10-27-1986 Minutes ~O~DOP
October 27, 1986
~pervieors in Attendance:
~r. R. Garland Dodd, Chairman
~r. Harry G. Daniel, Vice Chairman
~r. G. H. Applegate
~rs. Joan Girone
~r. Jesse J. ~ayes
~r. Richard L. H~drick
~ounty Administrator
Staff in Attendance:
Mr. John McCraoken,
Transportation Dir.
Mr. Richard Sale,
Asst. Co. Adm. for
Development
Mr. Steven L. Micas
County Attorney
CALL
4r. Dodd called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 3:0(
).m. (HDST).
~r. Sale presented the Board wi~h a proposed set of guidelines
~riteria for County participation with regard to utillt'
~xtensions for economic development. He stated basically tha~
~hah is race,ended for those types of developments that might ne'
~ome to Chesterfield without County participation is the cost
~he ~xtenslon. ~e ~tated the "M" uses are recommended fo!
~on~ideration and with the idea of staying away from sDeculatiol
~y installment e~ a time limitation. ~e stated it would attrac'
~eople truly interested in developing that couldn't or wouldn't d~
[t otherwise and it would provide jobs. Mr. Daniel stated he fel'
~ certain criteria be established that when a reasonable proposal
Ls presented with certainty that it will develop, that the Count'
~an be in a position to support a utility extension to a compan!
~ith a reaecnable rate of return on investments. Mr. Mayas state~
~e felt the County needed to develop a philosophy as to the futur,
~f the County and decide on what investment should be made fo:
~evelopment should ~e decided and utilities extended, and state~
Long-range money will have to be expended.
~r. ~edrick discussed past policies for utility extensions and th,
~roposed infrastructure policy. There was discussion regardin~
~evelopment of the Airport Industrial Park, the three year retur:
~e a safety measure for investments, immediate needs
~evelopers, etc. Mr. Hedrick stated this policy d~als mainly witl
Lndustrial areas as we are having problem~ competing with othe~
~urlsdictions and we need to get infrastructures in place if thi;
Ls justified as there are not many sites ~eady for development
~e stated office parks ~re not a problem as this seems to
~rogressing fine. He stated the projects would be considered on
~aee by case basis.
~r. Appleqate stated he felt the Board may create a monster
~ncouraging development in other areas which will be in direc'
~onfliot with the Airport Industrial Park which has utilities
zoning, Route 288 in the £utu~e. He stated there will also not b,
~esidential development in an M-i zone and development is fickl,
· nd this cannot be guaranteed and ii yo~ put the 3-1 ratio an~
~eonomy goes down, it will not be feasibly developed.
~rs. Girone stated Route 1 is a good location as well and th,
~irpark development ~hould improve with Route 288 in place.
~here was considerabl~ discussion r~ga~ding what has b~¢n done
~ther developers in the County, distri~t~ e~t~blfshed with prorat.
shares being divided equitably, how the district concept works
86-848
Mr. Hedrick stated if the policy were in effect then staff woull
have something to talk with prospective clients about and if ther~
are no clients, no money will be spent. Ne stated this is simila~
to the State's policy for industrial development.
The Board reviewed and amended the proposed criteria item by item
After further discussion it was ~enerally agreed that mcr,
infonnatlon should be provided to the Board regarding cost t,
extend utilities, bonding, minimum improvements necessary, etc.
3. VIRGIRIA DE~A~T~T OF HIGHWAYS AND TPJ~NBPOR~ATION
Mr. McCracken presented the Board with the proposed Virgini~
Department of Highways and Transportation Supplemental Primar'
Allocation Hearing Statement for November 5, 1986. He reviewel
charts on the construction funds for F~1986-87 through 1987-88
Richmond District Primary Allocations, the Governor's Commissio:
on Transportation identified critical needs, present needs in Si:
Year Plan and present needs not in six Year Plan, current Six Yea:
Primary Construction Plan, Senate Bill 79, primary priorities
Committed Project Development Schedule and Tentative Projec'
:Devslopment Schedule.
there was discussion of the funded projects, Route 288, th,
interchanges, the four laning of ROUte 10, the importance of th,
Route 288 interchanges above all other projects, the delay o:
the project even though the money and right-of-way has bee:
Dbtained, the Route 36 grade separation project which is
=ommitted project, the amount of money which the County wil
~eceive from the Commission, Powhite Parkway, the priorities o:
the proposed list, Route 60, Five Forks, sight and sound barrier:
for Route 288 and Powhite.
Fhe Board agreed to the priority list as recommended by staff.
~as agraed that the statement should be written in order o
~riorities determined by the Board rather than as written wit]
~oute 288 including interchanges being first and that the revise,
~tatement would be forwarded to the Board.
5. ExeCUTIVE SESSION
Dn motion of Mrs. Girone seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board wen'
into Executive Session to discuss personal matters pursuant t~
3cotton 2.1-344(a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
~ote: Unanimous
Reconvening
motion of Mr. Applegate seconded by Mr. Daniel, the
~djourned at 5:30 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. on November 12, 1986.
7otc: Unanimous
Boar~
County Administrator
R. ~arland D~
Chairman
8~-849