerly to intersection with Durrington Circle, then continues .05 mile westerly to intersection with Durrington Place, then continues .05 mile westerly to tie into existing Durrington Drive, State route 2785; Durrington Circle, beginning at intersection with Durrington Drive and going .04 mile northerly to a cul-de-sac; Durrington Place, beginning at inter- section with Durrington Drive and going .04 mile northerly to a cul-de-sac. These roads serve 28 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50' right- of-way for Durrington Drive and a 40' right-of-way for Durrington Circle and Durrington Place. This section of Ashley Woods is recorded as follows: Section E, Plat 36, Page 85, August 19, 1980. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Brandermill Parkwsy, Whispering Oaks Road, Whispering Oaks Court, Whispering Oaks Terrace, and Whispering Oaks Place in Whispering Oaks, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Brandermill Parkway~ Whispering Oaks Road, Whispering Oaks Court, Whispering Oaks Terrace and Whispering Oaks Place in Whispering Oaks~ Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are established as pub].ic roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Brandermill Parkway, beginning where State maintenance ends, Brandermill Parkway, State Route 1921 and going .05 mile northwesterly to intersection with Whispering Oaks Road, then continues .01 mile northwesterly to tie into proposed extension of Brandermill Parkway; Whispering Oaks Road, beginning at intersection with Brandermill Parkway and going .09 mile easterly to intersection with Whispering Oaks Court, then continues .08 mile easterly to a cul-de-sac; Whispering Oaks Court, beginning at intersection with Whispering Oaks Road an~ going .04 mile northerly to intersection with Whispering Oaks Terrace, then continues .05 mile northerly to intersection with Whispering Oaks Place, then continues .12 mile northerly to a cul-de-sac; Whispering Oaks Terrace, beginn±ng at intersection with Whispering Oaks Court, and going .07 mile northerly to a cul-de-sac; ~hispering Oaks Place, beginning at intersection with Whispering Oaks court, and going .07 mile southerly to a cul-de-saco These roads serve 55 lots. And be it further resolved, the the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50' right- of-way for all of these roads except Brandermill Parkway which has a 70' right-of-way an~ Whispering Oaks Terrace and Wkispering Oaks Place which have a 40' right-of-way. Whisperin~ Oaks is recorded as follows: 83-339 Plat Book 37, Pages 65 and 66, November 14, 1980. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Regatta Pointe Road and Regatta Pointe Court in Regatta Pointe, Clover }{ill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Regatta Pointe Road and Regatta Pointe Court in Regatta Pointe, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Regatta Pointe Road, beginning at intersection with North Beach Road, State Route 2709, and going .11 mile westerly to intersection with Regatta Pointe Court, then continues .13 mile westerly to a cul-de-sac; Regatta Pointe Court, beginning at intersection with Regatta Pointe Road and going .08 mile southwesterly to a cul-de-sac. These roads serve 49 lots. And be it further resolved, the the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50' right- of-way for all of these roads. Regatta Pointe is recorded as follows: Plat Book 37, Pages 26 and 27, September 19, 1980. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upun his examination of East Boundary Road and East Boundary Terrace in Brandermill Trade Center, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that East Boundary Road and East Boundary Terrace in Brandermill Trade Center, Clover [{ill District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, East Boundary Road, beginning at intersection with Old Hundred Road, State Route 652, and going .05 mile easterly to intersection with East Boundary Terrace, then road turns and continues .23 mile northerly to intersection with Genito Boad, State Route 604; East Boundary Terrace, begin- ning at intersection with East Boundary Road and going .05 mile northerly to a cul-de-sac. These roads serve as access to the Trade Center. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Depsrtment of Highways a 60' right- of-way for East Boundary Road and a 70' right-of-way for East Boundary Terrace. Brsndermil! Trade Center is recorded as follows: Plat Book 32, Pages 22 and 23, September 22, 1978. Vote: Unanimous This day the County En~,ironmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Litchfield Drive, Buttermere Court, Farmhill Lane, Hadley Lane, Towchester Drive, Brixton Road and Collingswood Drive in Creekwood, Sections D and E, Clover Hill District. 83-340 Upon consideration whereof, on a motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Litchfield Drive, Buttermere Court, Farmhill Lane, Hadley Lane, Towchester Drive, Brixton Road and Collingswood Drive in Creekwood, Sections D and E, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Litchfield Drive, beginning at its intersection with Newby's Bridge Road, State Route 649, extending southerly .09 mile to the intersection of Buttermere Court, then southerly .27 mile to the intersection of Farmhill Lane, then southerly .13 mile to the intersection of Towchester Drive, then southerly .07 mile to a temporary turnaround; Butter- mere Court, beginning at its intersection with Litchfield Drive, extending southwest .09 mile to a cul-de-sac; Farmhili Lane~ beginning at its intersection with Litchfield Drive, extending northerly .19 mile to the intersection of Hadley Lane, then northeast .08 mile to tie into existing Farmhill Lane, State Route 2237; Hadley Lane, beginning at its intersection with Farmhill Lane, extending northwest .07 mile to a cul-de-sac; Towchester Drive, beginning at its intersection with Litchfield Drive, extending southeast .07 mile to the intersection with Brixton Road, then easterly .19 mile to the intersection of Collingswood Drive, then easterly .07 mile to the intersection of Round Hill Drive, State Route 2235; Brixton Road, beginning at its intersection with Towchester Drive, extending north .]3 milei to the intersection of Collingswood Drive, then north .16 mile tc a cul-de-sac; Collingswood Drive, beginning at its intersection with Brixton Road, extending southeast .22 mile to the inter- section of Towchester Drive. These roads serve 174 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50' right- of-way for all of these roads except Litchfield Drive which has 60' right-of-way and Towchester Drive, whereby we guarantee a variable 50' to 60' right-of-way. These sections of Creekwood are recorded as follows: Section D, Plat Book 31, Pages 30 and 31, May 3, 1978, Section E, Plat Book 37, Pages 24 and 25, September 19, 1980. Vote: Unanimous 16. B. FIREWORKS DISPLAY On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved a permit for the Brandermill Community Association to stage a fireworks display at Brandermill on July 4, 1983, subjec to compliance with regulations of the Fire Department. Vote: Unanimous 16.C. REMOVAL OF DELII~QUENT ACCOUNTS On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board authorized the write off of $35,365.43 in delinquent accounts from the accounting records and further directed that the staff continue to make efforts to collect these accounts. Vote: Unanimous 16.D. AIRPORT RUNWAY REPAIRS On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board authorized the County Administrator to apply for, and if approved, accept a State grant estimated at $10,750, which is 50% of the cost, to be used to repair a 150' section of uneven 83-341 pavement on the Airport runway and the Board appropriated the grant funds for Airport repairs and maintenance. It is noted no additional appropriation is necessary as this project is include( in the current year's budget. Vote: Unanimous 17. SET DATES FOR P3BLIC! ' ' tIEARINGS 17.B. ZONING ORDINANCE - PET SHOPS, VETERINARY CLINICS On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board set the date of July 27, 1983 ~t 10:00 a.m. to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to Pet Grooming Shops, Veterinary Clinics and Commercial Kennels. Vote: Unanimous 17.C. PENALTIES FOR SOLICITORS On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board set th~ date of July 13, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. to consider an amendment to §15.1-5 of the County Code relating to penalties for failing to comply with registration requirements for Solicitors. Vote: Unanimous 18. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS 18.A. STREET LIGHT REQUESTS On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board deferred the request for street lights at 2348 Buena Vista Boulevard and the intersection of Cogbill Road and the church entrance until July 13, 1983. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved the following requests for street lights: 1. Intersection of Stone R~ver Road and Elkhardt Road 2. 4533 Haymarket Lane 3. 4224 Carafe Drive 4. Corner of Hopkins and Prestonwood Roads 5. Intersection of Huguenot Road and Dillon Road 6. Intersection of Dillon Road and Ashburn Road Vote: Unanimous 18.B STREET LIGHT I ~- ' · NS~A~I,ATION COST APPROVAL On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded bv Mr. Bookman, the Board approved the installation cost of $2].2.00 for the installation of a street light at the intersection of Castlebury Drive and Rochelle Road with funds to be expended from the Bermuda Street Light Fund. Vote: Unanimous 18.C. CONTRACT FOR ETTRICK FIRE S~TA]ION· ~' On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board accepted the low bid of $328,833, submitted by JaBar Enterprises, Inc. and authorized the County Administrator to execute a contract for the completion of alterations and additions for the 83-342 Ettrick Fire Station, as soon as final verification of funding from the federal government is received. Vote: Unanimous 19. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 19.A. REPORT OF WATER AND SEWER FINANCIAL STATUS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a report on the water and sewer financial status. 19.B. WATER ITEMS 19.B.1. W82-32B/6(8)2327 - WATER LINE EXTENSION On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board awarded and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for water contract ~W82-32B/6(8)2327 to G. L. Howard, Inc., the low bidder, in the amount of $48,310.00 for construction of a water line from Burge Aven~.~e to Fort Darling Road and further authorized the transfer of $61,140.00 from account ~380-1-61457-4393 which includes a 10% contingency and materials furnished by the County. Vote: Unanimous 19.B.2. WATER TO SERVE BROOKSIDE SUBDIVISION Mr. Welchons stated that the Utilities Department had received a petition from nine of the fifteen residents in Brookside Subdivision for water service and they recommended proceeding with this extension provided the nine residents that signed the petition, would sign contracts agreeing to connect with public water and to pay an additional $200 toward the cost of fire hydrants. Mr. Bookman stated he was not in favor of charging the residents for fire hydrants. Mr. Steve Hielman was present and spoke in favor of this request. He stated that he had been without water for over two years as there was bacteria in his well and the source of the contamination could not be determined by the Health Department. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Board approved the request for extension of water to serve Brooks~de subdivision at a cost of $500 per home and further instructed that the cost for fire hydrants be taken from the water fund. Vote: Unanimous 19.B.3. CONDEMNATION FOR WATER EASEMENT - W82-30C On motion of Mt. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation proceedings against the following property owners if the amount as set opposite their names is not accepted. And further be it resolved that the County Administrator is authorized to notify said property owners by certified mail of the intention of the County to enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of said condemnation proceedings. An emergency existing, this resolution shall be and it hereby is declared in full. force and effective immediately upon passage. Robert B. Taylor and Mary E. Taylor W82-30C $653.00 Ernest L. Taylor, Jr. and Linda Marie Taylor W82-30C $410.00 Vote: Unanimous 19 C 1 CONDEMNATION FOR ¢ .......... · ' - ~.,--~ EASEMENT - S74-21C/4 Mr. Edwin Uber was present to d.~scuss the condemnation of property. He stated that this piece of property was 83-343 approximately 9 acres and ran longways and the sewer line he allowed to be put on his property in 1975 runs the complete length of the property. He stated it was his understanding that it would be underground and not visible and on the easement stipulated in the plat. The easement was for 30' and what was cleared from the area was over 55'. He stated litter and dead wood was left on the property. He stated that he received $500 for timber off this property for an area 1/10 the size of the area cleared. He was told that for the area cleared for the sewer line, the estimated amount for the timber would have been around $4,000. He stated that the area was not seeded when the work was completed and because of that, erosion set in and he was left with a rocky field and the drainage ditches were filled in, creating a bog and a swamp on part of the property thereby causing a danger to the horses which he keeps on the property. He asked if a house was built on the property at a future date, would they consider putting a tap in on the line and they did. He stated that was a misunderstanding between himself and the County as he thought he would not have to pay the normal fee for hook-up. He stated in February of 1982, another line was put across the front of the property. In the agreement for this line, he was to be paid $500 and for the first line, he was to be paid $1.00 which he never received. He stated that they agreed to cut the wood on his property and stack it where he could get to it, which they did not do. Later they stacked five logs about six feet in length which was unacceptable as firewood. He stated he had to repair the fence and a gate that were damaged during this work. The area was not cleared and the drainage ditches were not open. He stated that they now want to put two more manholes on his property and he already has three on the property. He further stated that he came to Chesterfield from Baltimore and he became involved in the community affairs. He stated he had fulfilled a dream by purchasing this piece of land with a stream on it. He stated that he had bought this property as a hedge against inflation and remarked that not many people could buy a piece of property and hold it for nine years and see it depreciate in value. He stated one sewer line is a civic duty, two lines can be too much, but three and four lines is far too great a penalty for one small property owner to bear. Mr. Bookman questioned who the contractor was on this project and the inspector. Mr. Welchons stated that the contractor was G. L. Howard. Mr. Welchons pointed out that this property is in the flood plain. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board authorized the Utilities Department to pay Mr. and Mrs. Edwin F. Uber $2,500 for the sewer easement across their property, Project No. S74-21C/4, Indian Springs, Section A and further instructed the Utilities Department to comply with the followings requests from M~. Uber: 1. Open. the drainage ditches and Iine with rock; and 2. Old and new easement to be marked, cleared, seeded and maintained; and 3. All hardwood be placed in an accessible spot on the property; and 4. Horses now on premises not be prevented access to Kingsland Creek for water and not be restricted any more than necesssary; and 5. Any fences removed be rep]aced as they were; and 6. Workmen remain within designated easements. Mr. Micas stated that if these conditions could be physically complied with by the Utilities Department, the Board could agree to them. Vote: Unanimous 19.C.2. CONDEMNATION ON PROPEI¥?Y OF C©?~SOLIDATED SALES CO., INC. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board denied the counteroffers' of $9,912.14 from Consolidated Sales Co., Inc. and authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation 83--344 proceedings against the following property owner if the amount as set opposite their name is not accepted. And further be it resolved that the County Administrator is authorized to notify said property owners by certified mail of the intention of the County to enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of said condemnation proceedings. An emergency existing, this resolution shall be and it hereby is declared in full force and effect upon passage s~lbject to Mr. George W. Farley enter~.ng into an agreen~nt with the County to pay all costs involved. Consolidated Sales Company, Inc. Sewer Easement Robious Road $5,326.00 Vote: Unanimous 19.C.3. SANITARY SEWERS %'0 SERVE INDIAN SPRINGS, SECTION A On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board awarded contract no. S74-21C/7(7)4211, installation of sanitary sewers to serve Indian Springs, Section A to the low bidder, Roanoke Construction Company, Inc., in the amount of $166,528.00 and further that $59,700 be appropriated from 574 surplus to 380-1-74211-4393, the remaining amount being previously appropriated. Vote: Unanimous 19.C.4. RESURVEY OF SPRING LAKE ROAD AND SHADYCREST LANE Mrs. Girone stated that this area had a lot of problems and she wanted to know how many people were interested in sewer service. Mr. Daniel stated that he would support any valid contracts from 1972. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board requested the Utilities staff to survey homeonwers for sewer installation to determine if 70% of the residents desire sewer service. Vote: Unanimous 19.C.5. REQUEST FROM WALTER W. SPENCE, JR. Mr. Bookman stated that he had received a request from Walter W. Spence, Jr. to permit him to pay one sewer connection charge in effect in 1975 including minimum service charges from 1975 to the present because he did not receive official notice of the availability of sewer in 1975. He stated the sewer connection charge in effect in 1975 was $300 and the sewer service charge from 1975 to the present in 'the amount of $456 would result in a total charge of $756 rather than the present connection fee of $1,700. Mr. Micas stated that there exists no valid contract permitting the Board to allow Mr. Spence to pay the reduced connection fee and that under existing bond covenants and County ordinances~ the Board was legally obligated to collect the current connection fee. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved the request from Walter W. Spence, Jr., 3937 Lyndale Terrace, to pay the connection fee in effect in 1975 and the minimum service fee from 1975 'to the present for a total of $756. Vote: Unanimous 19.D. CONSENT ITEMS 19.D.1. AWARD OF CONTRACT, ~82-30C/6(8)2301 On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded bv Mr. Dodd, the Board awarded contract #W82-30C/6(8)2301, Salem Church Road Water Improvements to the low bidde~, T & E Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $141,540.00 and furhher appropriated $12,550.00 from 563 surplus to 380-1-62301-4393 to cover continqencies. There has been a prior appro?riation ~nder the capital improvements budget. ~3-345 Vote: Unanimous 19.D.2. SEWER CONTRACT, DUNKIN DONUTS, ROUTE 360 On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following sewer contract: S83-45CD/7(8)3452, Dunkin Donuts Restaurant, Rt. 360 Developer: D.D.W. Associates Contractor: Best Backhoe and Excavating, Inc. Total Estimated Cost: $8,000 Estimated County Cost: $4,579 - Refund through sewer connection fees Code: 574-1-00556-0000 No. of Connections: 3 Vote: Unanimous 19.D.3. AGREEMENT WITH VDH&T, WILLIS AND COACH ROADS WATER LINE On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the agreement between the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and the County for the relocation of the water line at Willis and Coach Roads, Project No. 0613-020-234, M501, Contract No. W83-65C and authorized the County Administrator to execute the agreement on behalf of the County. Vote: Unanimous 19.D.4. AGREEMENT WITH SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following resolution: Be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, in regular meeting assembled that the Chairman of said Board be, and he hereby is, authorized to enter into an agreement with the Seaboard System Railroad, Inc., and to sign same on behalf of said County whereby said Railroad Company grants unto said County the right or license to install and maintain, for the purpose of conducting (potable) water, a line of pipe across the right of way and underneath track or tracks of said Railroad Company, at or near Dunlop, Virginia; as more particularly descrJ.bed in said agreement, which agreement is dated April 20, 1983, a copy of which agreement is filed with the Board of Supervisors. Vote: Unanimous 19.D.5. DEED OF DEDICATION FROM REVERE MOLD AND ENGINEERING, INC. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to sign a deed of dedication, accepting on behalf of the County, from Revere Mold and Engineering Incorporated, a 15' wide strip of land adjacent to Old Stage Road across their property, Tax Map 116-16. Vote: Unanimous 19.D.6. DEED OF DEDICATON FR~M WILLIAM ROWE AND JAMES SOWERS On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized tile County Administrator to sign a deed of dedication, accepting on behalf of the County, from William J. Rowe, Jr. and James R. Sowers, a 50' strip of land along Twinridge Lane~ Tax Map 18-15. Vote: Unanimous 83-346 19.E. REPORT OF DEVELOPER WATER AND SEWER CONTRACTS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. 19.F. REQUEST FROM ATLANTIC BAPTIST BIBLE COLLEGE On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation proceedings against the following property owner if the amount as set opposite his name is not accepted. And further be it resolved that the County Administrator is authorized to notify said property owner by certified mail of the intention of the County to enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of said condemnation proceedings, all of which is subject to the Atlantic Baptist Bible College entering into an agreement agreeing to pay the costs of said condemnation. Glen Butler Vote: Unanimous Water and Sewer Easements East Avenue $427 Mr. Dodd publicly thanked Mr. Gary Patterson of the County Attorney's Office for his help and patience in this matter. 20. REPORTS Mr. Hodge presented the Board with the Audit of the Community Development Block Grant, information regarding the National Association of Counties Annual Conference~and a report on the Ettrick Housing and Rehabilitation Program. 21. EXECUTIVE SESSION - LOCATION & USE OF PUBLIC FACILITIES On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board went into Executive Session to discuss the location and use of public facilities as permitted by Section 2.1-344(a) (2) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and litigation relating to Dunning v. Board of Supervisors pursuant to Section 2.1-344(a) (6)of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous RECONVENING: The Board recessed for lunch. RECONVENING: 17.A. GENERAL PLAN 2000 Mr. Hodge stated that this item would be discussed following the mobile home and zoning 23. MOBILE HOME Mr. Dodd stated that he is in the mobile home business but is not directly in sales and he did not know who might be talking to his firm regarding the purchase of a mobile home. He requested that if any applicant has talked to his firm, to please let him know so that he could abstain from voting. 83-347 83SR073 In Matoaca Magisterial District, R. J. Ellis requested renewal o~ a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which is owned by Joyce Rowland, daughter of the applicant. Tax Map Sec. 186-3 (2) Augustus Wright, Lot 23, and better known as 21613 Hillview Street (Sheet 52). Mr. Balderson stated that this case had been deferred from the May 25, 1983 meeting to allow the applicant to meet with adjacent property owners to review the case and to allow the Supervisor an opportunity review the situation. Mr. Ellis and Ms. Rowland were present. Mr. Robertson stated that he understood there were objections from neighbors and he had visited the property and it was not in as good a condition as it could be. Mr. Ellis stated that it was mostly building materials and he was in the process of cleaning it up. He stated the problem was not with the trailer, but with the house on the property and he wanted to take the house down but Mr. Shiavo had told him if he took the house down, the trailer wouldn't be allowed on the property. Mr. Balderson stated that he didn't think there would be any problem with taking the house down. Mr. Ellis stated that if he was allowed to, he would take the house down. There was no one present to address this matter. On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request for a period of two years subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. No lot nor parcel may be rented nor leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitte~ to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. o The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. Personal goods and ~ articles shall not be stored underneath the mobile home. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. Upon being granted a permit for a Mobile Home Permit/Special Exception, the applicant shall then obtain the necesssry permits from the Office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobil( home. e Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of a mobile home permit for a mobile home. The old dwelling on this parcel shall be razed prior to the issuance of any further mobile home permits. Vote: Unanimous 83SR087 In Bermuda Magisterial District, Robert A. Lewis requested renewal of a Special Exception to park a mobile home on property which belongs to John Cranor, Sr., father-in-law of the applicant. Tax Map Sec. 8~-6 (1) Parcel 1, and better kncwn as 1800 Willis Road (Sheet 23). Mr. Lewis was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Board approved 83-348 this request for a period of five years subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. No lot nor parcel may be rented nor leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitte¢ to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. Personal goods and ...... articles shall not be stored underneath the mobile home. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. home. 7. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of a mobile home permit for a mobile home. Vote: Unanimous 83SR088 Upon being granted a permit for a Mobile Home Permit/Special Exception, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile The applicant was not present. On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board deferred this request until July 27, 1983. Vote: Unanimfous 83S089 In Matoaca Magisterial District, Douglas J. Zammett requested a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which he owns. Tax Map Sec. 186-3 (2) Augustus Wright, Lot 6A, and better known as 21519 Stuart Avenue (Sheet 52). Mr. Zammett was present. There was no opposition present. The applicant stated that out of seven neighbors, six had signed in favor. Mr. Robertson stated that because of the present development in this area, the Board advised the applicant that they look upon this request as a temporary dwelling and if the permit is approved, it may not be renewed. The applicant asked if this meant the permit would not be renewed. Mr. Balderson stated there was no guarantee that this would be renewed. On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request for a period of five years subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile 83-349 In Matoaca Magisterial District, Agnes Comer requested renewal of a Special Exception to park a mobile home on property which belongs to Beulah Hamlin, sister of the applicant. Tax Map Sec. 149-13 (3) Ivey Tract, Block B, Lot 14, and better known as 15812 Meridian Avenue (Sheet 41). home. No lot nor parcel may be rented nor leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. Personal goods and articles shall not be stored underneath the mobile home. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available they shall be used. ' Upon being granted a permit for a Mobile Home Permit/Special Exception, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of a mobile home permit for a mobile home. Vote: Unanimous 23. REQUESTS FOR REZONING 83S048 In Clover Hill Magisterial District., ROBERT O. KPJ~USSE requested a Conditional Use to permit an outdoor recreational facility (miniature golf course with accessory uses) in a General Business (B-3) District on a 1.6 acre parcel fronting approximately 300 feet on the northeast line of Dyer Lane, and located approx- imately ninety (90) feet northwest of its intersection with }~ull Street Road. Tax Map 29-14 (2) Providence Farms, Lot 8A {Sheet 9). Mr. Balderson stated the property owner had requested a thirty (30) day deferral so that he and the potential developer of the property could meet with the Planning Department and review the conditions recommended in the Staff Report. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Robertson, the Board deferred this request until July 27, 1983. Vote: Unanimous 83S036 In Dale Magisterial District, ~IDS WORLD DAY CARE CENTERS, INC. requests amendments to Conditions 1 and 3, relative to buffers and hours of operation, for a previously granted Conditional Use (Case 80S063) in a Residential (R-7) District, on a 1.47 acre parcel fronting approximately ]50 feet on the east line of Belmont Road and located approximately 450 feet south of its intersection with Handel Court. Tax Map 41-9 (1) Parcel 8 (Sheet 15) . Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval subject to certain conditions. He stated that one letter of opposition had been received from an adjace~t property owner who lived out of state, objecting to the number of times this case had been deferred, causing an inconvenience to him in trying to have a representative present at the Planning 83-350 Commission meeting. Mr. Daniel noted that there were two deferrals and neither this gentleman nor his agent were present at any of the Planning Commission meetings to address this request. The applicants were present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: Hours of operation shall be limited to between 6:30 a.m. and 12:00 midnight, Monday through Saturday. A solid board fence, having a minimum height of six (6) feet, shall be installed along the east and south property lines. On the south property line, the fence shall be offset eight (8) feet from the property line; and sixteen (16) pine trees, having a minimum initial height of six (6) feet, shall be planted on the south side of the fence on twenty-five (25) foot centers. Vote: Unanimous 83S053 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, J.J.R. ASSOCIATES requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) of a thirteen (13) acre parcel which lies at the western terminus of West Providence Road. Tax Map 38-9 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 14). Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to acceptance of the proferred condition. Mr. Jim Hayes was present representing the applicants, who were also present. He stated that members of the Planning Commission were concerned about traffic in this general area and as a result, the applicants proferred a condition taking into consideration a triangular area that will pose access problems in the future. The proferr indicates that at the time a tentative plan is submitted, or prior to that, the applicants will have a plan giving consideration to access to the entire area rather than just the one parcel. Mr. Bookman questioned whether this would ever be tied into Sunset Hills. Mr. Hayes stated that a road could be stubbed in that direction but they did not have access. Mr. Balderson stated that two letters in opposition had been received from residents living along Providence Road. Mr. Bookman stated that he had received a letter from Mr. Crouch, who had expressed displeasure at snow removal which is the Highway Department's responsibility. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, approved this request and accepted the following condition proffered by the applicant: Prior to, or in conjunction with, tentative subdivision submission, an area collector road plan to include the area bounded by Powhite Parkway on the north, Falling Creek on the south, and Courthouse Road on the east shall be sub- mitted. Vote: Unanimous 83S054 In Midlothian Magisterial District, BONARCO CORP. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15) of two (2) separate tracts. The first tract is comprised of 2.01 acres and lies at the northwest terminus of Blakeston Drive· Tax Map 16-16 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 7). The second tract is comprised of 9.31 acres and lies approximately 270 feet off the northeast ].ine of Farnham Drive, measured from a point approximately 400 feet northwest of its intersection with Rothbury Drive. Tax Map 16-~15 (1) Parcel 2 and Part of Pa£cel 3 (Sheet 7). Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request. Mr. Delmonte Lewis was present representing the applicant. There was no opposition present. Mrs. Girone asked if the applicant was aware of the B-3 zoning located behind this property. She stated that a resident of Stonehenge had voiced his disapproval of the changes occuring on Grove Road. She stated that the zoning was appropriate but the future residents may complain about the B-3 zoning located behind their property. Mr. Lewis stated that this had been pointed out to the developer. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request. Vote: Unanimous 83S055 In Matoaca Magisterial District, MERCER FAW, R.C. DAWSON ELECTRIC CO. AND G & E CONSTRUCTION CO. requested rezoning from Residential (R-15) to Agricultural (A) of approximately a sixty-eight (68) acre parcel which lies approximately 550 feet off the north line of Hickory Road, measured from a point approximately 500 feet west of its intersection with Sandy Ford Road. Tax Map ].72-8 (1) Parcel 7 (Sheet 48). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request. Mr. Carroll Foster was present representing the applicants. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request. Vote: Unanimous 83S056 In Bermuda Magisterial District, VINCENT FORESTA requested rezoning from Community Business (B-2) and Agricultural (A) to General Business (B-3) of a 3.] acre parcel fronting approx- imately 350 feet on the west line of Jefferson-Davis Highway, and located approximately 450 feet south of its intersection with Swiftrun Road. Tax Map 116-15 (2) Cool Spring, Block A, Lots 16-29, and Tax Map 116-14 (2) Cool Spring, Block A, Lots 30-42 (Sheet 32). Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request, subject to one condition. The applicant was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved this request-subject to the following condition: A twenty-five (25) foot buffer shall be maintained along the western property line. This buffer shall be left in its natural state, with no clearing, cutting or removal of treesl or underbrush permitted. Vote: Unanimous 83S062 In Dale Magisterial District, NANCY G. }{ILL & ALETA Go JENKINS requested renewal of a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 81S105) permitting exceptions to the use and bulk requirements of the Zoning .Ordinance for a craft shop on a 3.82 acre parcel fronting approximately 140 feet on the west line of Lori Road, and located approximately 300 feet north of its intersection with Iron Bridge Road. Tax Map 95-8 (1) Parcel 6 (Sheet 31). Mr. Balderson stated that 'the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mrs. 83--352 Nancy Hill, the applicant, was present. Mr. Daniel asked how long this operation would continue at this location as the Conditional Use was for a two year period only and he suggested a five year Conditional Use. Mrs. Hill stated that the property was for sale at this time and there was a potential buyer, however if the deal fell-through it would be nice to have the permit for a five year period. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Danielr seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Nancy G. Hill and Aleta G. Jenkins and shall not be trans- ferable, nor run with the land. This Conditional Use shall be granted for a five (5) year period only. Upon reapplication and satisfactory demonstration that this use has been of no detriment to area properties, this Conditional Use may be renewed by the Board of Supervisors. Other than normal maintenance, there shall be no exterior changes or modifications to the existing structure· This Conditional Use shall be granted for the purpose of operating a craft shop only. No other commercial activity shall be permitted. Ail parking shall be located to the rear of the existing structure. One (1) sign, not to exceed eight (8) square feet in area, shall be permitted. This siqn shall neither be luminous nor illuminated. The facades of the sign shall employ earth tones. Prior to the erection of the sign, a rendering shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The plan submitted shall be considered the plan for the parking area. The above comments notwithstanding, the plan submitted with the application shall be considered the master plan. The above noted conditions notwithstanding, ali. bulk requirements of the Convenience Business (B-l) D~strict shall be applicable. Vote: Unanimous 83S063 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, MA~AY ASSOCIATES requested an amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 80S093) to permit an exception to the number of parking spaces required for a d~v care center on a .94 acre parcel which lies approximately 500 feet off the east line of Old Hundred Road, measured from a point approximately 900 feet north of its intersection with Millr[dge Parkway. Tax Map 62-6 (I) Part of Parcels 13 and 14 (Sheet 20). Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request· There was no opposition present. Mr. J. B. Campbell was present to represent the applicant. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: Parking shall be provided at a ratio of one (I) for each twenty (20) ch~.ldren enrolled up to a maximum of 83-353 NOTE: e six (6) spaces, plus one (1) for each employee. The plan shall be redesigned so as to allow physical separation of the driveway serving the drop-off and pick-up area and the driveway serving the parking area. Prior to release of occupancy, turn lanes, as shown on the approved road plans prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated July 2, 198], revised September 10, 1981, shall be constructed along Old Hundred Road, at its intersection with the east/west road. Prior to the release of a final occupancy permit, one of the following shall be accomplished: The east/west road shall be constructed as a four (4) lane facility, or Turn lanes and curb and gutter shall be con- structed along the east/west road to facilitate turning movelaents at the Old Hundred Road inter- section. These improvements shall be to VDH&T standards and shall be taken into the State system. A temporary occupancy permit may be obtained provided that the east/west road is constructed to four (4) lanes within three (3) months from issuance of the temporary occupancy. Vote: Unanimous 83S064 In Dale Magisterial District, REGINALD C. & JACQUELINE L. REILLY requested a Conditional Use to permit a second dwelling on one (1) Parcel of land in a Residential (R-15) District on a 14.7 acre parcel which lies 400 feet off the south line of Bemiss Court, measured from a point approximately fifty (50) feet west of its intersection with Bemiss Road, and better known as 5301 Bemiss Court. Tax Map 41-13 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet 15). Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to one condition. The applicants were present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following condition: Occupancy of the second dwelling shall be limited to members or guests of the property owner's family. At no time shall the second dwelling be rented. Vote: Unanimous 83S065 In Dale Magisterial District, RONALD L. McPETERS requested a Conditional Use to permit a two-family dwelling (duplex) in an Agricultural (A) District on a 1.45 acre parcel fronting approx- imately 450 feet on the north line of ~ingsland Road, and located approximately 250 feet west of its intersection with Pine Glade Lane. Tax Map 80-4 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet 22). Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. The applicant was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, second, ed by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to thc following conditions: 1. The occupancy of the second unit shall be restricted, exclusively, to members of the property owner's family. At no time shall the addition be rented to persons other than family members of the property owner. e The architectural style shall be as depicted in the renderings submitted with the application. Vote: Unanimous 83S068 In Midlothian Magisterial District, W. DOUGLAS CARLETON, JR. re- quested an amendment to proffered Condition #3 of a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 81S101) to permit clearing and excavation for a sewer line in an area, which is required to remain naturally wooded in a Residential Townhouse-For-S~le District, on an 8.56 acre parcel fronting approximately 650 feet on the east line of Buford Road, and located approximately 170 feet north of its intersection with Buford Court. Tax Map 18-16 (1) Parcel 70 (Sheet 8). Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to one condition. Mr. Halfred Hayes was present representing the applicant. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board approved this request, subject to the following condition: Other than the area shown on the grading and drainage plans prepared by Foster and Miller, P.C., dated April 1, 1983, there shall be no clearing or grading in the area required to remain undisturbed. Vote: Unanimous 17.A. GENERAL PLAN 2000 Mr. Hodge stated that this item had been deferred from earlier in the day. He stated that this date had been advertised to set a public hearing to amend the General Plan 2000. Mr. Muzzy stated that this item was a result of the Board's decision to hire a consultant to look into traffic capacities of the Jahnke/Chippenham area culminating in an ultimate land use plan amendment dealing with these highway capacities. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board set July 27, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. for a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the County General Plan 2000 to cover the Jahnke-Chippenham Development Area, following the Planning Commission public hearing to be held on July 26, 1983. Mr. John Smith was present and stated the Planning Department had spent sixteen months in the development of the General Plan 2000. He stated he was concerned that on less than a 30 day notice, a plan that took two years to develop was being modified and kept a secret. Mr. Dodd stated t~at a 30 day notice at a public meeting where the press was in attendance, could not be called a secret. Mr. Daniel stated that the original agenda had included the recormv~ended date for the public hearing and the reports that the staff was preparing are a~ai]able to the public. Vote: Unanimous POWHITE PARKWAY On motion of Mr. Daniel., seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board authorized 'the County Admin~.strator when requested to enter into one or more agreements with the VDH&T and private interests for alternative designs of Po%~hzte Parkway to be paid for by private interests, with the understanding that these agreements in no way 83-355 imply County approval of proposed road designs on land uses and further the Board authorized the County Administrator to solicit proposals and enter into a contract for professional services not to exceed a cost of $20,000 to be funded from 1982-83 unexpended surplus for the purpose of establishing a plan for access in the Powhite Parkway/Route 288 interchange area and for the location of Powhite Parkway and Route 288 west of the current proposed interchange. Mr. Muzzy stated this item was a result of the County being approached after and prior to the design public hearing of the proposed Powhite Extension. Several interested people came to the County and the Highway Department and stated that they were interested in looking at some alternate designs. The Highway Department has agreed that this would be possible, but they want the County to be involved with the Highway Department and with the requesting party. This item is a result of considerable discussion as to access in the Powhite/Route 288 area and to the extension of the limited access highway to the west. Mr. Daniel stated that several people had offered additional suggestions for alternate designs and if they want the design considered, they can pay to have that design done. He stated that there are several problems as far as access to property in the Powhite/Route 288 area and the Board wants to assure that the best transportation mode possibly be worked out. Mr. Smith stated that he had been denied an opportunity to come befo£e the Board and discuss the situation on Coalfield Road. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board adjourned at 4:15 p.m. until 10:00 a.m. on July 13~ 1983. Ri6~d~ ~. Hedrick County Adminsitrator 83-356