Loading...
02-12-1986 Minutes~O~qD OF SUPERVISORR MINUTES February 12, 1986 Supe~wi~ox$ in Attendance: Mr. R. Garland Dodd, Chairnlan Mr. Harry G. Daniel, vi~e Chairman Mr. G. H, Appl~ga%m Mrs. Joan Girone Mr. Richard L. Bedrick County Administrator ~r. Stanley Ba!derson, Mrs. Doris D~art, Legislative Coord. ~r. J~me~ GilIentine, Nursing Home Admin. Asst. County Admin. Mr. Phll Hasher, Y-~. ~o~ert ~sden, Ni. Richard MuElfish, Dir. of Env. Eng, Mr. R. J. McCracken, Tran~p. Difecto~ Attorney Dir. of News/Info. Services Mr. Jeffre~ Muz~y, Assr. CO. A~in. for Development Mr. Lane Ramsay, Dir. Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., Bred. Auut.~ Co. Adm. ~r. David welchons, Dir. of Utilities Mr. Dodd called the meeting to order in Room 502 of Administrstion Building at 2=lQ D.m. (EST). ~r. Hedrlck stated the purpose of this werk session was to r~view th~ E~w~r and water ordinanoe amendments, He skated that the ~oard had the opportunity to review the propoued material individually and this would be an opportunity to discuss the ismue collectively. Mr. Muzzy indic&t~d that th~ ordinance being presented was a portion of a number of major elements ongoing in the Utilities Depar~-~ent which included the ~ewer Master Plan, the approved Water and 8ewer cIP, Water Master Plan which is cuC~ently being revised, eta, Mr, Mummy stated tkat the general qoals of the revised ordlnanc~ 1. The r~cognition of the Utilit£~s Department a~ an administrative agent for the utilities system ra~her than the Board of S~pervi~or~. ~6-085 2. Protection of the economic viability of the a~iiities system. 3. Creation of incentives to e~=ourage conservation of "in-fill" of the County utility system rather than "leap-frogging" growth. 5. Modernization of the provisions of the conform with changes in state law. 6. Elimination from the ordinance of technical details that are more properly lef~ to a~inistrative to the County's standard llst of specifications.) 8. Expansion of th~ definitional section to da£1ne a within the ordinance cf all fees and ether charge~ tha~ may have been imposed in the past by policy. M~. Welohoa~ explained these changss in detail. more equal busis than by implementing a 15% surcharge for all to put a pric~ i~eraaae in effsct to discourage h~gh-volume the billing system should be set up on an annual be~i~ with he was £~ndamentally opposed tn it and he ~uggested that conservation be dealt wi~h head surcharge on additional usage, who would be responsible for the $15,Q~ reestablishment fee and who would incur the $50.00 ~r. Applega~e quegticned hew elimination of tbs ~card of Supervisors as the administrative agent for ths utilities system was going ~o improve the system. Nr. Micas indicated that it ~rought ~ur~emt practice into conformance with the ordinance because staff has to come to the ~oard every time further tha~ ft provides that if wa%er line e~tensions are consistent with established policy it wouI~ eliminate Board distance for which iDdividual houses mast hook up to the County s~wer system from 200 feet to 500 feet; if the 70% requirement for water and sewer would not take care of this stations. ~6-056 The Board indicated their concern regarding the elimination of the authority ef the Board in this matter. Mr. Micas suggest- ed that the Board eliminate section 20-1.1 which seat,s that the general management and control of the utilitlas system as w~ll as the enfcr0ament of the provision~ cf Chapter 20 Qf the Utilities Ordinance are the r~spon~ibi!ity of =he Util~tis~ Department and once again reiterated that this will not chang~ ~he way the policies are a~inlstered. There was discu~slon regarding 70% participation in existing stlbdivisions~ th= requirement for connection~, about restructuring of the refund provisions to encouraqe in-fill of the County utility system rather than leap-frogging growth and about pump stations and their being at the discretion of the Board. Mr. ~icas stated that the recommended changes would be made to the ordinance and it would be advertised for a public h~ezing. 2. WORK SBS~ION ON SIX YEAR PLAN Mr. ~cCraeken, Transportation Dircctor~ indicated that the planning of highways is separated into two categories: primary and ~eondary. ~c ~teted the primary system being Chippenham Parkway, Route 60, Route 360, atc~ and the Secondary system includes CourtAouss, Branders Brings, etc. He ~tat~d that the fundin~ for the primary system is provided ~hrough the allocations for the Richmond Construction District which consists of 14 counties and that the District's allocation fox this year was $11 million with the allocation for th~ next six years being approximately $42 millien. ~e outlined Some of ~he County's bond projects and primary projects planned ior construction. Mr. McCracken erased th~ ~eeondary system and fun~ing for tko~e projects is provida~ 4irectly to the County by the Highway Department based on the County'~ ratio Of area an~ population to the states area and population, ~e stated the County received $2.8 million for secondary construction this year and over the next six years the County will receive approximately $~7 million ou~ cf which $13 millio~ will be allocated to special projects with the remainder used for traffic signals, rural a~itions, etc, ~e further stated that identification of ~pecific rural additions~ industrial and recreational access projects would be addressed ~t a later date. ~r. McCracken discussed the time frame ~equired to d~velop typical ~sccn~ary road project and the funding required ~ach phase of the development. BB-087 Mr. Dennis M~rrison; Remident Engineer for the Chesterfield Residency, indicaled that in d~veloping the Six~Year Plan the entire County wa~ considered trying to give the County the maximum road improvements with the dollars available with the prioritized criteria used to dmvelop the plan being mandatory funding obligations that have to be met (2~eontinuation of projects which hav~ been previously identified as priorities by the Board (3) traffic demand condition of the road (5) project dgvelopment (6) preliminary engineering for future projects (7) geographical balance. Mr. Morrison briefly outlined the projects renonu~%endsd for the Sis Year Plan as follows= Fou~ railroad projects (Cox~ndale, Rambl~wood, EnOR Church and Old Bermuda ~undr~d), Beach Road from Rou~a 10 to Swift Creek, Turner Road from Route 60 Route 360, Courthouse Road from Route 60 to Route 360 (~ith only a portion of the expansion being completed in Six-Year Plan and all of the preliminary engineering being don~), Hopkins Road from Meadowdale Boulevard to Beulah Road and Robious ~oad from Huguenot Road to Old Farm Road which will be completed beyond the Six-Y~ar Plan. Mr. Dodd inquired if th~ entir~ RnffiD Mill ~oad ~rejnct had been deleted and Mr, Morxisen stated that the bridge had been deleted ~ith a ~avinqs of $1 million. Mr. Daniel remarked that it did not seem that there would be a great deal accomplished and Mr. McCracken said that tho Board should keep in mind that it costs approximately $1 million per mile to build a two-lane road and over 92 million per mile to widen to & four-lane. ~rs. Girone inquired ns ~o the amount of money the COunty would receiv= with Senator Willey's bill and Mr. MzCracken answered that the County e~ects to receive approki~ately$1,~ million ~cre each fiscal year. Mr. Daniel asked what ~hs strategy of the Transportation Department would be if that raoney is received and wa~ informed that one philoaophy would be to accelerate projects in the S~×-¥ear Plan and another would be to identify new ones and complete the preliminary engineering process. ~Lr. Morrison indicated that the new projects proposed for inclusion in the Six-Year Plan are Ruffin Mill Road, Stigall Drive, Marobrith Road, Bradley Bridge Romd, Quells Road, Coalfield Road~ Courthouse Road, Walm~tey Doulevard, Providence Road, Old H~ndr~d Road, Lucks ~ane~ Turner Road; Salem Church Road and L~do Road. ~[r. MeCracken indicated that t/~e purpose of this work session Plan and give the Board time to consider the plan, There was some discussion r~ardfng the seven years projected to complete a road from beginning to end being uhortened if in the future another bond issue for roads was approved, could bhe money be reallocated in the ~f×-Year Plan for other projects. Mr. Mayes indicated that the Board's relet~0n~hip ~ith the Highway Department through ~r. MeCracken has been excellent and the County has benefitte~ tremendously. Firs. ~irone inquired about the reflectors on ~oute 147 at would be installed with the next construction project on Route 147. Mrs. Girone e×presmed concern that this needed to be done ~ooner with Mr. Morrlson agreeing to check into some alternatives to mpoed up the matter. Mrs. Girons suggested that th~ County install street lights in this area as Mr. Morrison indicated that the request did not meet the criteria for street lights. ~xs. Gi:on~ requseted that Mr. Morrison check into resurfacing Robindale Road in the spring and he It was agreed that the Nighway Engineer would be deleted from the agenda for the Board of Supervisors meeting as Mr. Morrison had answered their concerns. 3. EXECUTIVE SESSION On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayer, the Board went into Executive Session to consult with legal counsel concerning potential litigation with SOS Construction Company, Inc. pursuant 2.1-344(a) 16) ef the Code of Virginia, ~950, as Reconvuning: 4. DINNER dinner with School Board me~bers. Beconvening: Mr. Dodd called ~h~ m~ing to order at the Courthouse at 7~06 5. INVOCATION Mr. Dodd introduced Dr. Crt Davis, Pastor of Chester United Methodist Church, who gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIAi~CE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The Ptsdgs o~ Allegian=e to the ~lag of the United States of America was recited. 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7,A. JANUARY 20, 1986 On ~O~iOn Of Mr. Daniel, ~eeondod by ~s. Girone~ ~h~ ~oar~ approved the minutes of January 20~ 1986, as submitted. Vote: Unanimous 7.B. JANUARY 22~ 1986 On motion of ~r. Mayss, seconded h~ Mrs. Giron~, th~ Board Vote; Unanimous 8. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS Mrs. D~Nart presented the Board and ~r. ~edrick with a gift as a memento of the Legislative Tour which was held January 24t 25 and 26, 1986~ ~he xelated %hat the te~ was resounding ~ueccss; that there were 22~ participants who had lnnch at Lloyd Bird Nigh School and wer~ served by 32 ~tudcnfs who felt if wac a privilege ho have trained for this evgnt. Sh~ expressed her gratitude for the outstanding cooperation received from all segments of the County and its counterparts in other jurisdictions who worked on this project. ~he further added that the legislators were very impressed with the arrangements. Mr. Dedd reiterated by thanking all County ~mploye~$ and all fho~ who helped te make the tour a success. Mr. Hedrick introduced Mr. James Gillentine, Director of the N~reing Bcme, who related that five months ago the Board had heard a proposal by the Advisory Committee of the Nursing Home to build a recreational area there wo~ld be n~ed by the resident~ of the Nursing Home and other special populations ~ithin our community~ specifically th~ handlc~ppe~ and mentally retarded, Ee stated the Board approved this recommendation ~ith the cost for the project tQ be borne by donations and u0ntribution~ by organizations. Mr. Gitlentine introduced Mr. Jam~s Bowling, Gran~ Knight Qf the Chesterfield County Knights of Celur/bus, whe presented & check in the a~unt of S5,000 to the Nursing ~ome for use in this recreational project. It was agreed that a raeolut±on of appreciation would be prepared for the February 26, 1986 m~etieg =o be presented to the Knights of Columbus. Mr, Hedrick recognized Mr. Rebert M~d~n who spoke concerning %he ~e~p Chesterfield Clean Committee, thanking them for their tremendou~ efforts and indicated that the Co~ittee was recegDize4 ~y the S~ate and Keep America ~eautiful, the national organization through competition. Awards received by the Keep Chesterfield Clean Committee were shown to the Board and it wa~ indicated that the awards would be displayed in the Administration B~ilding. Ms. Kathy Winchester was recognized for her outstanding work in receiving recognition in the youth category for Keep America seautiful and received first place in the youth category in Keep Virginia Beautiful. MS. winches~er's assistants were then introduced to the Board. Mr. ~esden related that because of our placing in the competition, we were awarded five eign~ which will be placed throughout the County, one in each district. Mr, Bradford ~ammer, the Assistant County ~inistrator for Management Servie~. was introduced and welcomed to Chegferfial~ County. 9. BOARD COMMITTEE REPORTS Mrs. Girons reported that she attended she Metropolitan E¢O~o~io Development Corporation luncheon along with other Board me,berm and congratulated Mr. Dodd on being sleeted Chairman of thi~ ofganizati0n. ~r. Applegat~ noted that the Richmond Rggional Airpor~ Commis- sion had accepted Mr. Bodd's resignation with regret and Mr. Daniel was welcomed and sworn in, Be further no,ed that there International Airport over Dece~oer a year ago which represented a 17% increase for the year. ~e indicated 86-090 Mr. Mayes stated that he had attended a Crater Diet~ict Planning Commission mmetin~ with Mr. Dodd as ~ull voting 10, ~k~Q~T~.~.. TO ~OSTPO~E ACTIOn..,. E~RG~NCY ADDITIONS OR C~GES IN THE O~ER O~ P~S~TATION k=t (RIC0}; d~leted Item 15.G, ~ghway Engineex; deleted Item 15.T.3.b.1.~ Consider Condemnation Proceedings for ~each ~oad Water Lin~, Walter ~. and Audrey T. Weeks; and adopted Vote= Unanimous BATEAU RACE MAY 34-~UNE $, 1986 On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WH~R~Ag, Mr. James J. $chu~e, Jr. does hereby wish to ~epres~nt ~h~ citizens of Che~tcr£ield County in the Ja~es River Bateau Race on May 31 - June 8, 19E6; and ~]{EREA$, Mr. $ohutte is raising f~n~s ~ro~ citizens of the County to constr~ct the bateau in Chesterfield Mall; and christen the v~sel T~E LO~ C~ESTERFIELD and serve as Captain of its hearty craw; and ~R~AS, The Captain of The Lord Chesterfield has agreed to donate the bateau to Chesterfield county afte~ the J~es River Fateau Race; and ~ER~AS, Th~ Ches~er~ie!d County Board of Supervisors doe~ bestow its wholehearted approval to the a~itious ~nd~avur. ~0~, T~a~FOKS, B~ IT ~S0L~D that the chesterfield County Board cf Supurviuoru douu hereby express hope to Cap=ain James J. Schu==e, Jr. ~hat "the win~ may be ac your back" and best wi~hes for Godspeed to the vessel and its crew as they bring vlc~ory an~ honor ~o Chesterfield 8, 1986. Vote: Unanimous ~. J~es J. Schutte, Jr., Captain of the Lord Chesterfield, and his navigator, Mr. Paul Cranls, were present %o accept cities along the James River would also be participating this race. Mr. Schutte made c~ents conceruing the bateau re~eeting support from County citizens and indicating that the bateau wo~ld be ~ona~ed to the Parks and Recreation D~part~ent aeter the race. 1~. B~IN~S OF CITIZENS ON ~SC~ED~D ~TTERS OR C~IMS who had recfaested they wished to address the ~oard regardin~ 86-091 Mr. Dodd disclosed tO the Board that he owns property in tho general area to be diseu~$e~, decl~ro~ a possible conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehenmiv~ Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. Mr, Daniel stated that ~r. Mayas had brought to the attention of the Board that there were citizens in the Matoa~a area who wanted to speak to the Board On this subject. Mr. W. Baxter Perkinson, ~r. staked that he lived at 9441 River Road which is approximately 8 miles we~t of the train ahead with the plans for an overpass as it seemed to be a cheaper, more direct solution. Mr. Willia~ Hawkins stated Aa feele th~ majority of the people in the Ettrick/Matoeee area do not oar~ whether they have an underpass or overpass. 5e stated they just want a better situation which would eliminate their extended wait at the railroad crossing in order to ~et te their homes. He ~tated also that it was urgent that an emergency crew or fir~ track does not have to s~op in order to get from one place to another. ~e indicated that he felt it would be better to go ahead with tho overpass utilizing the planning which has ~lready been completed as it would s~ve at least twelve months in completion time and money alread7 ~pent on the project. Mrs. Mary B. Woodruff stated that on December 1S~ 1938 there wes a tragic accident at the very crossing being discussed involving four people. She stated et that time~ the citizens in the area were very concerned about the safety of the crossing and in 47 y~ar$ there has still not been a solution to the p~oblem. She indicated that she felt the situation had been settled with the overpass. Sh~ further iDdicat~d that situation wo~ld at last be re/~edied and to change ~ow may Deupardize She project. She stated that this issue was not about businesses, houses, land, or dollars and cents bu~ a matter of life and death as buses loaded with school children go acros~ this railroad track five days a week and e~ergsncy vehicles need to get from place to place in an expedient manner. Mr. George Pond of Orangehitl Avenue was present to speak for ~r. Walter H. =lay and Mrs, Watkin$ of the Rescue Squad. He indicated that the emergency vehicles making calls in Ettriok had to cross this railroad track. He stated that Mrs. Watkins preferred the overpass b~caus~ it was be%tar emptying ~nte River Road than qoing dawn Chesterfield Avenue and having to close another railroad crossing at the bottom of =he hill ~hich could delay them more. ~e further stated that he is the with that organization for over 25 years and it se~ms more and more ~he7 are having difficulty in getting to fires because of tho trains. Fifteen citizens were present in favor of an overpaSS. ~6-092 Mrs. Avis Johnson of 17411 Lemastor Road presented the Board with petitions with over 200 signatures from citizens who agree that in some way the wait for the trains should be eliminated as it is unsafe for the citizens because of tSe emergency ~hicles. She related that she is opposed to the overpass because she feels that 90% of the buslness~s in the area will he affected as Some will have ne accessibility which will affect tax dollars due to lost sales tax, business licenses and real estate taxes. She stated that about two years ago a grant was received by Chesterfield County for revitalization of the area and was spent in Ettrick predomi- nantly on Chesterfield Avenue during which the businesses los~ ~0% of their revenue and bypassing them with the overpass would cause them to lose even moro. ~he related that the coaumunlty has on~ ~ootor, one veterinarian~ one drug store, one bank and one large grocery store. She staked tha~ if this overpas~ goes in as is now proposed, ail of these services will be oliminate~. She aske~ that ~he Boar4 leave the co--unity with integrity and develop a plan which would not affect th= busines~ district. Mr. Don Vance r~la~ed than he is in favor of ~ha underpass as it would be only eleven and one-half feet in lieu of th~ 30 foot height of the overpass. Mr. Raymond Eevener stated that he is not pleased with el=her plan but feels that something needs to be done and indicated ~hat he is v~ry interested in the plan proposed by Mr. ~ayes and is pleased with the job he has done. He stated that his interes~ is purely financial as he is a partner in Matcaca Associates who owns the Browning ~states. ~e related that the bridge would detract from hie property and he would like to see an alternative developed. Mr. Robert Burton indicated that he was in favor of the underpass and after l~ving in his neighborhood for cve~ Seventy years feels that the overpas~ would be the worst Shins %hat could happen to his come, unity. There were 13 citizens present who ~ere in favor of the Mr. James ~. ~awks, IIi, owner of Eawk$ Drug Company and Hawks Floriet~ emphasized that either the underpa~ or overpass would cause a hardship on his business, ae stated that there is a need but he stands oppOSed ue it will eliminate an entrance to his business on ~ast River Read leaving a dead end cul-de-sac at his front door on Chesterfield Avenue. ~eeling that he has provided ~ealth care to his community for fifteen years, provided pharmaceutical~ and put his life into hi~ business, he is very concerned. 5e indicated that he had signed a petition to the effect that he do~s not want Chesterfield Avenue closed. the ~eard that the presence of the citizens at this meeting this evening indicates a remedy is long overdue at the railroad cros~ing end necessary steps should bs taken to provide a solution to this problem with an urgency of implementation. He stated that the County should consider preserving the historical, environmental, natural beauty, cultural tone, atmosphere, and the important economic r~sources, assets and development. He stated that a unified development of this section of Chesterfield County allowing 86~093 money factors that what will benefit Chesterfield County is forgotten. Mr. Herbert Gill spoke to the Board representing %~alter B!ey and other business interests in and around the intersection in question. He related that he wac born and raised in Ettrick and has watched the general dmv~lopm~nt of the southern end of the County with great anticipation noting that it has been slower in that area. M~ STated that he would like to see southern chesterfield develop and grow as other areas of the County but planning needs ~o be a priority. ~e indicated that the Ettrick bypass would have a net ~ffect of lopping off th~ Villag~ Qf ~ttrick, creating a Pocahontas Island, destroying th~ buSineSs interests there now a~ discouraging future ~u$1ness potential for what he b~l~e~ i~ the heart of the Matoaca District. He pointed Out that Petersburg had decided to consider a tie-in across the river in its Six Year Plan and that the plan in existence for th~ bypass just ~oas nob fir =he problem. Mr. LOUIS Moseoai introduced himself as a bridge conhractor ~ho lives close to th~ crossing in question and reiterated that a remedy is need=d to eliminate the problems with ~mergency vehicles but he was convi~Ce~ that an overpass was not a viable solution and that an ~nd~rpam~ would not disrupt business and would be better for the environment. Mr. Daniel explained to the citizens =hat all of their comment~ w0nld b~ ~ntored into the permanent ~eCord and the County staff will asserts the points made and will report hack to the Board for a resommendation. He further stated Ehat the Board has gone On record in the past in support of Mr. ~ayes and the concept of relieving th= unsafe conditions at the railroad crossing. It was noted that the lathers received ~y the Board regarding this issue and the petitions ba filed with the papers of this Beard. Mr. Dodd returned to the meeting. IT was generally agreed that the Board would recess for five minutes. Reconvening: DEFERRED ITEM.~~ REQUEST BOAR~ OF ~UPERVI$©RS TO ~NITIATE REZONING FOR PROPERTY F~0W~ 55 TAX ~AP 1~5-~ (ll PARCEL 1 IN THE EASTERN /t~tEA FROM M-1 TO R-12 Mr. Zook related that it is rare that a reco~endation is made tO the Board concerning a rezen~ng of a ~roperty ~ased upon a comprehensive plan but there are times when the existing zoning of the property is so different from what should occur in an area that staff haz no alternative. He stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission be asked to initiate the rezoning process for property known aS Tax Map 135-~(1), parcel 1, in the Eastern Area from M-1 to R~12. He stated the matter was dsfsrre~ previously because the property owner was unable to attend the meeting. 86-094 On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Nr. Daniel, the Board re- ferred this item back to th~ Planning Commission for the initiation of the pttbli0 hearing process for r~z0niDg. Vote: Unanimous 13.B, APPOINTMENTS i~.B.1. CAPITAL Pd~GION AI~LPORT COMMISSION On motion of Mr. Applegate, ~ecanded by Mr. Mayes, the Board appointed ~r. Daniel to the Capital R~gion Airport Co~ission whose term is effective i~mediately and will expire January 1988. Vote: Unanimous t3.B.~. CRATER PLANNIng DISTRICT CQ~4ISSION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board appointed Mr. Jesse J. Nayes, Mr. R, Garland Dodd and Willie J. Bradley as full voting members to the Crater Planning Distriot Cat,mission and N~. Jeffrey B. Muzzy as an alternate whos~ t~rms are effective immediately and will expire December 30, 1988. Vote= Unanimous 13.B.3. KEEP C~LESTERFIELD CLEAN CORPORATION On motion of ~rs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, th~ Board appoin=ed ~r. Warren ~eter~ch, Midl0thian District; Mrs. Marilyn Kim~ Bermuda District; 5~r. William Harris, ~etoaca District~ Mrs. Ann Belsha, Clover ~11 D~striot; and Mrs. Al~a Smith, Dale Distric~ to tho Keep Chesterfield Clean Corporation whose terms are effective in~ediately and expire January 31, vote; Unanimou~ 13.B.4. YODT~ SERVICES C(~M~SSION On ~otio~ of ~r. Daniel, seconded by F~S. Gi~one~ the Board appointed ~s. A~y Goodman to the Youth Services commission representing Dale District. The appointment is effective imr~%ediately and will expire June 30, Vote: Uaanimous 13.C. PUBLIC HEA~ING TO CONSIDER ABA/~DO~=NT OF A PORTION OF WADSWORTH DR/V~ ~r. Hedrick stated tAat this time and dat~ was advertised for a public hearing to consider the abandonment of a portion of Wadsworth Drive, State ROu%~ ~7, ~r. Welchons stated that Nr. ~ark Sheimbob representing the owner of the property was present. The Board was advised that the name of the owner has changed from Equity Properties Group, Inc. to C.N.C. Centers. There we~ nO oppoZition present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seoonded by Mrs. Girone, the Beard adopted the following ordinance: W~EREAS, For many years, Wadsworth Drive, ROgte 8~7, has been in the State Secondary System of Highways under the control, supervision, management and jurisdiction of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; and 86-095 W~EREAS, Equity Properties ~roup, Incorporated (C.N.C. Centers), who owns real estate adjoining Wad~w<rth Drive, petitionud th~ Soard of Supervi~¢~$ of Chesterfield County to abandon a portion of Wadsworth Drive, Route 887, pursuant to Section 33.3-1~1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended; and WHEREASr purBuant to a resolution of thi~ Board on De=ember 11, 1985, the required notices of the County's intention to abandon a portion of Wadsworth Drive, Route 887, have buen given in that: on Dee~I~ber 16, 1985, a notice was posted in at lea~t three places along W~d~wor~h Drive, Route 887; and, on January 8, t9S6, and January 1S, 1986, a notice was published in the Richmond N~w~ Seeder, having general circulation within the County; and, on December 26, 1985, a notice was sent to the Co~issioner of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation: and W~EPuEAS, no landowner affected by the proposed ~andon- merit ha~ filed a petition for a public hearing; W~ERBAS, this Resolution and Or,er is entered within four montho a~tor the thirty days durinq which notice was posted as described ~hOve? and W~E~AS, tho safety and welfare oX the public would he Drivo~ Route 88?, as a public road will not abridge the rights of any citizen. of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, V~rgin~a, that pursuant Owens, In~orpcrated, date~ April 15, 1985, and revised May 13, 1985 and June i2, t985, e copy of which is ~ttached to this that the above described portion of Wadsworth Drive, Route 857, shall not remain a public road or crossing. plat hereto attechadr to the State Bighway Commissioner. The Clark shell request that the Commissioner certif~ ~o the 1950, ag amended, that the above described portion of Vote: Unanimous 14. PUBLIC ~=ARINGS E~TABL~ A ~ATE~ ~PECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT A~D A SEWER DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Mr. Hedrick stated thi~ date and time ha~ been adverti~e~ to consider ordlnance~ establishing e water special a~s~sment district and a sew%r d~velopment district. Nit. ~uzzy indicat- however~ the Board should vote separately On tho ordinances. economic development county wide. Ee stated Fiorucci Foods (U.S.A}, Incorporated w~ll Open a meat processing plant on ~6-095 Ruffin ~ill Road which currently has ne public water and sewer service. It will also promote further industrial development of this area. Be stated that State law provides for establishing water and s~w~r districts in mounties setting forth the criteria that water line~ are allow~d to be put in by the community with the abutting property owners assessed for the cost with all properties abutting the total piece of property being included in the assessment. He related that the charge is placed on the property when the lin~ is in,tailed, however, the property further related that included in the ordinance is a proposal properties that are used for rssidential services. ~r. Muzzy stated that to establish s sower district, State installed by the community with the cost of the lines assessed conditions with th~ charges for =he lines and the assessment the portion of the property that ~evslopes. ~r. ~uzzy noted that the funds will como ~rom the Utility involved as well as the facilities to be used. Ee stated that ~$tima=ed CoSt of ~n~ initial improvememt being $263,260. Em Qf $4O9.61 an~ A~a B containing 291 acres with a per acre a~e~sment of $275.92 and Area C ccntain~ 266 acres ab $274.91 pst acre assessment being due upon development of the property. ~e added that the proposed imp~ovementu connect with the sewer line along Ashton Creek to Auffin Mill Road and then wilt go up Ruffin Mill Road a ShOrt distance. the sewer district in that the water line must ~e a~jaoent to timated eos~ o~ the 9reject as $487,740, of which $100,000 a~emsr~ent a~ount to $387,740 with the proposed assessment of $426.41 per ~cre and provides for a 50% assessment reduction for up to 5 acres of property which is OCcupied by u single family residence. ~s state~ they are d~e upon approval but the water assessment distrio% is generally in tho same area am He stated the water line will extend from Woods Edge Road, Ruffin Mill Road to approximately 600 feet beyond the 90 approximately 100 acres of land was not included ~hat should reduced and will bu included in the modification. notice to be able to approach the Board. ~e requested that the 86-~97 property owners an opportunity to meet with the staff. Ha stated that Mr. W~lk~r's property section A which is the part immediately available for sewer and also a good portion in Section B ~or which he is being assessed contains a pump station with no provision as to how he is to get from his property onto an adjoining property to g~t to the pump station and nc provision as to how the sewer from the Dump station will get Over into the sewer line on there is a lot of property Be is being charged with that he will never use and that some of th~ property adjacent to him district with none in the water district. He stated that Mr. Walker supports the basic concept bet there are some things that nasd to be tine tuned and hopes fha5 %he Board will give him more time. Mr. Thomas Newton spoke to the Board repr~zenting Mr. Roberts who is a partner in the Wal=hal! lnve$~ent Company and o%vns a parcel which is part in the B District and part in the C District and also a ~econd paroel which is partly in A Dis- trict and partly in C Distzict. He stated that in favor of the proposal but has many questions which ceuld be of the matter. H~ related that Hr. Re~erts is interested in when the assessment will start, how the interest will be determined, how connection fees will b~ handled and other similar questions which are not addressed in the proposal. Fir. Newton spoke again indicating that Mr. Roberts had ~he same questions relating to the water portion and was requesting a deferral. Mr. Rudy spoke on the water district for Mr. Walker of Rcelyn Farms regarding the water portion of th~ proposal and indicated that ~r. Walker has ~bout ~00 feet of %k~ line =ha= abuts his property for which he has been assessed ~5,000. further stated that Mr. Walker felt there was a basic ine~ity pluz by expanding the district ~uld r~duce tbs pSOpo~tionate cost regardle~ of the manner in which the Board deeide~ to ~ke the a~essm~nt. In clc~in9~ ~r. Rudy related tha~ M~. ~alker is also questioning =he interest pa~en~s, the connection f~ and would like a bri=f deferral. Mr. John Ware, an attorney from Tappahannock, Virginia, ~pok~ to the Board as trustee ~or John J. NcDonald~ Jr. He r~lated that the McDonald property is a fiv~ acr~ parcel and another ~malt parcel. ~e ~tated that they welcome the water an~ sewer availability, however, they question the bo~n~ri~n like the line to ~0 by a service station whioh they are r~ntin~, ~ indicated that he felt the disrriut shoul~ expanded heading north to serve the rest of their property and =ha~ he had a n~er of questions regarding the connections, ~. ~ark Lands ~as present to spe~k to the Boar~ regarding his also rei~sra=ed ~hat he would llke to r~quest a deferral a~ the nOtiCe wa~ tOO ~r, Edwin Jilek~ u reuid=ntiul property owner in this ar~a, indicated to the Boa~d that he was billed for over $29,000 th~s metter and was very concerned regarding the ¢ost tO him. 86-~98 Mr, ~icas stated that the connection fees would be tko same as in existing ordinances and wilt not change so property owners will have to pay when they develop the normal connection fee and for the water distric~ tko assessment is due npcn con- pletion of the line, ho~N~ver, can be paid over a ten year period and is added on to the tax bill base~ on twist a year payments for ten yeaS$. He stated that the ordinanc~ pro- vides, if paid on that basis, for the assessment of 12% interest on the unpaid balance with th~ Board having =he option to reduce the interest rate ~f they choose. ~r. ~i~as related that for the ~ewer district, the is due only when the property is developed an~ i$ only due for the portion which is developed. Mr. Micas farther indicated that once bid pr~e~$ are r~ceived, the cost is lucked in and dues not change and the law provide~ that the ordinance residential property the amse~$~ent is reduced for the water district for the first five acres of residential use by 50% of Mr. Welchcns explained the basic fo~-mula for arriving at the cost of sower and wa=er and sr. Mayeo requested that Welchons provide him with the formula for his infor~tion. ~. John Cogbill~ the representative of Fioruccl Foods, was consulted and relatod to the Board that the 9roject s~heduled to be developed is set for an opening in late October or early November and the project is moving along a~ thi~ time according to schedule and that the dsf~rraI with ~h~ four planning with their concern being that they ca~o= open for business until the l~n~s ar~ workabl~ and thi~ additional ti~ approve the process befmre the Board ~ith staff doing the 4e~ign work, an~ ~elaying ~he actual approval of the for four weeks which will allow for adequate advertising tim~ an~ time to m~t with th~ landowners to s~=tle any questions, but would not delay Fiorucci Foods. Mr. ~yes indioated that he felt the Board was in with the concept and the only probl~ is with the fo~la. adopted the foltowinq water ordinance with the provision ~hat an amen~ent will follow to work out any necessary adjustments: A~ O~INA~CE TO EST~LISH THE RUFFIN MILL k0~ AKRA SPECIAL TAX OR ASSESS~NT WATER DISTRICT, TO CONSTRUCT T~XES OR ASSESS~NTS UPON OWNERS OF PROPERTY LOCATED THEREIN BY ENACTING ARTICLE VI, C~PTER 20 B~ IT O~AINED by the Board of SuDervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is ~ended and reenacted by adding to Chapter 20 a new article, A~ticle VI, a~ follows: Article VI. Ruffin Mill Road Area 86-099 Section 20-68. Definitions. In the context of this Article, the definitions contained in this ~sotlon shall be observed and applied, except when the context ctearly indicates otherwise. District. "Dis%riot" mean~ the "Ruffin Mill Road Area Special Tax or Assessment Water District." Map of the District. "Nap of the District" m~an~ the map entitled "Ruf~in MiI1 Road Area Special Tax or Assessment Mater Di~trict~" prepared by R. Stuart Royer & ~ssocia~es, Inc., Consulting Engineers, Richmond, Virginia dated January 20, 1986, which map is on file with the Direr%or of Util- ities. Section 20-69. Establishment of Ruffin Mill Road Area Special Tax or A~e~sment Water District. Pursuant to ~actions 15.1-239 et seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, there is hereby created in the County ~he Kuffin ~ill ~oad Area Special Tax or Assessment Water District. The area the District shall be and the same is hereby fixed within the boundarie~ depicted on the Map o~ the District. Section 20-70. Construction of Certain Water Facilities in an~ A~jacent ts the District. The Utilities Department shall construct in and adjacent to th~ District the water line and appurtenant facilities depicted on the Map e£ the District. Section 20-71. Taxes cr Assessments u~on Ownerm of Property Located Within the District. The cost of construction of the water line and appurtenant facilities located within the District shall be apportioned among the owners of property abutting ~he water tine. The amount of the ta~ or assessment charged to each ~uch owner Of ~butti~g property shall be in the same proportion to the total cost of the imprevements constructed within the District pursuant the acreage located within the Di~tr±ct which is owned by the abutting property owner bears to th~ total acreage in the District. The amonnt finally taxed or assessed aqainst each ~andowner ~hall be reported as soon as practicabl~ to the treasursr~ who shall enter the same as provided for ether Section 20-72. Reduced assessment against certain residential property. The owner of property which ab~t~ the w~ter line~ upon submission to the Director of utilities o~ proo~ estab- lishing to the Director's satisfaction that the property, at the time of enactment of this Article VI and at the time application is made for the reduced assessment, contained and sontains a residence and was and is actually used for residential purposes, shall be entitled tO the asseaDment Of not ~ere than five acres of such property. Application for such a reduced assessment must be made within six months cf enactment of this Article VI. Section 20-73. Installment payment of aSSeSsments. Any person against whom an assessment provided for in this ArtisIe VI has been finally ~ade shall pay such assessment in full when due or in equal installments over a period of not exceeding lQ years, together with interest on the unpaid balance at the rate of 12 percent per annum. Such installments shall become due at the same time that feel estate taxes become due and payable and the amount of each instullment~ i~cluding principal and i~terest~ shall be shown an amendment will follow to work cut any necessary adjust- AN ORDIMA~C~ TO ~MTABLIS~ TEE RUFFIN MILL ROAD AREA SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPM~N~ SE~R DISTRICT, TO CONSTRUCT CERTAIN S~hrER FACILITIES THEREIN~ AND TO I~POSE BE IT O~AIN~D by ~he ~oard of Supervisors of Chesterfimld (1) That the Code of the County of Chesterfleld~ 1978, Section 20-64. Definitions. this section shall be observed and applied, except when the Diutr~ct. "Dis~rict" means th~ "Ruffin Mill Road Area to be developed a~ a unit un,er single ~ner~hip or unified ~ontrol which is to be used for any business or industrial edits. The =erm "~evelopmen%" shall not be construed to include uh~ propert~ which will ba principally devot=d agricultura! production. Ma~ of the Dis~ric%. "Map of thm District" m~ans the mad entitled "Ruffin Mill Road Ar~a S~divi~ion and Development Sewer Dis=ric~" prepared by R. Stuart ~yer & A~ociates, INC., COnSulting E~gineerS, Ric~ond, Virginia dated January 20, 19~6, ~d revised January 27, 1986, a copy of which i$ on file with the Director of Utilities. ities constructed pursumnt to S~ction 20-66. subdivision. "subdivision" shall have the meaning ascribed to that term in Sec=ion la-2 of =he Code of the County of Chemterfi~Id~ 1978~ a~ section 20-65. Establishment of Ruffin Mill Road Area subdi- vision and nevelopm~n~ Sewer Distriot. ~rsuant to section I~.1-466(j) of the code o~.~irgi~%a, 1950, as ~nded~ %hera is hereby created in %h~ County ~he Ruffin ~ill Roa~ A=~a Subdivision or Dev~lupm=n= ~ewer District. ~i~%rict shall b~ and %he g~e is hereby fixed within Section 20~5. COn,tractiOn Of Certain Sewer Facilities within the Dis%rich. The U~ilitie~ D~part~nt shall construct in the District a gravity sewer line of varying diameters and appurtenant facilities as depicted in Area A oi the Map of the District. SecUion ~0-67. Fees or Charges U~on S~dividers or Developers Dis=riot shall pay or provide for th~ pa~ent o~ his share of of each subdivider or developer of property located within 45.9% of the cost of oon~truotion of ~he ~ewer Facilities ~6-t01 the acreage contained in hi~ subdivision Qr development bears subdivider or developer of property located within Area B of the District shall be i~ the same proportion to 30.5% of the contained in his subdivision or development bears to the total acreag~ in Area B of the District, The share of each subdi- vider or developer of property located within Area C of the District ~hall be in the same proportion to 23.6% of the cost of construction of the Sewer Facilities as the acreage con- tained in hi~ nubdivi~ion or development b~ars to the total shall be expended only for the construction of the Sewer or developer is resulted prior to construction of the Sewer subdivider or developer shall be held in an interest bearing expended or, in lieu of such payment, the Board of Supervisors at the judgment rate in effect for each year or f~aetion of a year during which such interest acerue~. The Beard recessed briefly. ASPHALT ROADS Mr. Hedrick sta~d this date and ~im~ had been advertised for a public h~aring to consider an ordinance relating to curb and ~utter and asphalt roads. Mr. ~o~ indicated that the proposed ordinance deals with the provision of curb and 9~tter and asphalt roads in those higher denmity, single family, subdivision areas of Chesterfield County, ~e ~%ated that the purpose of the amendment was to reduce the cost butt to th~ ¢oun=y an~ the S=ate in road maintenance fez subdivisions and to improve the appearance and quality of rcsidentiaI areas. ~e stated during this process, a committee was formed to study the issues ~ho worked with representatives of the development =ommunlty and County staff. ~r. Peele further explained the erdinanne stating the Situa- tion today in Chesterfield County relating to curb and gutter for single family developments evolves around a policy adopted by the Board in 1~72 which requires that curb and gutter b~ used in subdivisions where the lore are less then 75 feet wide at the right-of-way lin~, He indicated that with the new standards the Board has adopted for residential {R-?! develop- ment, the Board's old policy is no longer adequate to require sion and development community worked ~hrough the issums, a original recommendation (Option 1) was for curb and gutter attempt by staff and the development community to reach a compromise and bring a unified proposal to the Boar~. ~e commission. 86-102 ~ir. Peele indicated that O~tion i would require curb and gutter in all subdivisions where Lhe lots are less than feet wide at the right-of-way llne requiring that all subdi- vision~ developed to standards that are less than R-15 minimum standards to nee cart and gutter but it would nQt dictate that every subdivision in R~7, R-9 er ~-12 use curb and gutter with the size of the let being the deciding factor. He further explained %hat Option 2 and Option 3 ara similar to each other with Option 2 being staff's after,p% at a compromise situation with the dmvelopment community Suggesting that o~rb and gutter bs used in all subdivisions where the lots are less than 80 feet wid~ at the right-of-way line and where the average lot width in the satire subdivision is less than 90 fmet. ~e stated that Option 3 i$ the recommendation of the development ao~xr~unity ~equiring curb and gutter in all subdivisions where lots are les~ than 80 ~eet wide at the right-of-way line and where the average lot width in the enfi~e subdivision is less than 8~ ~eet. 5e ~tatod that staff prefers option 2 ever op%ion 3 because option 2 would provide for mo~e uuifcrm uae of curb and gutter in R-9 subdivisions which staff feels would provide higher quality and better amentities in the County's mor~ densely populated developments. He stated that during the Planning Co~iseion~s last work sesmion on this issue, there ~es some concern tha~ perhaps curb and gutter should be required if the subdivision were developed at standards less than the R-15 minimums which resulted in Option 4 being drafted ~uggemtin~ that curb and gutter shoul~ be used in ~ubdivisions where the lots are less than 15,000 ~quare feet in area and less than 10O ~sst wide st the building line as ~pposed to the right-of-way line which is a change from the ether optlon$. ~e further related that curb and gutter would be required if more than 2% of the lots in the subdivision are flag lots which are lots developed with minimal at, cunts of road frontage. He ~tated that the Commission's recommendation is that the ~oard adopt Option and, that as a compel%ion issue~ if curb and gutter i~ used on r~sidentiel streets, asphalt pavement be used. He noted that the Commission recommended that the administration and ~oard work with 5he Highway Department in an attempt to reduc~ any excessive desiqn standards which would provide for a more efficient development pattern on the lend. Mr. ~ related that co~t wa~ a major concern of the development community and thac the cost difference in qoing from ~arth ditch~s to curb and gutter in subdivision~ wes anywhere fr~m $600 to $1400 per lot and ¢onsiderinq the variables, it is impossible to come up with n firm figure. ~e reported that there are advantaqes to using curb and gutter versus earth ditches in that curb gutter is ~ubject to less ~amag~ during constru=tlon, th~r~ ie quicker and easier acceptance of the roads leto the State ~ighway System ones %h~ project is completed and there is less likelihood that the Highway D~par~ment w~uld hav~ to uss the develop~r'~ defect bond during the first year that the roads are in the system. Ee stated that %hs ~!anning commission recommended phasing in curb and gutter in existing subdivisions with earth ditches by leaving the earth ditches in those subdivisions which had r~eeivod tentative approval from the Planning Commission prior to the date of adoption of th~ ordinance amendment as long as they were recorded prior to January 1, 1989. ~e fur%her stated that there wa~ concern regarding obtaining relief from these standards if they presented problems end h= noted that curb and gutter would be a requirement of the ~ubdivision ordinance instead of the zoning Qrdlnan¢~ which would eliminate the lengthy zoning pro,ess tc change the~e etandard~. He advised that Pl~nnlng Coati,sion could g~ant waivers to permit earth ditches using recommendations from ~nvironmental ~nglneerlng. ~e also stated the development community suqge~ted that if the Highway Depart/neat would reduce their standards for right of way width, i~ would make =he usa of curb and gutter more acceptable. Mr. Peele explained ~het the ~ighwey Department will reduce right o~ way widths from 50 feet to 40 feet under certain circumstances being e cul-de-sac street or a thru street having projections ~or limited traffic. M~. Peele indicated that additional advantages are that curb and gutter {1) That the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, be amended by amending Section 18-36 as follows: Sec. 18.36. Arran~em~nt~. (j) Concrete Curb and Gutter (1) Concrete curb and gutter shall be required in all subdivisions, where any lot, not on a cul-de-sac, has less than 80 feet of public road frontage and where the average frontage for all lots is less than 85 feet. (2) Furthermore, any such subdivision granted tentative approval without curb and gutter, prior to February 12, 1986, any recorded prior to January 1, 1989, shall not be required to have curb and gutter unless the tentative approval is not renewed and expires. If a new subdivison is granted tentative approval after February 12, 1986, curb and gutter shall be provided as required by the standards herein. Where curb and qutter is required, the minimum design shall include two inches of S-5 bituminous (k) payvement Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Nays: Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone. Mr. Zook clarified that subdivisions now in existence can continue to be developed by the 1972 standards until 1989. 15. NEW BUSINESS 15.A. SET PUBLIC BEARING DATES 15.A.1. ADOPT EMERGENCY ORDINANCE P~EGARDING TAX P~ELIEF FOR ELDERLY AND ~ANDICAPP~D AND SET DATE FOR PUBLIC On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following ordinance on an emergency basis and set the date of March 12, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND A~D REENACT SECTIONS 8-15 AND 8-16 OF THE CODE OF T~ COUNTY OF CSESTEI~FIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED RELATING TO FINANCE AND TAXATION BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 8-15 and 8-16 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, are amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 8-15. Restrictions and conditfon~. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the dwelling and up to one acre of land upon which it is situated subject to real estate taxation under this chapter may be temporarily exempted from such tax when any such property is owned by and occupied as the sole dwelling of ~ person not less than sixty-five years of age or a person who is determined to be permanently and totally disabled as defined 86-106 in section 8-17.1, hereunder subject to the following restrictions and conditions: (a) That the total combined income during the preceding calendar year from all sources of the owners of the dwelling living therein does not exceed fifteen thousand one hundred dollars ($15,100.00); provided, that the first four thousand dollars ($4,000.00) of income of each relative, other than spouse, of the owner, who is living in the dwelling shall not be included in such total. (b) That the net combined financial worth, including interest, as Of December 31 of the ia~ediately preceding calendar year, of the owners, and of the spouse cf any owner, excluding the value of the dwelling, and one acre of land upon which it is situated, does not exceed fifty three thousand nine hundred dollars ($53,900.00). ooo Sec. 8-16. Schedule of exemptions permitted. When the total combined income from all sources and the net combined financial worth of the persons qualifying does not exceed the limits prescribed in section 8-15, the ~meunt of exemption from real estate taxation for the dwelling and up to one acre of land upon which it is situated shall he in accordance with the following schedule: 0 through $11,300 $11,301 through $12,900 $12,901 through $15,100 Percentage of Exemption 100% 5O% 25% Vot~: Unanimous 15.A.2. SET A PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGP~AM On motion of Mr, Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel the Board set a public hearing date of February 26, 1986 to amend the 1985-86 budget for the Capital Improvement Program. Vote: Unanimous 15.C. WARBRO ROAD LANDFILL OPERATIONS CONTRACT Mr. Mayes disclosed to the Board that Mr. Link had served on his Advisory Committee for Matoaca District and he had declared a conflict when this matter was before the Board previously and, therefore, declared a possible conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict o~ Interest Act and e×cused himself from the meeting. Mr. Howell, Director of General Services, indicated that staff recommends awarding the contract to Walter C. Link, Inc. who is the lowest responsible bidder. Mr. Dodd questioned if thi~ met with required procedures. Mr Rowell indicated that prescribed procedures had been followed. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the five-year contract for operation of the Warbro Road Landfill was awarded to Walter C. Link, Inc. who submitted the bid of $33,250/month effective upon expiration of the current contract. It is noted that funds have previously been appropriated. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Mayas. 86-107 Mr. Mayes returned to the meeting. 15.D.1. APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT FOR MULTI-PARK PROJECTS On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved the firm of Resource Planners to provide the required consultant services at a base fee of $96,800 excluding contract administration and contingency and authorized the County Administrator to execut~ all necessary documents associated with this project with funds being appropriated from the 1985 Bond proceeds. Vote: Unanimou~ 15.D.2. ACCEPT DONATION OF LAND FROM WOODLAKE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR ATHLETIC COMPLEX On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone~ the Board accepted a donation from Woodlake Development Corporation of 15.481 acres adjacent to the the school site in Woodlake for a youth soccer complex and $275,000 o£ £aeilities and/or services for thi~ project with the County's share for thi~ project to be funded from the 1985 Bond proceeds and authorized the County Administrator to execute any documents associated with the acceptance of this donation. Vote: Unanimous 15.E. APPOINTMENTS 15.B.1. APPOINTMENTS TO THE AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board nominated Mr. John Mazza, Matoaca District; Mr. Melvin Shaffer, Dale District; Mr. Roger Burns, Clover Mill District; Dr. Walter Kilborne, Bermuda District; and Mr. Philip Evans, Midlothian District to the Airport Advisory Board with official appointment being made at the February 26, 1986 meeting. Vote: Unanimous 15.E.2. APPOINTMENTS TO THE MUSEUM COMMITTEE On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board nominated Ms. Karen Waldr0n to serve on the Museum Committee which official appointment will be made at the February 26, 1986 meeting. Vote: Unanimous 15.F. CONSENT ITEMS 19.F.1. REQUEST FOR BINGO/RAFFLE PEP-MITS On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by ~r. Applegats, the Board approved the requests for bingo and/or raffle permits for calendar year 1986 for the Midlothian Band Boosters Club, Ben Air-Midlothian Lions Club and Crestwood P.T.A. Association. Vote: Unanimous 15.F.2. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Hackberry Road and Starpine Lane in Bermuda Gardens, Section C, Bermuda District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mrs. Girone, 86-108 These roads serve 32 lots. The developer has defaulted on his responsibility to construct th~ roads and the County had to complete the construction. Therefore, we are requesting that the maintenance fee and bond b~ waived. Also, by virtue of these roads providing a public service~ they may be added to the ~ystem as an addition under Section 33.1-229 o~ the Code of Virginia. And be it fnrther resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Eighways a 50' right-of-way for all of these roads. These sections of Old Creek West are recorded as follows: Section 4. Plat Book 40, Page 31, Deoember 8, 1981. Section 5. Plat Book 41, Page 25, July 6, 1982. Section 6. Plat Book 43, Page 88, August 31, 1983. Vote: Unanimous This day the County ~nvi~onmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Promontory Points Road in Promontory Points, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, it is resolved that PromontOry Points Road in Promontory Points, Clover Dill District, be and it hereby is established as a public road. And bs it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Promontory Pointe, beginning at the intersection with Harbour Points Road, State Route 3200, and going 0.29 mils northerly to a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distanse and designated Virginia Department of Highway~ drainage This road serves 24 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a variable 50' to 80' right-of-way for this road. Promontory Polnte is recorded as follows: Plat Book 40, Page 44, December 29, 1981. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Inge Wood Circle in Inge Wood Aores, Matoana District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mss. Gi~one, seconded by Mr. Applegate, it is resolved that Inge Wood Circle in Inge Wood Acres, Matoaoa District, be and it hereby is established as a public road. 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, Inge Wood Circl~ beginning at the intersection with Chalkley Road, State Route 632, and going 0.17 mile westerly to a cul-de-sac. 86-110 This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance and designated Virginia Department of Highways drainage easements. This road serves 15 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of ~ighways a 50' right-of-wsy for this road. Inge Wood Acres is recorded as follows; Plat Book 35, Page 68, March 18, 1980. This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Moorwood Ridge Drive, Moorwood Ridge Terrace, Moorwood Ridge Court and Moorweod Ridge Circle in Ridgefield, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, it is resolved that Moorwood Ridge Drive, Moorwood Ridge Terrace, Mo0r~o0d Ridge Court and ~oorwood Ridge Circle in Ridgefield, 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 iF requested to take into the Secondary System, Moorwood Ridge Drive, begin- ning ab the intersection with R~ams Road, State Route 647, and going 0.05 mile northerly to the intersection with Mnorwood Ridge Terrace, then continuing 0.05 mile northerly to the intersection with ~oorwood Ridge Court, then continuing 0.06 mile northwesterly to the intersection with Moorwood Ridge Circle, then continuing 0.03 mile westerly to a cul-de-sac; Mccfwood Ridge Terrace, beginning at the intersection with Moorwood Ridge Drive and going 0.04 mile westerly to a cul-de-sac; Moorwood Ridge Court, beginning at the intersection with Moorwood Ridge Drive and going 0.04 mile westerly to a cul-de-sac; and Mocrwood Ridge Circle, beginning at the intersection with Moorwood Ridge Drive and going 0.03 mile northeasterly to a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance and designated Virginia Department of Highways drainage These roads serve 35 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 Moorwood Ridge Terrace and Moorwood Ridge Court which have a 40' right-of-way. Ridgefleld is recorded as follows: Plat Book 45, Page 90, May 15, 1984. 15.H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS 15.H.1. ZONING CASE 85S160, BBXLEY COSMOPOLITAN Mr. Zook stated this item involved a dispute over the size of the homes in Bexley Cosmopolitan. He stated the property owners and developers have come to an agreement and this item 86-111 will express the ~oard's intent to accept a withdrawal of the zoning case at the next meeting. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board indicated their intent to consider withdrawal of Zoning Case 85S160 which is scheduled to be heard at the February 26, 1986 Hoard meeting. Vote: Unanimous 15.H.2. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION REQUESTS On motion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved the installation costs for the following street lights in the Matoaca District with funds to be expended from the Matoaca District 3 Cent Road Funds: 1. Dupuy Road and Laurel Road, $291.00 2. Happy Hill Road and Mistwood Forest Drive, $174.00 knd further that the following installation costs were approved with funds exp~nded from the District Street Light Funds as indicated: 1. Cogbill Road and East Entrance to Meadowbrook High School $701.00, Dale 2. Hopkins Road and North Entrance to Falling Creek Middle School, $1,957.00, Dale 3. Sydelle Drive, $143.00, Midlothian 4. Strathmore Road, $142.00, Bermuda 15.H.3. STREET LIGRT REQUESTS On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the installation of street lights at the following locations with funds to be e~pended from the District Street Light Funds as indicated with the e×ception of the two requests from the Dale District involving a park entrance and parking areas which will be funded by the General Lighting Fund: 1. Intersection of Mineola Drive and Old Centralia Road, Bermuda 2. Intersection of Iron Bridge Road and Whitepine Road, (Park Entrance}, Dale 3. Intersections of W/~ite Pine Road and Parking Areas lights), Dale 15.H.4. WESTERN CORRIDOR FOR ROUTE 288 NORTH OF POW~ITE PAP~KWAY P~EFERRAL TO THE RIC~/~OND b~E~ROFO~ITAN PLAI~NING ORGANIZATION/VDH&T Mr. Appleqate disclosed to the Board that he was a trustee for property located in the general area, declared a potential conflict of interest regarding Items 15.H.4. and 15.H.$ pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meetinq. Mr. Daniel requested that a statement be included in this item to address the cost of construction impact of their alternatives against what is already in existence and provide 86-112 route to the existing line. It was also requested th~% Mrs. De,art, Legislative Coordinator, inform the General Assembly members that action ~hould be taken to preserve th~ right of way. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the following resolution was adopted by the Board Of Supervisors provided an amendment is included to ccnsidsr the costs: WRER~AS, the Virginia Department of Kighways and Transportation Commission approved the corridor for Route 288 through Chesterfield County in 1969; and WI~A~, the Richmond Area Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization 1995 Transportation Plan inel~de~ Route 588 north of Powhite Parkway in Chesterfield County; and W~ER~k~, the Board cf Supervisers has approved the Powhite Parkway/Route 2S8 Land Use and Transportation ~lan recognizing thst ma~or changes have occurred in the County and the region since UDB&T e~iginally approved the Route I§B WB~R~AS, the Board of Supervisors supports ~he completion cf Reute 288, as a limited access circumferential highway for the Richmond araa~ and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervi~or~ ~upports the connection of John Rolfe Park-wa~ to Route ~8~; and WM~R~AB, the Board of Supervisors reuogn~zes the design of Route 288 must adequately address environmental concerns of the Tuckahae Planbation. W~EREAS, the cost of eonatructing Route 288 in an alternate corridor versus the co~t of constructing Route 258 in the current corridor muut aI~o be considered. N0~, THieF©RE, BE IT RESOLVED~ that th~ Board of Supervisor~ requests th~ Richmond Ar~a MPO to request the Virginia Department of Eighways and Transportation to im~nediately begin the process of i~entifying a western ¢orrido~ for Route 28~ north of Pcwhite Parkway to replace Ayes: ~Lr. DanimI, Mr. Bodd, Mr. ~ayes and Mrs. Girons. Absent: ~r. App!egats. i~.H.5. RZF~RRAL OF T~ DRAft TRANSPORTATION AND LAND UM~ PLAN FOR T~E REMAINDER OF T~ NORTHSRi~ A~%~A TO ~BE pLANNING CO~IBSION FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND P~C0~4ENDAT!0N On motion e~ Mrs. Girone, ~econd~d by Mr. Daniel, the Board referred the Transpor~atiu~ and Land Use Plan for the remainder of the Northern Area to the Planning Com~i~ion for =onsidaration and public hearing. ~r. reck indicated that during this process the Board will identify the preferred corridor which should be shown on the County's plan. There wilt he meetings On March 3 at the Air Presbyterian Church and March I7 at Mmnche~ter ~igh ~chool in lieu of the original dates of February 25 and February 27. Re further indicated that in addition, ~ pre~$ briefing will be heId on Eebruary Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Mayas and Mrs. Giron~. A~$ent: ~%~. Applegate. Mr. Applogate returned ~o the meeting. 86-113 1S.H.6. RRSOLUTION CONFIRMING THE PROCEEDINGS OF T~E INDUSTRIAL D=V=LOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF C~T~RFIELD APPROVING TEE ISSUANCE OF I~EVENUE BONDS TO WESTerN RESERVE PLASTICS, TNC. On motion of Mr. Daniel, SeConded by ~rs. Giron~, the Boar~ adopted the following resolution: W~R~A$, the Industrial DuvuloDment Author~t~ of County of Chesterfield (the "Authority"), has considered the application of Western Resurve ~Iastics, Inc. {the "Company") requesting the isSUance of the Authorlty's industrial develop- ~ent revenu~ bonds in an amount not to exceed $2~5~0~000 (the "Bonds") to assist in the financing of the Company's fish, construc~i0n and equipping of & facility to be used for the manufacture of plastic products, including but not limited to injection moding and a~pembly~ consisting of approximately 70~0~ square feet (~he "Project") =o b~ losated on an approx- imately 7.3 acre tract of land in the Chesterfield Air Park, on the w~stern ~xtenslen of ~ite Bins Road ~irsetly asrosa from the Reynolds Metals facility in the County Chesterfield, Virginia, and has held a public bearing thereon om January 28, 1986; end W~BREAS, Section 1O3(k) of tho Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, provides that th~ governmental unit havinq jurisdiction over the issuer of industrial deve~opm~n~ and ov~r the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of industrial development bonds is located must approv~ the ~ssuanca o~ the bonds; and WHEREAS, the Authority iSSue~ its bond~ on b~half of the COuD%y cf Chesterfield, Virginia (tko "County"); the Project i~ to be locate in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the C~unty of Chesterfield, Virginia (~he "~oard") constitutes the highest elected gover~ental unit of th~ County; and WHE~S, ~e Authority has race, ended that the Board approve the issuance of the Bonds; and upon, ~ ¢ertifi=ate Qf the public hearing, and a Fiscal Impact statement have been filed with the Board. ~E IT ~SOLVED B~ THE BOA~ OF ~UPER%'ISORS OF T~ COU~T~ OF CHESTE~IELD, Authority for the benefit o~ th~ Company, as r~quired by Sec=ion 103{~) an~ Section 15.1-1375.1 of th~ Virginia Code, ~o pe~i~ the Authority to a~nist in tbs financing of =he Project. 2. Th~ approval of the issuance of the Bends does not Bonds of the creditworthiness of th~ P~0ject or the Company. 3. Purzuant to the limitations contained in Temporary Income Tax Regulations Section 5f.103-2(f)(1), this Resolution shall remain in effec~ f~r a period of one year from the date 4. This Resolution shall =age ~ffect i~ediately upon its adoption. Vote: Unanimous 15.H.7. WILLT$/COAC~ RO~S I~USTRI~ ACC~ ~0J~CT On motion of Mr. Dodd, ~eeond~d by ~r. Danisl, the Board appropriated $67,0~0 from the Rnappro~riated surplus general fu~d sc~oumt for the construction of the Willis an~ C~ach Roads industrial access project with the appropriation to be $6-114 .. % reimbursed by the .19S6/87 capital improvement pro,ram allocation fQr industr~al~recreation&l access projscts. Vote: Unanimous 15.I. U~ILIT¥ DEPARTMENT ITEMS 15.I.1. PUBLIC HEAt~ING REGARDING SALE OF SURPLUS ~LL LOT IN ARROWNEAD SDBD~VI$I©~ Mr, Hedriok stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider the sale of a surplus w~ll lot in ~rrowhea~ Subdivision. There wa~ no one present to address the ~tter. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. ~irone, the Board a~thorizsd the County Administrator and Chairman ef the Board to e×~cute a d~d of sale to Conner B. 0w~n for the sale of th~ surplus well lot in %he Arrowhead Subdivision in the amount Of ~$.I.2.a. R~QU~ST FOR PUBLIC OE~E SERVICE IN ~%AYON PARK ~ir. Hedrick stated tha~ %hero were only 21 out of 99 residents who had agreed to sign COntracts for public sewer service in Rayon Park, therefore, staff recommends dental of this requeut. Mr. Dodd stated that he felt that grant money would be used in this ~roject and Mr. Welchons ~ndicated that the grant funds were for water line~ ~d other items but no money ~s appropri- ated for sewer. Mr. Daniel inquired if we could apply for a grant which would includ~ sewer and Mr. Weloho~s ~=ated that he would check into the matter for ne~t year. On me,ion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board denied the request for public sewer service for res~dsnts of Rayon Park. 15.I.2.b. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER ALONG ROAD Mr. ~edrick indicated the= only 25% of the residents along Alberta Road had agreed to connect to the public water ~y~t~ end only I7~ had agreed to sonnect to the public sewer system with staff zeconz~ending denial of this request. On motion of Mr. Mayes, sescnded by Mr. Danlel~ the Boand denied the request Sor public water and sewer service f0~ residents along Alberta Road in th~ M~toaca District. Vote~ UnsnimoK~ 15.T.2.o. SET PUBLIC HEARI~ TO CON~IDER AMENDMENT TO WATER AND SEWER DEBT SERVICE BUDGET {FY I985-S6) Mr. Welchons indicated that a public hearing was r~q~r~d when the budge~ changes exceed one-half million dollars and dne to the sale of the water and sswer bonds, an increase is needed in deb% so,vice On motion of Mrs. Girono, seconded by ME. Daniel~ the Board net the date of February tS, 1986 at 9~00 a,m. for a public hearing to considsr a~endments to the water and sewer debt ~ervice budqet. Vote: Unanimous 86-115 :B.I.3.a. C©ND~iNA~IQN OF EASEMENTS FOR FALLIN~ CREEK 15.I.3.a.1. ~STTNE ~ONES On motion of Mr. Daniel, ~cQnded Dy ~irs. Girone, the ~oard ~uthorized the County Attorne~ to institute condemnation proceedings against the following property ovnler if the amount as set opposite their n~me is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notify ~ald property ©wu¢S by registered mail on February 13, 198~ of th~ Co%~nty'~ intention to enter upon an~ take the property which is t~ be the subject of said condemnation proceedings. This action is on an emergency basis and the County intends ~o exercise immediate right of antr~ pursuant tO Section 15.t-23~.1 of th~ Code of Virginia. Ernestine Jonas Falling Creek Force Main $483.80 15,I,3,a,2. R/~Y C. 9AYN~ JR, tnb I~I~ W. ~A~NE AND GLADYS eLLIS M~ASON Mr. Dodd recognized Mr. Payee, who stated that the price offered ~o him for tis pzopezty was considerably below fair market value. Mr. Daniel inquired if a counteroffer had been made and Mr. Payee answered in the affirmative with the counteroffer being about $8,0~0 for the per~a<~nt easement plus the other settlements that had already been agreed upon. ~e indicated that the property had teen appzaissd at approximately $12,000 per acre when a piece of property on the on the nouthern corner is currently for sate for $87,000 an acre. Mr. Payee further indicated that his property faced Route 10. Mr. Welchons stated that this ~ewer easement would running along the frontage. Mr. Daniel requested that Mr. Welchons hold thio condemnation for two w~aks in Order to m~et with Mr. Payee to discuss the mather further going thr0~gh tho asmeusments again. Mr, Applegata ~eqaested that the County Attorney write to Payee ~xpt~ining the condemnation process in detail. On motion of Mr. Daniel~ seconded by Nr, Mayas, the Board de~err~d this item un=il February 26, 1986 at 9:00 a.m. Vote: Unanimous 15.I.3.a.3. LEKEITH O. JA~4ES On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board authorized the County Attorney to in~tit~t~ proce~ding~ against the fellowin~ property c~ner if the amount as set opposite their name is net accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notify said property owner by registered mail on February 13, 1986 of the County's intention Eo enter upon and take th~ property which is to be the subject of said condemnation proceedings. Thi~ estion is on an emergency basis and the Co~ty intendu t~ exercise immediate right of entry pursuant to Section 15.I~2~8,1 Of the code of Virginia. Lekeith O. James galling Creek Forc~ Maid $160.00 Vot~: Unanimous ~ir. Applegate di$olosed to the Board that his real estate company i~ li~ting property which w~ll be served hy this water line extension, declared a potential conflict of interest for Items 15.I.3.b.2., 15.I.3.b.t. and 15.I.~.b.4. pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. I5.!.3.b. CONDBMEATIO~ OF ~A$~M~NT FOR A WATER LINE ALONG BEACH ROAD 15.I.3~b.2~ GARLAND B. MILES A~D ~ART~A G. MILES Mr. WeIchons indicatsd that he had received ~ written coun~er- offer from ~. Garland ~. Miles, owner of the propeUty, in the amount of $14,000 and recor~mended ~ha~ the Boa~d deny the counteroffer and pIoceed with the condemnation. Mr. Mayas stated that ha had not heard fram the Miles family but they did mak~ a counteroffer and possibly the Board sheuld considex a ~ompromf~8 and settle the matter. Mr. W~lchon$ answered Mr. ~yes by saying that even ~hough this matter is apptove~ by the ~oard, negotiations continue and in many cases, the items never go to condemnation with a saW,lament on the property w~thin 30 days to keep the projaat moving. On ~otion of ~r. Sayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board denied the counteroffer of Mr. and Mrs. G. ~. Miles in the amoun~ of $14,00G and authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation proceedings against the following prepar=y owners if the amount es set opposite their nam~ is not accepted. ;~nd be it further resolved that ~he County Administrator notify said property ~ner~ by registered mail on February 13, 1986 of the County's intention to and take the property which is to be the subject of said baals and the County intends to exercise i~ediate riqht of entry pursuit ~o Section 1~.1-23~.1 Gf the Code of Virginia. ~artha G. Mile~ Beach Road Water Line ~sent: Mr. kppl~ga~e 1~.I.).b.3. T~O~S ~. CLAYTOR AND S~D~ R, CLAYTOR the County that has had ~ny basis and fact tO it s=a~ing that if it is cendemned that ~t should be condemned at the estimat- insulting to her and to the homeowners along Mash Road and it was evident that little thought had been given to the offers of the pxepsrty owners. She related ~hat the Board had a responsibility to give the property Owners fair compensation for any losses incurred based on valid information and this compensation should be applied ConSistently. offer of $6,6~9.00 in lieu of aha $4,712.0Q ~f~d by the p~oeeedinge against the following property owners if the a~ount as e~t opposite their names is not accepted. And be it 86-117 further r~olved that ~he County Administrator notify said property ewners by registered mail on F~bruary 12, 19~ of the County'~ intention to enter upon and take the property which ia to be the ~ubject of e&id condemnation proceedings. ~his action is on an emergency basis and the COunty intend~ to exercise i~%~ediate right of ~nkry pursuant to ~ection 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia. Sandra R. Claytor Beach Road Water Line $4,712.00 Ayes: ~. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mrs. ~irone, ~r. Nayes Absent: Mr. AppZ~gate Mr. Medriok suggested that if negotiations are going ko continue ~k the Board meeting it would be advisable ho have th~ County right of way agent present so that the Board could hear both ~ides Of the issue. Mr. Welchonm indicate~ that a written ~oun~aroff~r had been received in the amount of $14,278.07 and it is reco~nded denie~ the counteroffer from T. T. Cogbill in the amount of condemnation prnoeed~ng~ against the following property owner if the amount a~ set opposite their name ie not accepted. And said property owners by registered mail on February 13, 1986 which is to be the subject of said condemnation proceedings. exercise immediate right Of entry pursuant to Section Theodore T. Co,bill Beach Road Water Proj~c~ ~¢888.12 15.T.4.co CO~TRACT PaR DEER RUN, SECTIOM$ 1 AMD 27 OFF$i?E AND OVERSIZE 0NSIBE TRUNK SEWERS p~operty which may be served by this trunk sewer, declared a potential conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and ~xcused himself from the meeting~ On motion o~ Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone the Board approvud and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necesgary d0cu~ents for the following sewer contract: $~wer Contract Number B86~i2CD/7(81612, Deer Run, Sections 1 and 2; Offsits and Onsite Trunk Sewers M6-118 Total Contract Cost: Total Estimated Cost: William B. and G~ne E. Dural Lyttle Utilities, Incorporated $265,457.00 106t~67.2~ (Refund Ukrough Connection Estimated Devsloper Cost:$158,789.80 Number of Connections: Coda: 5N-2511-997 Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd, Absent: Mr. Applegate. Mr. Applegate returned %0 %ha meotinq. 15.I.4.a. SEWER CONTkACT FOR OLD STAGE ROAD OFFICE/WA~HOUSE On notion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary doeut~ents for the following sewer contract: Sewer Contract Number $S6-13CD/7(8)613N, Old Sta~e aced Office/Warehouse Developer: A. B. Sadler, Ir. Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Incorporated $27,735.00 18,346.00 (Refund through connection fees 9,389,00 Total Contract Co~t~ Total Estimated County Cost: Number of Connections: 2 Code: ~N-2511-997 Unanimous 15.I.4.b. A~O~RIATIOR OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS OF SEWER CONTRACT FOR WATCH RUN TRUN~ SEWER P~OJ~CT On motion of Mr. Daniel, ~eeonde~ by Mr. Mayer, the Board approved additional ~unds ~sr th~ sewer contract for Wato~ Run Trunk Sewer Project and appropriated $20~672.00 from 5P~B724-~QO9 to 5P-5724-9439 and transferred $3,754.80 from 5P-5724-900R to 5P-5724-9439 far the Watch R~n Trunk Sewer project S79-43CD/7(7)9439 previous appropriations wore insufficient. The project provided for the developer Of %he Macon Woods project te recs~ve a cash re~und for the costs Of ~ock excavation and or,site sewers. 15.I.4.d. AWARD OF S~WER CONTRACT NUMbeR S84-37C; PROCTORS CREEK WASTEWATER TPd~ATMENT ~LAN EXPANSION On ~otion Of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Mares, tho Board awarded Cuntrac~ ~umber S-84-37C for the expansion of th~ P~octors Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant to Fru-Con Con- struction Csrporatlsn in the amount of $12,175,000.00 and authorized th~ County Administrator to execute any necessary documents. CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF WATER LINES FOR ~M~E¥ CROVE SUSDIVISION, SECTIO~ F On motion of ~Lr. Daniel, seconds~ by ~r. Mares, ~he ~eard approved the ~ollowlng water contract and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessar~ documents~ 86-119 Water Contract Number W86-48CD, Ashley Grove Subdivision, Section F Developer: A. K. Thompson, Incorporated Contraotor= J. stevun Chafin, Incorporated Total Contract Cost: $31,895.Q0 Total Estimated County Cost: ~,746.20 (Cash refund and Connection Fees) Cede: 5Z-2511-997 An0 further the Board appropriated SS,SOO.D0 from 5B surplus to 5~-5724-6479, which includes a 10% STAGE OFFICE/WAi~EROUSE On me,ion of ~r. Daniel, seconded hy ~r. MayeS~ the Board approved and authorized the County Admlni~trator to execute Water Contract N%u~ber W86-47CD, Old Stage Office/ War~house Developer~ Old Stage Development Company Contractor: ~yttte Utilities, ~ncorporatsd Total Contract Co~t: $37~543.75 Estimated Developer Cost: $29,S57.7~ Number of Connections: 1 And further~ the Board appropriated from 5B surplus $8,500.00 to 5H-§724-6479, this includes a 1Q~ contingency i5_ 1.4.g. AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR WATER LINE ON COGBiLL ROAD A~D P.R.V. ON K=~TQW On motion ~ k4r. Daniel, seconded by ~Lr. F~yeS~ the Beard approved and authorized the County Admiei~trator to execute any necessary documents for Water Contract W84-44B in the amount of $184,117.00 and Contract WS~-~i~ for a pressure reducing valve and vault in the amount of $13,73Q.00 to F. L. Showal~r, Incorporated. The funds necessary fo~ this project were bu~gete~ ~n the Capital Improvement Budget and no additional appropriation is necessary for this eon~rao=. Vote: Unanimous !5.I.4.h. ADJUSTmeNT OF FUNDING SOURCES ON WATER AND SEWER CAPITAL PROJECTS On motion ef Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. )layes the Beard a~roved and authorized ~he County Administrator to execute any necessary documents to transfer ~unding sources on water and sewer cap~ta~ projects a~ 1. T~ansferred $3~D15,600.00 on water projects from water improvement funding source to wa~er bond funding source, Details are shown on Exhibit A is ~iled with the ~apers of the 2. Transferred ~121,~62.73 on water projects from the 1979 bond issue funding source to the water ~mprevement fundin~ ~eurce. Details are shown on Exhibit B whiuh is f~l~d with the papers of the 3. Transferred $34,642,100.45 OD sewer projects from eke sewer imprcvement funding ucurc~ to the sewer bond funding source. Details are shown on Exhibit C which is filed with the papers of the Board. Vo=al Unanimous 15.1.4.io TIME EXTENSIOW ON REFUNDS IN P0WDEP~AM On motion of Mr. Daniel, ~econded by M~. Mayas, the Board approved and au%korize~ the County Administrator to execute any necesSaYy dOCuments in reference to Con~ract Number W76-SCD providing for an extension of one year on the original $19,000.00 refund for the offeibe wa%er line along Robious Road for a period of ten (10) years which expired January 30, 1986 with the stipulation that ne additional extensions will be ~ranted. 15.I.4.j. AOREE~T WITH VDH&T FOR ADJUSTMENT OF UTILITIES on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. N~ye~, ~he Board approved the agreement with VDH&T for adjustment of utilities for bridge and approaches for Route 1 a~ Swift Creek aa~hori~ed the County A~minlstrator to eXeCute any necessary documents with VDH&T for adjustment of utilities for bridge an~ approaches ~cr Route 1 at Swift Creek subject to the approval of the County Attorney and appropriated $50,000,00 ~ron 5D surplus to 5H-5835-639M for Contract 15.I.4.k. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG CASTLMWOOD ROAD On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Nr. Mayer, the Doer~ approved and autherized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents accepting on behalf Of the County ~h~ conveyance of a 15' strip of land along Castlewood Read from Aufenta T. Adams and ROy ~. Norton, Jr., Partners, T/A Adams and NOrton Coaerete Company, e virgiaia Partnership. On motion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes~ the Board ~pprov%d and authorized the County Administrator =o e~cute the necessary ~ee~ accepting on behalf of the County the conveyance of a 15' strip of land along Ca~tlewood Road from Roy N. Norton, Jr. 55.I.4.m. VEPCO EASEMENT FOR GENITO WATER PUMPING STATION On motion of ~lr. Daniel, seconded by Mr, Mayes~ the Beard approved and aothorized the Chairman of the ~oard and ~he County A~%inistrator to execute an agreement with VEPCO for a 55' wide ~asement for the installation of cable for the Genito Water Pumpin~ Sba=ion. Vote; Unanimous 19.I.5. REPORTS Mr. W~lchon~ pre~ente~ the Board with a list of developer water and sewer contraetm ~xecuted by the County Administra- S6-121 15.J. REPORTS Mr. Medrick prmsen~ed the Board with reports on the Genmral Fund Contingency, General Fund Balance, Road ~s~rve Funds, District Read and Street Light Funds, 19S? Budget Projects and Real Estate A~b~Smen~ Facts. 16. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Applaga~e, the Board adjourned at 11~30 p.m. until February 26, 1986 at Vote: Unanimous County Administrator