Loading...
05-14-1986 MinutesBOA/{D OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES May 14, 1986 ~r. R. Garland Dedd, Chairman ~_r. Earry ~. Daniel, vice Chairman Hr. G. H. Applegate Mrs. Jean Girone Mr. Jesse J~ Mayas Staff in $ctendance: of Utiliti~ Mr. N. =. Carmichael, Legislative Asst. Co. Admin. Mr. Phil H~ster, Dir. Mr. William Howell, Dir. of Gen. Services Asst. Co. Admin. for Mrs. Paulin~ ~ituh~ll, B~r. of S~vicas Landfill Eng. of Rudget & A~ctg. Mr. Run,all sink, Dir. of Utilities Dir. of Human Qf Planning ~r. Dodd called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 2100 p.m. in Room 582 of the Administration Building. WOE/{ SESSION ON WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN~ WATER AND SEWER $~W~R O~IN~C~ Mr. Dodd stated the pUrpOse of the work session wa~ to Progr~ and the Wate~ and Sawer ~es. ~r. Welchons introduced ~. Mi/lard Rcbertson with ~alco~ Pirnie, In~., the con=ul=ing ~i~who prapared the Wa%er System Master ~lan. ~r. Robertson reviewed the problems being ~6-3il experienced with rapid d~veiopment, ~eak demands, industrial interests, limited back-up capacity and new d~mands ~istant from supplies; reviewed the water tranemissien system; reviewed the project requirement with regard to a phased system that is prleritized and flexible to meet needs throuqh 2000; reviewed the project objectives which were data base update with regard to modal adaption, operating philosophy--reliability; system analysis--15 year~; ~he CIP~ the program de!ivory; reviewed the Data base up, eta an~ valid demand forecasting with regard to th~ physical system, the demand projections and aIloeatione as they relate to ~ndustrlal and residential growth, and ~perating characteristics; reviewed the r~iden~ial groweh and major commercial and industrial expansion te year 2000; th~ ~y~tem r~liability objectives as i~ rslate~ to unrestricted water usage and ~ninterrupted services; a 15 year system analysiS; reviewed a 24 hour hydrograph; reviewed the Year 2000 storaqe facilitdee at Swift Creek%Elkhardt Ground Pressure Zone; the on going CIP~ the five y~ar program's significant projects; mapo of the water the recommendations to tho County were to accelerate the on going ~ro~ect~, to p~uce~ iKu~ediately with the ~ year CIP, to beqin intercenneotions with Richmond for emergency only situations and to inltiat~ discussions with the Appomattox River ~ater Authority (ARWA) for expen~e~ service by 1990. 10 year psrio~, etc. Mr. Robertson stated Chat with the with the CIP or in two to three years we could be facing the same situation. Mr. Beck reviewed the Water CIP and the Wasteweter CIP, the on going projects, the amtioipabed projects, and thc yearly expenditures~ etc. He indicated the CIP is a ~i~ year plan with the Board approving funding for the first year of the plan which is similar to the ~ighwey Department 6 Year Road Plan. There Was Mr. Jack Waters reviewed th~ projected water revenues, operating maintenance and capital expenditures through FY 1990 with and without a rote ~ncrease; the impact of the propog~ 7% increase and proposed water service charge~ w~th Other localities; water connection ~ee comparisons for the area; the proj=ct~d sewer revenues, operating, maint~nen~ eno capital expenditures through PY 1990 with and without a rate increase; the impact of the proposed 7% increa~ on the ~verag~ residential sewer bill; and charges, etc. Copies cf the charts and r0p0rt are filed with the paper~ of this Board. 2. W0~ SESSION ON PK0~ATZQN OF PEK$ON~ PROPERTY Y-rs. Arllns McGulre reviewed what proration of personal propart~ entails, the need for public awareness, reviewed the refunds and complex ~ystem tO put into operation, that complaint~ willbe received, that additional employees will be neceesery~ etc. She stated if th~ Board d~cld~d to approve the concept of proration that it dO eO realizing the need fo~ proper help and facilities as necessary. ~r. Carmichael stated the County was fortunate ~e have Data Processing who understood the proposed proration system. He license inspector's office and the p011ee department in enforcinu 86-312 the ordi~anse. Be introduced Mr. ~oe ~orbal, Assistant regard to proration and answered questions of the Board. There equitability and feasibility. Mr. RAmssy stated that the budget for 19S6-87 includes $650~000 in revenue from proration with a setup cost of $73~,000 which is a loss of $S2,000. 5e stated, however, that 1987-88 nets a r~venue of $1,410,OO0 which would be equal to 2¢ on the tax rate. ~r. Daniel stated ~ha~ all Board members are aware of his views it could be ~implified, he would not support it as he felt the dura was worse than the disease. ~e state~ ~he police, the etc. wonl~ b~ involved, %here are 43 examples n~ situations that a ~udget based on ~wo year projections which was not accompli~he~ fo~ proration. 5e ~uggested the Board remove the publi~ hearinq from the agenda for June 11~ I986. ~tr. Mayas indicated he was too, felt this was an additional burden for th~ taxpayer. Mr. Applegat~ stated t~e public hearing had ~een soheduled and he by Section ~.1-344 (a) {1) of the Code of Virqinia, 1958, as 5. IR~JOCATION ~r. Dodd introduced Mr. Baxter Perkinson who qav~ the i~vocation in the absence o~ ~ever=n~ Charles ~. Warth, Pastor of Grace Lutheran Church. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO T~E FLAG OF TME UNITED MTAT~ OF A~RICA The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United ~ates of America was r~cited. Mr. Dodd stated he had intended, be= failed, to amend the buffer requirement on Case ~86~057~ Kenneth W. Well~, ~t the April 23, 1986, meeting. He ad,ed =hat if the fifty (50) foot buffer were left in the conditinn~ she buffe~ would come to the rea~ of the building, therefore, the buffer should be reduced to twenty-five (25) feet. Mr. Patterson ~tated the April 23rd minutes had been verified and the minutes aceur~teIy refleoted Mr. Bodd's motion and the Board's action on the requmst. ~e stated the only appropriate way to amend the condition would be for the request 86-313 to be resubmitted to the Board, Mr. Dcdd stated he wo~td point out to th~ Beard t~at the ~rron was his and requested the ca~e ~s brought back before the ~oard, at the Board's request, without charging the applicant a fee. It was generally agreed that this issue would be added to the agenda at the appropriate time. On motion o£ Mrs. Girone, sooon~ed by Mr. Applagata, the Board approved the minutes of April 23, 1986, a~ ~ubmltted. 8. COUNTY ADMI~IS~RATOR'$ COMMENTS Mr. Howell introducs~ Mr. R~sseII P. sink, recently employed Airport Manager, an~ briefly outlined his professional and personal haokgrounO. Mr. Howell also introduced Nr. Timothy W. Perry, recently employed Landfill Manager, and briefly outl~ne~ his prc~essionat and personal background. The Board welcomed University graduation ceremony~ Mr. Mayas was awarded a and Leadership in the Community and the State and in recognition of his illustrious career. ~r~. Qirone stated the Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court was the speaker for the graduation exercise, that Mr. Mayas ie held in high esteem aRd the Soard is extremely proud of Mr, Mayas and his achievements. ~r. Hedrick reoog~ized amd congratulated Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Director of News and Information Services, for her election as Chairman of tho Public Information Section of the Virginia Municipal League. Mrs. Gircne stated she had attended e ~rayer Breakfast conducted by Judge Thomas at th~ Airport and it was t~oroughty enjoyed by all and tb~r~ would bs another on Nay 22, 1986. She stated she had attended the Capital Area Agency on A~inq Advisory COunCil; the Maymomt Boar~; a public meeting in Matoaca regarding southern Area Land Uae and Transportation Study with Mr. Mayas; the largest ~on Air Day Parade ever; and the Iron Bridge Park Op~ning with Mr. Daniel. Mrs, Girone stated ~he had met in Powhatan with the Lake Genito tional agreement to study just what the 9otantial and f~pacts for reco~u~anda~ that the fun~ing for t_ha study be accomplished on a Mrs. Giron~ Etated she attended a meeting at Mental Health and and what their long range planning should indicate for the Cutting Ceremony, which was a very lovely event and the open "First Monday" meeting until Tuesday for =he first time in s/even years in order to attend the opening night ceremony at the attitude at the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission 86-314 (RRPDC) regarding the County's rela=iunship with the Crater Planning District Co~/miesion (CPDC) and ~he felt s~rious discussions with the Executive Director at RP~DDC are necessary. She crated she hag secured the Executive Director that =he County not only wants to uoopexate with the RRPDC be= also with the CPDC an6 that the Connty ie eckeerned about the future of the central part Of virginia. Mrs. Girono stated she attended the Channel 23 Annual Meeting~ which was was v~ry inte~astlng as there was a Board meeting with hal£ the ~oard in Pairfax and half in Ben Air communicating through the tel=vision network. Mrs. ~irone stated she at:ended the ~o~hers Against Drunk Drlvin~ [M.A.D.B.} graduation where the Senior Class Presidents of all the Richmond area Aigh schools were in abtendan=s. She stated the topics discussed concerned issues relative to drunk driving and specifically behavior during prom and graduation er®nbs. Mr. Ma~as come,anted that ha attended many of the same functions as Mrs. G±rone, as well as the Fraternal Order of Pellcs M~o~ia Program and dinner. Ne stated he was interviewed by th~ consultant on the development of the Utilltle~ System and al~o intervlawed by a field representative of the United Givers Fund, relative to how best to utilize the funds in his District. Mr. Daniel stated he had attended the Capitul Region Airport Commission (CRAC) meeting and the =We major items are still the increase in personal traffic through the regional airport, which i~ up appro~imateiy 14% over the same ~sriod a year age, but the real growth, in ter~s of p~rcentaq~ te~s, conSinue~ to be cargo, ~ s~at~d, ~or =~e year, there ha~ been an increase o~ 44% over be improved and relat~d an incident where much discontent was e~pre~sed by local residents who had confi~ed bookings and re~ch~d~led. Me stat~ he has relayed all this information the Director. Me reported that the Sea,ch Co~ittee, of which is a me, er, has held its first m~eting and has laid ou~ poli0ies, procedure~ and guidelines for searching for a Airport DLrector. ~. Daniel stated the opening ceremony a~ Iron Bridge Park was very ~ucce~f~l. He sta~d he had the privilege of the Board at Magnolia Grange durin~ the ribbon ~utting ceremony. Mr. Applega=e indicated he ha~ also attended the Capital Region Ai~ort C~ission (C~C}. Mr. Dodd stated he had been very bu~y w~re in attendance for a gover~ent class 10. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION, EMERGENCY ADDITIONS OR C}tAN~BS IN TKE ORDER OP P~SENT~TION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board added Item 15,E,4., Traffic Control at the Courthouse Road/Five Forks IDters~tioD; added Item 15.P.~. Cancelling the June 11~ 1986, Public Eearinq Regarding Proration of Personal Pro~erty; added ltem 15.E.5., Amendment to Case ~6~057, Kenneth W. walle; deleted Item 15.I.4.b., Condemnation Proceedings against Betty Sue vote: Unanimous ~6-315 ll. RES,O,,L.U,T, IONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION ll.A. RECOGNIZING JUDGE WILLIA~ N. HUMP~RI~B~ JR. UPON HIS ~r. Dodd ~tat~d tha=, dug to ill health, Judgs Willi~ R. however, the Resolution would be pre,ended to him at a function planned later next ~onth. On motion of the Board, %h~ following r~olu~icn w~s WBEP~S, the Nonorabl~ ~illiam N. Mu~phrles, Jr. has served as a Judge in the 12~ Judicial Circuit~ representing Chester- the G~n%ral District Cost5 for two year~ prior to that, and a~ a ~ubsti=u%~ Judge in the Chesterfield/Colonlal Hmlghts District Coast f~Om t970 %O t97S; and ~EREAS, Judge H~phrius shared his extensive knowledqe of the law by ~eaohing susiness Law a= ~ichard sland Colleg~ of =he College of Willi~ and Mary~ ~rom 1969 %o 1976~ and as an s=ructur o~ Constitutional Law at the Cxater C~iminal Justice ~E~A$~ Judgs ~phri~s served %he general p~lic in his private practice o~ law from 1~5 to 19~1; an~ l~ader, a~ prssident of the Colonial ~eights Kiwanis Club, president of the Colonial Heights Jaycees, as a m~ber 0f ~e Jaycees Regional Council, as th~ Jaycees Young Man of the Year 1969~ as chai~an 0f the Petersburg A~ea Chapter March of D~mes of Directer~ for six years. NOW, T~ER~FORE BE IT RESOLVED~ that the Chesterfield its members and the eitiz~nm of Chesterfield County, ap9reciatio~ for the dedicated and loyal sm~ice of Willi~ N. H~phrims, whosa =~eri~nc~ will be ~orely missed; ~D BE tT FURT~R ~SOL~D~ that a plaque inmeribed as WiLLI~. HUMPHRIES, IN Ag~CTATTON FOR D~DICATED SERVICE T0 C~ESTERFIELD C0~TY W~ILE S~RVING AS JUDG= OF T~ 12TH ~DICIAL CIRCUIT GITT~R~ OF CH~STE~IELD CO~TY 0n mo~io~ of ~he Board, adoption of this r~$olution was d~ferr~d sine= Mr. Lanier could not be present ~his time. 11.c. AP~CIATION T0 MR. RONA~ G. ~ ?0R ~I8 gERVIC~ 0N BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF ~AL ESTATE On ~OtiOn Oi the Board, the following resolution was adopted: W~Pd~AM, Ronald G. Mann was appointed on January 23, 1984 t, the Board of Eqnalizatlcn of Real Estat~ Assessments ~or the County of Chesterfield; and WHB~AS, Ronald G. ~ann, as ~ representative from the Dale District~ did faithfully perform the duties and discharge the responsibilities incu~ent upon a member of the Board of 86-316 WHBP~AS~ Ronald G. Mann, during a time of unprecedented County growth, demonntraB~d exemplary knowiedge and judgment in the decision making function as a Board Member; a~d W~EREA~, Chesterfield CounBy an~ the Board of Bqualizatlon of Real Estate Assessments will thoroughly miss Ronald G. Mann's leadershipr dedication and service; and WI~EREAS, all those working with Ronald ¢. Mann on the Board of Equalfsatlon of Real Estate Assessments, hold Resold G. Mann in th~ highest ~t~m; and of Chesterfield County is so much appreciated+ NOW~ ~HEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County does hereby express ~ts appreciation to Ronald G. Mann for his loyal and dedicated service to the citizens of Chesterfield County. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Dodd ~resented Mr. Ronsld Mann with =he executed resolution. Mr. Mann expressed his appreciation for this recognition. il.D. APPRECIATION TO MR, IRVING G. PEOPLES FOR HIS SERVICE ON T~B BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF REAL ESTAT~ ASaE~BM~NTS On mo~ion of th~ Board, the following resolution W~s WEEREAS, Irving G, Peoples was appointed On February 29, 1985 to the Board of EqualizaSion of Real Estate Assessments fo= Wt~R~A$, Irving G. Peoples, as s representative from the Matoec& District, did faithfully perform th~ duties and discharge the responsibilities ineu_mbsn= upon a member of the Board of Equalization of Real Estate Assessments; and WHEREAS, Irving O. Peoples, during u time of unprecedented County growth, demonstrated exemplary knowledge and judgment in the decision making function us a Board me.er; and of R~al ~tate Assessments will %horoughly mi~ Irving ~eople$' leadership, dedication and service; and W~REAS, all those working with Irving G. Pnoplnm on the Board of Equalization of R~al Esta%~ Assessments, hold Irving Pnopl~s in %h~ highest e~t~m; and ~R~AS, Irving G. ~eoples' dedicated services to the citizens of Chesterfield County is so much appreciated. of Chesterfield County does hereby express its appresiation Irving G. Peoples for his loyal and dedicated ~ervice to the Vote: Unan~mou~ Mr. Dodd presented Mr. Peoples with the executed resolution. ll.B. kRRR£CIAT%O~ TO E. LORRAIN~ WEITZ~L FOR ~BR $~RVIC~ ON THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF RE~ ESTATE ASSESSMENTS on motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted~ WHEREAE~ E. Lorraine ~itzel was appointed on February 17~ the County of Chesterfield; and WNER~AS~ E. Lorraine Weltsel, as a representative from the Midlothian District and the first woman appointed to the Board, bilities incumbent upon her positions over %he years as secretary, Vise-chairperson and Chairperson of the Board cf Equalization of Real Estat~ Assessments; and County qrowth, demonstrated ~xemplary knowledge and judgment in W~EREA$, Chesterfield County and the Board of Equalization of Real Estate Assessments ~ill thoroughly miss E. Lorraine Weitzel's leadership, dedication and service; and Wt~EREAS, a~l tho~e working with E. Lorraine W~itzel on the Lorraine W~itzeI in the hi~hest esteem; and citizens of chesterfield County is so much appreciated. of chesterfield County does hereby express its appreciation to E. Weitzel expressed appreciation for this recognition. ll.F. APPRECIATION TO L. HUNTER BEAELEY, JR. FOR HIS SERVICE ON THE BOARD 0~ EONIN¢ A~EAL$ Mr. Hedrick introduced Mr. L. Hunter Beazley, Jr. to be recognized ~or his service on the Board of Zoning Appeals. He stated Messrs. Aubrey Gill and Baxter Parkinso~, also members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, were present to participate in Mr. Eeazley'$ recognition. Mr. Dodd s~ated ~r. seazlay would not only be missed for his dedicated public service but alSO as val~ed member o~ the community. On motion of the Eoard, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, ~Lr. L. Hunter Beazley, Jr. was appulut~d to the Chesterfield County Bourd cf Zoning Appxuls as Stem ~armuda ~i~trict on July 1, 1971~ and WHEREAS, Mr. Beazley will tender his resiqnation effectiv~ Jun~ 1~ 19~ and WMEP~EAS, Mr. Beazley did faithfully perform the duties and discharge the responsibilities incumbent upon a member of the Board of ~ening Appeals; WHEREAS, Mr. Heazley, during a period Of unprecedented qrowth, demonstrated exemplary knowledge, judgment and compassio in making ~ecisieas which will have a lasting impac~ on £i~ld Coun£y~ and WHEREAS, CheSterfield County and the Board of Zoning Appeals will thoroughly miss Mr. Beasley's insight, direction and leader- ship when deciding issues that affect the h~alth, safety and qeneral welfare of the public; and 86-318 WI{~P~, Mr. Be~zley's I4 years of servlo~ to the citizens of Chesterfield County merits special ~eCognition. of Chesterfield County does hereby express its appreciation to mr. L. Hunter Beazley, Jr. for his loyal and dedicated service ts the citizens of Chesterfield County. A~D ~ IT FUKTHER R~SQLVED, that a plaque inscribed as In Appreciation for Dedicated service on the Chesterfield Coun=y Boar~ of ~oning Appeals July 1, 1971 - June 1, 1988 Vote: Unanimous Mr. ~ill stated that Mr. Bea~l~y, throughout his years of service ~embers of the Board ~uring the performance of his duties and heazley stated thut~ at the time he was appointed to the Board of zoning Appeals, he had no idea his tenure would last fifteen years, he stuted hu had been honored to serve on the Board and considered his experiences, relative to his personal growth and development, eqp/al to his ~xperlences involving his church and the Jaycees. He stated he appreciated the ~act that his service on the Board of zoning ~ppeal~ had kep~ him in touch with the people of the come,unity throughout Chest~rfield~ as well as the state. ~e expressed his appreciation for this recognition and wished th= hoard ci Supervisors ~uL1 in their future ~ndeuvor~. tl.G. APPkECIATION TO MR. DAVID E. THOMA~ F0~ HIS ~EkVICE 02 THE CHESTERFIELD PLANNING CO~4ISSION On motion ef th~ Beard~ the following ~esclutlon was adopted: W~REAS~ Mr. David ~. Thomas wa~ appointed to the Chester- field County Planning Commission as the representative from Bermuda District on February 25, ]981; and W~R~A$, during this time p~riod, the County unparalled residential, commercial and industrial growth and change~ and WI{EREAS, with the leadership of Mr. Thomas, subEtantial progress has occurred on a complete revision of the County's Land U~, Transportation and Public Faciliti~ ~lan which will a better future for Chesterfield County~ and WI~EREAS, Mr. Thomas did ~a~thfull~ perform the duties and Planning Co~ission; and ~EREAS~ Mr. Thomas~ relocation to the ~tate of Florida causes Mr. Thomas to resign his position on %he Planning Co~is- ~ion ~ffac~i~ May 31, 1986; and ~EREAS, Mr. Tho~s' six years of se~ice to the citizens of Chesterfield County merits special recognition. NOW, T~E~FORE BE IT RESOLVED, that th~ hoard of Supervisors of Chesterfield County does hereby ~xpr~ss its appreciation ~r. David =. Th~as for his loyal an~ de~ioated service to citizens of Chesterfield County. A~ BE IT FURTHER ~SOL~D, that a pla~e inscribed as follows be presented to Mr. David E. Thomas: 86-319 DAVID ~, IN APPRECIATION FOR D~DtCAT~D SERVICE F~SRUAR~ 25, 19~1 - MAY 31~ t986 CHAIRMAN JANUARY 1, 1984 - MAY 31, 1986 Vot~: Unanimous Mr. Dodd presented Mr. Thomas wi:h the executed resolution. honesty, for%brightness and dedication %0 the citizens of ~ermuda Dietrich. Mr. Daniel stated it had been his privilege fo serve as %he last continuous ~oar~ representative to :he Planning Co~issiOn with people ~ueh a~ MM. ThOmas. Nlr. Thomas stated he wished to express his appreciation for this ~cognltion and for the support he had received throughout the past y~ars, especially fr~ Mr. Dodd. Ea stated, al%hough ha not agree, Mr. Dodd had never interfered with his decisions and neve~ a~ect~d their r~imtiunship in handling County mot=ers. the Planning Staff Eot their assistance. Me ~tated County is ve~ privileged to have many talon%ed and dedicated employees in the Planning Depar~ent, who are ably led by Mr. James P. 11.~. PROCLAIMING MAY, 1986 AS FOSTER PARENT MONTH. Ms. Jean Smith stated she was present to join with the Board in recognizing ~ome very special people, in~ividual~ who serve ss foster parents, gh~ stated foster pa~nts are the heart of providing good oa~e, guidance, sensitivity and loving concern for children who cannot be with their own families. She introduced Barbara Bennett and Betty Les of the Department and two foster parents, ~r. and Mrs. Mike R~dell, to a~eept the resolution, stated these individuals provide day-to-day care for many ~hildren and serve as teamwork and partnership with is only appropriate to recognize these individual~. She stated she hope~ ~he activities add media coverage of Fos~er Parent Month will encourage other f~milies to ~onsider s~aring their homes and hearts with e chil~. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: W~RR~A~, service~ provfded by the Depar~nt cf ~ocial SerVices to the community include the provision of foster care to children; and W~EREA$, the ci=izens of Chesterfield county wish to acknow- ledge the generous contributions of foster families in providing care, ~is¢ip!ine and lov~ to the ehil~zen placed tempera:fly in their homes; and WI~EREAS, the cure provided to Children by foster families imDacts the quality of life for those children, their and future qenerations; and buts greatly to the well being of the entire co~uni~. called to the attention of all citizens. ~r. Dodd presented ~r. and ~rs. RudeI1 with the resulut~un. ~s. Ae~ell expressed aDpxeciation for the 86-320 recognition and accepted the resolution on behalf cf ch~starfis]d County foster program. ll.I. PROCLAIMING M3%Y 29 - JUNE lc..1986 AS CHESTERFIELD COUNTY GOLDEN OLYMPIC DAY~ Mr. ~ester ~tat~d, for the last eight years, the Parks and R~creation Department has been p~ivileged to participate in the hundred senior cltizens~ from within %he State and surrounding states, participate in the event, which is festival of health and fitness and i~ open to all ~en and wom~n nga~ 55 and olde~. ~aater in=reduced ~s. Gwenda Goggin. ~S. Gwenda Goggin stated there ~ere already 614 participants registered for the upcoming Olympic Day~ competition, representing all areas of tbs Commonwealth. She stated several Chesterfield County Olympians hold records wi%hln Virginia but ~era unable to attend the meeting. She then recognized Ruth On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEk~kg, the senior citizens Of th~ Co~oDwealth of Virginia and Chesterfield are a ~aluable h~an resource; and W~REAS, the Virginia Gold=n Ol~pics is the only storewide sven~ whioh promo=e$ the physical, $ooiaI, psychological, an~ recreational wsll-being of Virginians 55 year~ oi age or WKEREAS, the Virginia Golden Ol~Dics make~ m ~tat~ment to the rest ci the nation On th~ outstanding caliber cf Virginia's ~EREAS, the Virginia Golden Olympics, sponsored by Virginia R~creation and Park Society, Blu~ Cross and Blu~ Shield of Virginia, the Bank of Virginia, and the Depar~ent for the Aging proclaims th, life, the vigor and the joy of %h~ y~ars after 55; and ~E~AS~ the ~nior citizen~ of Chesterfield Co~nty~ through the Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Department, will participate in the Virginia Golden Ol~pios; and WHEREAS~ the Governor of the Go~onwealth of Virginia has of Chesterfield County hereby proclass May 29 ~ June 1, 1986 Chesterfield County "Golden 01~pic Days" iA tribute to our golden citizens tO become involved in ~his event. Mr, Dodd pre~ented ~r. and ~s. Goode with the executed resolution. M~. and Mrs. Goode ~xpressed appreciation fo~ this reCOgnition and accepted the r~solution on behalf Of Virginia's Ol~pian~. 12. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS O~ UNSChEDULeD HATTERS OR CLAIMS Mr. Hedrick stated there were no hearings of citizens scheduled at this time. ~r. Hedrick ~tated there ~ere no deferred items scheduled for 86-321 discussion at this time. 14. PUBLIC ~EA~INGS 14.A. PUBLIC BEARING TO ADOPT AN ORDI~ANC~ PR©H~EIT~N$ THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN PUBLIC Mr. Med~iek ~tated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to ~oasidsr an Ordinance prohibiting the con~umptio~ of alCohOlic beverage~ in public. Mr. Patterson explained the purpose of the public hearing is te adopt an ordinance prohibiting the consumption of alcoholic beverages in County parks. He stated e£fective 3uly 1, 19S6, the Alcehol Beverage Control Board [ABC Board) will have authority to and organizations to consume alcoholic beverages in County parka. Ordinance~ it would not p~eamp% the ne~ legislation and groups with a banquet er special events permit ~ay consume alcoholic beverages in the parka if they have obtained ps,lesion from the County tO USe the park. He stated that, at the Board's request, subsection (c} has be~n added to th~ p~opoued Ordinance whi=h would, if adopff~d, d~ny f~ervation of a County par~ facility to any group which intends to consume alcoholic beverages. Be s~ated it would be hi~ advice to the ~oard that this subsection (c) would be an unenforceabl~ and invalid condiaion to the ordinance. ~r. Daniel inquired, if the Ordinance w~rs adop=ed, would the Police hav~ the authority to stop the consumption of alcoholic ~everagns in County parks. ~r. ~atterson stated he felt efforts to prosecute would be unsuccessful. Mr. Daniel inquired if the event could be shut down until a judgment could be obtained. Mr. Patterson stated such action could be accomplished. In respen~e tea question by Mr. ~ayes, Mr. Patterson stated the administrative procedure established requires people to reserve park facilities through the County Parks and Recreation Department. Ee state~ that he felt the County could not legally deny a person the reserving Of a County park iecility where alcoholic beverages were tn be consumed. Mr. Appleqate inquired, if a permit to reserve a park facility were requested add i~ued by the County, th~n ~he Vizginia A~C Beard could issue a banquet license and the County would have no control over the ~att~r. Mr. Patterson stated he understands that the Uirqinia ABC Beard Dr~ently ha~ a policy whereby a special events license will not be issued if the County does not approve of the use. ~r. Daniel stated if the County does not issue the permit, or issues ~he permit with qualifications, then =here is no reason for anyone to go to th~ ABC Board. He ~tated he understood that l) the County can dnv~t0p a sontract for p%f~lio us~, 2) ~he County can write anything in that contract that it wishes with reqard to the consumption of alcoholic beverages and the applicant can agree to it or it will not be issued, ~} ~he County has the prerogative~ if the contract is violated~ to class down the event, and 4) the only me,iud for the County to be proven wronq is ~hrough jurisprudence. ~e stated the County can d~valo a contract, insert clauses es policy procedures and let the courts decide when ~he issue is challenged. Mr. Maye~ stated he felt the Board should state its position regardless of State law a~ h~ did not believ~ any men~r of the Board could approve consumption of alcohol in the parks, which are f~mily oriented. ~ro Dedd road a letter he had forwarded to ~r. David Shebe, Chairman of %he klcohol ~verag~ Control Board, regardin~ the Co~nty'~ position on the issue. (A copy of which is fined with understand that the Board*s position on this issue is ~nanimo~s, however, thc item is before the Board for public co~m~ent. Mr. Leo Myers stated he had discussed this issue with Senator Russell on one occasion but did not agree with hi~ interpretation of the law. He stated he had been on th~ Board of Supervisors at the time the park system began and he was opposed to the Dill ~hich allows ~onsU~ptien of alcoholic beverage~ in County park~. He stated he felt th~ law ~hould b~ repeale~ iu January, 1987, by the General Assembly. ~e stated he felt it wreng that the Beard wa~ not mad~ aware of this change ~nd ~ilure to notify ~he ~oard was in essence taking local control ont of the law. He stated the Board, which was the last step in local control, was bypassed and that mnch action is a serious matter and should not be tak%n lightly. Mr. ~yers related other problems wi~h the manner in which the AB~ Board had handled previous situations and stated~ if the legislation remained as law, the A~C Eoard would not be Ms. Ann~ Adklns stat~ she lives within two miles of Rockwood Senior Citizen groups enjoy walking through the park, watching parks it would entice young people to drink, would r~lt ~n safety hazards nO% only ~o th~ inoiviOuals themselves but also facilities are family oriented and should r~main that way and fund raising groups can u~ilize o~her locations if they wimh ~s. Doris Dieterick st=tu~ she is very grateful for the beautiful parks in Chesterfield County. she sta~ed she support~ Mrs. Girone's proposal and is very upset that the idea of alcoholic beverages in public parks wilt be purmittud. She stated the approval of senauor Russell's bill wilt negatively affect the f~ily oriented ~eoreational opportuniti~ in th~ County parks and will affec~ the quali~y of the progr~s and the ~afety of th~ pa~ticipan%~. She ~tated; a~ a fo~r member of problems involved with proper waste disposal which will be disregarded. R~verend Charle~ De,ch, representing the T~mple Baptist Church me~ership, spoke in opposition %o Senate Bill 3~2. He stated and supports their views and they, in turn, support the Board's position On this issue. ~r. charles Watson stated he did not object %o the consumption of alcoholic beverages, however, he did feel the County parks were inappropriate plac~ for the cons~ption of such beverages. stated Senator Russell had not contacted anyone in gover~ent re~arding ~is issue prior to its submission Co the General Asse~ly and did not identify the groups or individuals requesting the introduction of the bill. He stated Senator Russell had indicated he had introduced Senate Bill 352 to clarify the law~ h~ever, prior to July 1, 1986~ cOnSumption of alcoholic beverages in public p!ace~ was prohibited. He that law made it illegal to cons~e alcoholic beverages in a public place, which included a park; howavmx, ~ec%iv~ July 1, 19~6, it will be legal to do so. He stated, in his letter to more difficult %o understand thslr interpretations on issue~. reviewed other point~ in Senator Russell's letter to Mr. Dodd would determine what groups/or~anization~ would b~ qualified to issue suck licenses or p~rmits for alcohol consumption. He stated Senator Ru~ell'~ bill did not clarify the issue and r~peal of the law is a must. ~e also added that, rather than repeal the law, perhap~ the amendment should mtat~ that ~eoisiens on thi~ i~sue would be left up to local option, es are the Sunday closing laws. He added that the local governing body ~ces pass laws without allowing citizen input through the public h~aring proce~ and h~ f~lt th~ $%at~ r~presentatives should he agreed with Mr. Daniel'~ statement that the County~ when which prohibit drinking. ~e stated people can waive rights. Senator Robert Russell stated he had previously explained that he that. He stated tbs issue it clarified was tha~, under ~he thim practice, the person who had the permit to conduct the even~ is not liable for public drinking and the matter tha~ was a group and they obtain a banquet license tc con~uct their event 1, 1986. ~e re~errad to information given previously everyone understood its purpose and what it was intunded to accomplish. ~e further mede the followin~ "Mr. Chairman, membsrs oi the Board, thank you for the Opportunity to speak with you this evening. I am hack again to propoeed ordinance on tonight's agenda, I supplied you sufficien~ assurance that my SS 352 ~i~ nothing ~o change your present local; Boa/d. TO prevent the use of any park facilities by a group what it has always done. Do not iesue a permit to a group without stipulating that alcoholic b~v~ra~$ are not permitted. While this was the concern o~iglna~ly voiced by the apon~or of beverages at a fuDctiou held in on~ of our park pavillon~ - a park, by a recognized local group of responsible citimens. The alcoholic beverages by individuals and groups using park facilities at any time. The Gazette quotes chairman Dodd on May 1, 1986, "All you have %0 do is look a: =he ~rash receptacles, 86-324 they're full of beer bottles~. He was ~eferri~g to the r~ceptaelos in cur parks. however, there are ~ome problems with the approach which need to he ~iscusssd. The citizens c£ Chesterfield deserve to know just what this ordinance will and will not accomplish, As I have stated and verified for you, tho present state policy on the issuance of banquet licenses will not change after July 1. ~ have given you writteD conf~rmation of that fact from ~he Aec and the ABC ~oard, stating your policy on banquet licenses, is ~15.1-31(a), your wording is a close copy of the existing state law, ~-7~(a), which has been in force and available for your use (1) Your proposed §lS.1-31(a) says: "It shall be unlawful ~aisting virginia law ~4-75(a) already provides: "If uny person shall taka a drink of alcoholic beverageu o shall tender a drink thereof to another, whether guilty of a cia,s 4 misdemeanor." The only difference your ordinance provides is the fact that it The penalty in each case ia the same, a f~na cf up to $100.00. problem of public Orinking in our parks? According to the Chesterliuld General District Court records, d~ring 1985, over ~00 person~ were charged aD~ trie~ ~or beiDg drunk in public, In thi~ Sa~e year, only 11 were charged and tried for public drinking. That's according to the Clerk of tho According to the County ~arks and Recreation Department, in 1985 into o~r parks. That's not 1,000,000 different Derwent, but Even if all 11 per~ons charged with public drinking in 1985 had ~n caught in our parks, that figure is minuscule compared to the 1,000,0O0 estimated visits. This low rate of arras= and conviction is not because our police certainly not because some of the guys are not enjoying a "cool ordinance, is not easily enforced, t submit that is why only 11 judges about the problem of enforcing this law. The consensus is the police must actually see the person drinking the beverage. Possession of the beverage is not a violation of the law. It appears that to enforce either the existing law, or this proposed ordinanee~ may require your placing undercover police in our parks to nab otherwise law-abidin~ taxpayers - end voters. AS Chief Pittman related to met when the perpetrators see a police oar coming, the bee~ is put away, hence no chance for a conviction exists. The question then ix: Ale you willing to enforc~ this ordinance knowing the history of enforcement on the very same state law? In the oft-used phrase of the sponsor of this erdinanee~ "BOw much government do you want and bow much are you willing to pay for?" I question whether Chesterfield citizens are ready to pay for the enforcement of this e~dinanee, placing undercover police in the parks to catch beer drinking ball players, instea~ of patrolling our neighborhoods at night ~nd working to keep drugs out of our schools. If you ar~ not able or willing to enforce this, why should it be enacted? already show this approach will not produce results. If you agree cha~ the indiscriminate consumption cf alcohol in our parks is a problem, then l~t m~ suggest you appoint instead, a eer~ittee o~ Doar~ members to assess the magnitude cf this problem. Look at what you are willing to do to solv~ it. If necessary, ask us, your legislators, to introduce legislation next session to help you d~al mOr~ ~ffec%ively with this matter. I will be h~ppy to help you with this. Prankly, if this is such annual request to the legislative delays%ion? Why has this immense problem surfaced now2 Pardon me, if I say aqain, this whole matter ie "political grandstanding" by the sponsor. The question now becomes one of your either going along with this posturing as a defender of our parks or your analyzing the situation and doing something confidence in government. It is your choice to make. He stated he saw two groups of people - those concerned and honest citi~en~ and the dzalt "Girone" committee. Th~ citizens who Gnma here out cf genuine concern need to know you will do your homework and that you will hake steps to solve this problem. Those who came hers to participate in a Staged political Circus need to know tha~, Thank you fer your indulgence. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have." Mr. Dodd stated he appreciated Senator Russell's comments but indicated he felt his remarks about another Beard member inappropriate. There was no one else present to diecus~ the matter. Mr. Applegate stated he had voiced hie sentients previously r~garding approval of th~ re~olution an~ Ordinance. ~e added, the Boasd should Consider ~i$cussing with the County's delegatior rescinding this legislation in January, 1987. Mrs. Girone requested the County Attorney to read Senate Bill ~o!lows; "This section shall ~ot prevent any person from drinking alcoholic beverages or offering a drink thereof to another in any area approved by the Board (ABC Board) in any local public parks mt an event for which a banquet licens~ or mixed beverage special events license has been issued." Mrs. ~irone s~ate~ she f~lt ~he Bill spoke for itself an~ was liberal. She introduced a letter from Ms. Betty King which 86-326 contained three {3) petitions, wiqh thirty-one (31) signatures, ~UppOrtlng the proposed 0zdinanue against drinking in park~. She stated she feels everyone in the County understands the issue and wishes the County paz~s =o remain as family park~ She the parks were created for the children of this County and their £amillse an~ the ~oard is of the opinion that drinking in these areas is inappropriate. Mr. Mayas stated he did not feel that th~ position the Board must take really has anything to do with whether or not the Bill is appropriat~ or inappropriate. ~e $~ated tho Board's problem is drinking alcohol in the parks in Chesterfiel~ County. ~e stated beverages in County parks. Mr. Daniel stated he feels very strongly that tho County should policy, a waiver of constitutional and legislative rights az a privilege fo~ usin~ the public facilltle~. He ~tated i~ is ~til% person shall be allowed to re~rve any County p~rk facility wher~ ~tcehollc beverages will be consume~. Mr. todd sta~ad he i~ opposed to the consumption of alcohol and while the alcohol issue gets by without anyone mentioning how many people get killed b~cause of its influence. ~e inquired if non-alcoholic signs are 9o~ted at all County parks. ~r. r~spon~s~ ~hat ~uoh signs ~re pos=ed at all entrances to County program of ~ightening up %he problem it now has, even i~ that repealed as cf Canonry l, 1987, and perhaps Senator Russell coul~ this issue, whether the ~eard is right or wrong. There were approximately twenty-five (~5) persons present in favor o~ the proposed Ordinancu, adopte~ the following ordinance~ County: (1) ?h~t Chapter 15 of tbs COda Of the County of Chester- field, Virginia is amended and reenacted by adding the following gec. 15.1-31. Drinkinq alcoholic beverages, or tendering to another, in a county park. (a) It shall be unlawful ~or any person to tak~ a drink of an alcoholic beveraqe or sender a drink of such beverage to (b) Violation of this s~ction shall constitute a dollars (c) No person shall be allowed to reserve a county park 86-327 VARIOUS PARE SITES TO OP~R3kT~ FOOD CONCB$$IQN~ Mr. Redrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearin~ to consider the leases of real pro~e£Sy at the Bird Athletic Complex, Rttriok Park, Matoaca Fart and the Chesterfield Courthouse Complex to operate food concessions. There was no one present to discuss the mat~er. O~ motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by ~r. Ap~legate, th~ Board approved and a~thorized the county Administrator to sxecute ~easonal contra0ts with the ~ollowing o~ganizatio~s a= the indicated facilities from May 1, 1986 ho Sept~flber 1, 1986 for Bird Athletic Complex Chesterfield Courthouse Ettrick Park Vote: Unanimous Chesterfield Girls Sof~ba%l Assoc Chsstar£ield ~aseball Clube, Ettriek Youth ~ports Assoc, Matoaca Athletic Association ~4,C. PUBLIC UEARING TO COMSID~R TER ~ROM~ITION OF AbTY TRUCE OR TRUCK AND 'TPL%iLER OR SEMI-TRAILER COMBINATION~ EXCEPT A RICK-UP OR RAN~L TRUCE PROM USING NORMANDALE AVENUE BETWEEN CMEeTER ROAD AND PERRYMONT ROAD Mr. ~edrick stated this date and time had been advertised for public hearing to consider the prohibition of through truck traffic on Normandale Avenue. Mr, John ~ocracken was present to answe~ any questions. contacted by oitizens who are concerned ~ith this traffic On ~oti0n of Mr. Dcdd~ seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board here~y re~uested ~he Virginia Department o~ Highways and Transportation to prohibit any truck or truck and trailer or semi-~railer eombinatien~ ~xcept a pick-up or panel trnck frc~ using Normandale Avenue (Route 1~24) between Chester Road {Po~te an~ P~rryme~t Read (Route 1625). Tbs alt~rnate route for through truck traffic would he Chester Road (Route 1~5) eO D~rry~ont Road 14.D. PUBLIC BEARING TO CONSIDER TME PROEIS!TION OP ANY TRUC~ OR TRUCK AND TRAILER OR SP~I-TRAILBR COMBINATION~ EXCEPT A PICK-UP OR PANEL TRUCK FROM USING BE~DG~WQOD RO~ FROM HULL STREET ROAD TO T~LVE OAKS ROAD AND ~WRLVE OAKS ROAB FROM DRIDGEWQQD ROAD TO NORTE BAILEY BRIDGE RO~J~ Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been a~vertised for a public hearing t0 e0u$id~r the prohibition of through truck traffic from using Bridgewood Road and Twelve Oaks Re~d. Mr. John MsCraeken was present ~o answer any questions. Thsre was ne oas 9resent to discuss the matter. 8~-328 lv~. Applegate stated this issue involves both Clever ~ill and Matoaca Districts and he had be~n contacted rsgardin~ this issue with particular concern expressed relative to the Apac Quarry and Powhatan Ruady-Mi× from the r~idents of Glen Tara. Be stated he and ~r. Mayea agree that the situation ne~ds tc be improved. On motion o~ Mr. Appleqate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the ~oard r~quested the Virginia Department of Hiqhways and Transportation to prohibit any truck or truck and trailer or semi-trailer combination, except a pick-up or panel truck from using 3123~ from Bridg~wcod Road, Route 907, to North Bailey Bridge Road, Route 6~1. The alternate route for through truck traffic would b~ ~ull Street Road, Rout~ 360, to North ~ailey Bridqe Road, Route 651. Vote: Unanimou~ EXISTING RU?FIN MILL ROAD AR~A SUBDIVISION AND area subdivision and ~evelopmenk ~e~er district. an Ordinance establishing ~he Ruffin ~ill Road arms su~dlvi~ion and development dlstri~t. He ~tated taxpayers, who own property applicable to the property in the District which ar~ no% paid by Sanuary 1, 1987, will be 9.1% per ann~; 2) the new District does not include and no charges will be made with respe:t to any proper~y bming taken for the wi~ening of Ruffin Mill ~oad under %he present highway project; 3) the County will acquire the slt~ in the ~harqe$ made against ~he property within the District ranginq from approxi~t~ly 7 to 9 percent. He stated total a~reage ~n the District is substantially unchanged but there were ~Ome revisions to the District lane. H~ stated ~he revised property is developed or subdivided and that the ehar~es mu~t ~hen be paid only on the acreage to b= d=velop~d and/or subdivided. ~e stated all the above s~arized revisions are ~pplication at this time, since a subsequent reco~endation by staZf will be forthcoming a~ a future meeting, 3) acquisition of proposed pump stations, since it is difficult to locat~ where easements are needed, and 4) changes in the assessment formula. Mr. John CogbiI1, r~prcsentlnq Fiorucci Foods, corm]ended the Board on a very enlightened approach to development in Chesterfield CouDty, whereby %his development is at no cost to the County, the cost is uh~red by the landownerz, provides revenue to the County at an increased property value and adds developer resources to sfimulate economic growth in the County. He stated, ~pecifically, ha had enjoyed working with the Utilities Department and the County Attcrney'~ office in developing a comprehensive plan for both the water and sewer districts. He stated Fioruesi Foods is concerned ~]oout its neighbors in the Dintriot whos~ property is not zoned M-I, as theirs is, and will be t~xed in terms of water and $~wer fees and will have no assurances of being abl~ to utilize the facilities. Ee stated by establishing the water and sewer di~trlcts, a light industry ar~a will be established and suggested it would he moot beneficial to other area landowners to have their land rezoned to the M-1 classification and remove the unoer=ainty of future re~onings. ~ sta~ed there ~ists SOme residential ~onlng in the area currently. ~e suggested that consideration be given to amending th~ zone to a~ additional acreage, primarily to the area south cf Ashten Creek and to the north of the existing water end sewer district. ~s also ~equested that ¢onsideratlon be given to charging simple interest rather than compounded interest. Mr. Oliver Rudy, representing Roslyn Farms, reiterated ~r. Co,bill's comm~nt~. ~e ~xprss'sed concerns relative to the 16 inch ~ater llne and who it would Serve, fac zoning which should ensure that the property will be an industrial area, the type interest to be charged should be epeci£1c, increased aesessment and nofificatlcn of prospective land buyers as to the status of liens agaln~t the property and subsequent releases of maid lien~ designation of easement arsa~, etc. There being no one else present to diSCuss the matter, ~r. Dedd closed the public hearing. Mr. Welohons stated the si×leon (16) i~ch water line is n=cessar in Order to provide the Fire Department with a water flow in the range of 2~500 gallons, in an indus=rial area, to provide adequate fire protection; howe~er, the line will eventually be extended. He stated a ~welve (12) inch line would not be reference to easements, it is ~i~icult to pinpoint e good pumping station site in ~he area of Roslyn Farms. ~e Stated he felt field and d~sign work will be necessary to locate the pump topography maps are not ~ufficient by which to design lin~$. In response to a question by F~r. Applegate relative to the financing OS the initial s~ages for utilities to the Fiorucei site, Mr. Wel~hOns stated ~he County COntributed approximately $263,260 ~or the sewer, with reimbursement provisions, and approximately $144,000 to $177,000 for the water. Mr. Applegate expressed concern relative to the intsres= issue. Mr. Creager stated the law permits the ~o~rd the discretion to impose interest up to the judgment rate of 12 percent per annum, which would be COmputed at the end Of each year and beccme~ Dart of the unpaid balance. ~s stated there is no provi~ion in this Ordinance for a penalty. He state~, with respect to the water iSSue, the taxpayer has the option to repay the balance over a period of ten (lO) year~ in twenty (20) installments, therefore, in this particular situation, there would be no penalty as long as the in~tallment~ are paid. ~ stated the interese rate Qf 9.1% is the rate the County is paylnq for the Utilitie~ funds on its bond issue, the proceeds of which ~ill be u~d to fund this ~6-330 Mr. E~dri¢~ stated rezoning the property to an M-1 tnt area. Mrs Applegate stated the County has made some commitment to develop the prnperty and would remind tho Board that a precedent is being set with respect to its action tonight. M~. Mayas Stated that Ae felt there should be a mechanism whereby people interested in purchasing property in this area could be notified if there are liens on th~ property. Mr. Creager stated that in the Water District, and the lie~s that arc impese~ to secure tho assessments of the water District, State ~fatute provides that those assessments a~e secured by the liens on the p~Op~rty. He stated the State ~tatuCe al~ provides that we will doeu-men~ an abstract to give people notice of these lions. He stated the State law providing for the Sewer district do~ net provide that there will be a llen ~pen the property. added that staff will work with the Clerk's 0ffic~ to give r~uord notice that, should they develep this property at some ~uture time, they will be required to pay this charge. Mr. Dodd stated he would like to receive comments cn the wate~ district prior to approving the Ordlne~ce en the sewer district. Mr. Patterson etahe~ both hearinq~ Could b~ held with two separat~ motions. PUBLIC HEARIN~ TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL ~KIeTING RUFFIN MILL ROAD AREA $PECIAL TAX 0K ~ATER DTeT~ICT~ A~D TO ESTABLISH A NEW RUF~IN MILL ROA~ APdA SUBDIVISION AMD DEVELO~T SEWER DISTRICT Mr, H~drick stated this date end time had ~een advertised for a public hearing to consider an Ordinance ~o repeal existing Ruffin Mill Road area special tax or a~essmen~ water district and to eetablish a new Ruffin Mill Road ar~a subdiviuion and sewer district. MS. Elizabeth Beckuner came forward %0 address the proposed Ordinance amendment. She stated she is the only residential owner in this District who owns le~ %hen four [4) acres and requested that the Board rea~sess the value of her property, eh~ state~ there are two good wells on her property and approval of this Ordinaries would provide her with a service she do~s net need. She stated, although the 50~ reduction in assessment Vdlue is applicable tu kef property, approval of this Ordinance will in,tease the valu~ of h~r property and w~ll subsequently caus~ her to eventually pay higher perSOnal property taxes. Mr. Welchons stated that th% Water DiEtrtct provides that those properties used for reeldential purposes be assessed through the assessment formula (straight p~r acreag~ basis with ~0% reductio£ for up to five acres of residential property and e~elusion of proper~y to be taken for read widening), ~herefor~, the asseSSment on this particular property would he 50% of $1~12~.69 or approximately At chis point, Mr. Daniel disclosed to the Board =hat he j~st r~alized that Qne of the property o~ners affected by ~his Ordinance had been a previo~S employee of his, declared a potential eonfliot of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive ConfliCt of Interest Act and a~eus~d himself from the meeting. Mr. Dodd inquired if anything could be done to exempt residential property, Mr. Hedriek s~ated the County could not do anything legally to maes an adjustment or waive the requirement, other than allowing the 50% reduction in the assessment payment, He stated there is potsnt~ally a long term gain which provides for the increased value of the property affected and improved fire protection for the area which should result in a reduction in firs and many instances where homes that have working wells and septic tanks have tailed and approval of this Ordinance will eliminate the pot~ntial for such e×tan$1ons cf public facilities in the Mr. Dodd made a motion to change the interest to 8%, rezoninq to M-1 and the lines remaining in place. Hs stated w~ need to entice economic dsvelo~ent to tho Co~nty. Mrs. Girene seconded With respect to th~ W~t~r District Ordinance, l~lr, Mayes skated h~ felt %he county needed a mechanism whereby the County could be developed; however, he expressed concern that three families in this area will be adversely affected by this ordinance. He stated he felt consideration should be given to th~ plight ef these families with less than 4 acrea of land and ~c~i~ly make Special dispensation for these families wherein they would pay for the facilities in the event the property is rezoned or sold in the future. ~s. Girone stated by adoptinq this Ordinance the County will be enhancing the value of t~ese residents' property and would not be p~nalizing t_hem. She stated that She had initially been of the opinion that the County should reson~ this land and could say it wa2 being done because the land was in a speuial district; however, if that iz the reason given for rescuing th~ property, ~hen the County must consider the Route 147/Routs 6~ Special District, which is £or drainage, and give sp~clal consldera~ion to that area where individual property owner~ have been required tO request zoning c.f their property, gha stated the County created that District and everyone, as they developed, has to pay into the Dis~rlot an~ has TO submit their own zoning application. She questioned if it would be proper for the ~oard to rezone all the property in question on its OWn initiativ~ when it is not doing the sa~e in other Special Districts and whether or net thcs% people should he required to do it over a e~ftain period of Mr. Applegate state~ he understeod the County is paying 9.I% for the bond money and the Ordinance, as amen4ed by ~r. Dodd, would require only 8% interes~ be returned on the inves~ent. stated he did not feel such action wa~ a good businuss decision end that the rate should be 9.1%. Mr. Dedd inOicated that this is not aocnunting for that which already been invested by Fi~rucci. ~r. Dodd stated the 147 District is ba=ically commercially developed property, ~e ~tate6 nndevelop~d land which if ne~ developed es One tract will be developed in a piecemeal fashion and the County will not achieve the highest and best use of the land. Mr. Dodd stated the County needs areas that are zoned, that have utili%iee~ sto.~ it the ~conomic development that is desired for tSe County is to be brought in. Mrs. Girone stated she was concerned about the precedent such action wo~l~ set as ethers will request s%eh considerations. inquired if th~ zoning issue could be brought back ah a future time for discussion and action be taken un the other issue~ at thi~ time. Mr, Do~d stated he ~re~erred the zoning issue be handled tonight but would exclude it from ~e motion. Mrs. Gi~One and Mr. ~ayeE did not agree that the interest rate should ~e below the rate the County is paylag on the bund~. simple interest rate on the unpai~ balance. 86-332 On motion of Mr. Dcdd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Eoard adopted the following Ordinanse~ A~ 0~DINA~CE TO ESTABLIS~ TH~ RUFFIN MILL ROAD AREA SUBDIVISIO~ A~D DEVELOPMENT SEWER DISTRICT, TO CONSTRUCT CERTAIN SEWER FACILITIES T~EREIN~ AND TO CERTAIN FEES OR T~Q~ES WIT~ RESPECT TO SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT 0F PROPERTY LOCATED THEREIN BY REPEALING ARTICLE VII, C~L%PTER 20, AND BY ENACTING ARTICLE VIII, CHAPTER 20 E~ IT O~DAINED b~ the Boar~ Of Su~erviscr~ of Chesterfield (1) That the Cod~ of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, ~e amended and reenacted b~ repealing Article VII, Chapter 20 and by a~ding to Chapter 20 a new article, Article VII~, as follows: Article VIII. R~ffin Mill Road Area ~ubdlvi~lon and Development Sewer District Section 20-~.64. Definitions. In the Context of this Article, ~he ~efinitions contained in, this aeotion shall ba observed and applied, ~ee~ when the context clearly indicates D£__~trict. "District" meaas =he "Ruffin Mill Road Area Subdivision and Dev~Iopment Eewer District. Development. "Development" means a tract of land developed or to be developed as a unit under single ownership or unified control which ia to be u~ed for any busineD~ or industrial p~rpose or is to contain thre~ Or more residential dwelling units. The term "development" shall net be construed to includ~ any property which will be principally devoted to agrleultural production. Map of the District. "~ap of the DiStrict" msanm the map 8ntitled "Ruffin Mill Read Area subdivision and Development sew~ District" prepared by R. Stuart Royer & Associatem~ Inc., Cons~iting Engineers, Riohmond, Virginia dated Janual-y 20, 1986, and r~vised January 27 and ~pril 8, 1986, a copy of which is on Tile with ehe Director of Utilities. S~wer Facilities. "Sewer Facilities" mean~ the sewer facili=iee constructed pursuant to Suction 20-1.67. Subdivision. "Subdivision" shall have the meaDing to %hat ter~ in Section 18-2 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended. Section 20-1.65. ~stabli$~u~ent of Ruffin Mill Road Area Subdivision and Develo~e~t Sewer District. ~ursuant to Section 15.1-~66(A} (j) of the Code O£ Virginia, Ruffin Mill Road Area Subdivision and D~velopment Sewer District.' The Di~trict shall be and the ~a~e is hereby fixed within th~ boundaries depicted on the Map of th= District. Seution 20-1.66. Establish~en~ o~ General Sewer Improvem~f Program for Ruffi~ Mill Road Area subdivision and Develop~e~ Sewer District. ' There is hereby established a general ~w~ improvement progra~ for the District, which program is set forth in the "General Sewer Improvement Program for the Ruffin Kill Road Area," dated January 20~ 19~6 and revised April ~, 1956, and prepared by R. Stuart Royer & A~s0ciates~ inc., Rich~ond, Virginia, a cody of which is on file with the Utilities So__chics 20-1.67. Construction of Certain Sewer Fasilities within the District. The Utilities Department shall construct in and adjacent to the District a gravity sewur line of varying diameters and appurtenant facilities as depicted in Area A of the Map of the District. A% such time aa the Utilities Department epprove~ plane for the construetlon of the improvements planned for Area B or C under tau General Sewer Improvement Program 9or the Ruffle Mill Road A~a, the County shall acquire the pump station site in %h~ axes and easements for the force main from the pump station site in such area to the main line. Section 20-I.6~. Fees or Char~es Upon Subdividers Or Developers of Propert~ Located Within ~he District. (a) The subdivider or ~eveloper of property located within building permit for %h~ construction of any building or struetur~ to be loQa~ud on his property which is to h~ the subject o~ development o~ subdivision, pay or provide for the payment of a sh~re Of the COst of constr~chion of the Sewer Facilities. The share of a subdivider or developer ~ith respect tc property within Ar~a A of the District whir5 is to he thc subject c~ development or ~ubdlvisios shall be in the same pro~ortio~ to 43.~ of the ,cost of construction of the Sower Facilities aa the total acreage in Area A of the District. The share of a Subdivider or ~eveIopsr with respect to proper~y within ~.r=a whio~ is to be subject of development Or s~bdivision shall be in the same proportion tn 32.7% Of the cost of construction OX tke Sewer Facilities as the asreage contained in his ~Ubdivisien or development hears to the total acreage in Area B of the District. The =hare of a Subdivider or d~veloper with respect to property within Arms C of {~e District which is to be the subject o~ development er subdivision shall he in the same proportion to ] 23.~% of khe cost of COnstruction of the sewer ~aci~ities am the acreage contained in his subdivision or development b~ar$ ~o the total acreage ~n Area C of the District, EacA such payment receive? shall be expended only for the construction of the Facilities. (bl In any case whmr~ a payment hy the subdivider or developer is required prier to cenetruction of the g~wer Facilities pursuant to Smction 20-1.67, the a~ount paid by the subdivider or aeveloper shall be hold in an in~erest bearing account for the benefit of the subdivider or developer until expende~ or, in lieu of such payment, the Board of Supervisors may provide for the posting of a personal, corporate or property bond, cash e~c~ow oI other method of performance satisfactory to it conditiened on payment at commencement o£ ~uch (e) Any subdivider or developer of property located within the Districf who p~ys a share of the cost of construction of the Sewer ~ucilltlec after January 1, 1987, Shall pay s~ch share uf the cost of oonstzuctlon of the Sewer Facilities ~ogmth~r with simple interest on the unpaid principal balance ef such share from January l, 1987 until paid~ which inter~t ~hall b~ computed at the rate of 9.1 percent per annum. Ayes= NLT. Dedd, Mr. Applsqa~e, ~rc. Girone and Mr. Mayas. Absent; Mr. Daniel. On motion of ~r. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayer, the Board adopted the folluwing Ordinance: 86-334 ENACTING ARTICLE iX, CBAPTEA 20 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of ChesterfieLd County: (1) That the Code of the County ef Chesterfiold~ 1978, as See%ion 20-1.68. Definitions. In the oo~t~t of this ~istric%. "District" moans the "Ruffin ~ill Road Area Map of the District. "Map of %he District" moans the m~p entitled "Ruffi~ Mill Road Aras Spatial Tax or k~e~$- iates, !n~., Consulting Engineers, Richmond, Vlrgini~ dated Januar~ 20, 1986, and :evised April s, 1986, which map is Section 20-1.69. ~s%ablisha~ent of Ruffin Mill Road fixed within the boundaries deDiotad on the Map of the Distriot. Facilities ih an~ A~jeoant to tho District. adjacent to the District th~ wa~er lin~ and aDpurtenant Sectiun 20-1.71. Taxes or Assessments upon owners of Property Located Within ~he District. The cost of COns- located within the District shall ba apportioned amon~ the District which is owned by the abutting property owner bears 20-1.71, the acreage owned by ~n abutain~ property owner ~hall be deeme~ not to include any acreage to b~ acquirO~ for the widening Or improvement e~ Ruffin Mill Road p~Suant to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportatie~ Project No, O746-02Q-2US, ~-501, D-672, The amount finally the water lin~ and appur~n~n~ facilities located within the residential property. Th~ owner of property which a~uts the 86-335 proof establishing to the Director's satisfaction that the property, at thc time of enactment of this Article IX and at the time application is made for the reduced assessment, contained and contains a residence and was and is actually used for residential purposes, shall be entitled to a 50% reduction in the assessment of not more than five acres of such property. Application for such a reduced assessmenb must be made within six months of enactment cf this Article Section 20-1.73. Installment payment of assessments. Any person against whom an assessment provided for in this Article IX has boon finally made shall pay the full amount of an assessment provided for in this Article IX on the due date of the first ta× bill on whieh such assessment is shown. In no event, however, shall any part of the assessment be due prior to the completion o~ the waterline and appurtenant facilities constructed pursuant to this Article IX. As an alternative to payment as provided abover a porscn against whom an assessment provided for in this Article IX has been made may pay such assessment in twenty equal semi-annual installments over a period of 10 years, together with simple interest on the unpaid principal balance at the rate of 9.1 percent per annum. The first of such installments shall be due on and interest on the unpaid principal balance of the assessment shall aecz-ue from the date on whieh the full amount of the asseSSment would otherwise have been due as provided above. Section 20-1.74. Release of property. Any person against whom an assessment provided for in this Article IX has been made may obtain a full release, a partial release, or partial releases of any lien imposed upon his property with respect to such assessment. The amount of acreage released shall be a percentage of the total acreage subject to the lien of the assessment, which percentage shall not exceed the percentage of the principal amount of the total assessment which has already ~een paid. A release available under this section shall be granted within 30 days after written application for such release is made to the Director of Utilities. After the Director of Utilities has determined the amount of acreage, if any, which the applicant is entitled to have released, the applicant may designate an area Or areas of his property, containing that amount of acreage, bo which the release shall apply. Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Appleqate, Mr. ~ayes and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Daniel. Mr. Daniel returned to the meeting. 15. NEW BUSINESS 15.A. ACCEPTANC~ AND APPROPRIATIO~ OF FUNDS FOR PLAYGROUND EQUIPF~NT A~ WATKINS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded hy Mr. Applegate, the ~oard recommended acceptance of $3,000 from the Watkins Elementary School PTA and appropriated $5,000 from the Midlothlan District 3¢ Road Funds to be used to purchase play,round equipment and fencing for Watkins Elementary School. Vote: Unanimous It was generally agreed that the Board would recess £o~ five minutes. Reconvening: 86-336 Mrs. Girone introduced Ms. Dana Ritchie, Vice President of the Watkins Elementary PTA, who was in attendance to present a check of $3,000 to the County to be applied to the playground equipment project. MS. Ritchie stated the Watkins Elementary School and PTA are very appreciative of the County support to fund the remainder of the equipment project. She then presented Mrs. Girone with a check in the amount of $3,000 for the project. 15.B. REFUI~DING OF 1982 SCHOOL D/~D COBNTy BOND ISSUE Mr. Lane R~usey stated staff is recommending that the County refinance the 1982 General Obligation Bonds (schools, landfill and fire station) to reduce debt service costs from an interest rate of over 10% tO 6.5% to 7%, which would save the County over $100,000 per year through 2003. Mr. Daniel inquired if the Route 288 Bonds could be sold at this time. Mr. Ramsey stated staff plans to sell 288 bonds in July, as indications are the rates will still be favorable. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved the underwriters of Wheat First Securities as senior manager and Craigie, Incorporated as co-manager, for refunding of the 1982 School and County Bond Issue and adopted the following resolution: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES OF 1986, OF TEE COUNTY OF CMESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, FOR THE PURPOSE DP REFUI~DING IN ADVANCE OF ~LATURITY A PORTION DP THE COUNTY'S PUBLIC IMPROREMENT BONDS, SERIES OF 1982 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA: SECTION 1. Findin~e and Determinations. (a) Pursuant to Chapter 5 of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amende( (th~ same being the Public Final'ce Act), an election duly called and held in the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "County"), on November 3, 1981 and Orders of the Circuit Court of the Count dated December 30, 1981, and pursuant to resolutions adopted by this Board On April 14, 1982 and May 12, 1982, respectively, there were authorized to be issued, sold and delivered the County's $22,500,000 principal ~oun~ of Public Improvement Bonds, Series of 1982, dated June 15, 1982 and maturing in the principal amount of $1,125,000 on June 15 in each of the years 1984 to 2003, both inclusive (the "Series of 1982 Bonds"). (b) Pursuant to Article 4 of the Public Finance Act (Sections 15.1-192 through 15.1-198, both inclusive), the County is authorized to issue refunding bonds, subject to the approval of the State Council on Local Debt, to refund any or all of its bonds in advance of their stated maturities. (o) Subject to the approval of the State Council on Local Debt, this Board deems it advisable and in the best interest of the County tO authorize and provide for the issuance, sale and delivery pursuant to such Article 4 of an issue of general obligation Public Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series of 1986, for the purpose of refunding in advance of their stated matu- rities the County's Series of 1982 Bond~ maturing on June 15 in each of the years 1986 and 1993 to 2003, both inclusive, which Series of 19S2 Bonds are outstanding on the date of adoption of this resolution in th~ principal amount of $13,500,000. SECTION 2. Authorization of Bonds. For the purpose of refunding in advance of their stated maturities the County's Public Improvement Bonds, Series of 1982, dated June 15, 1982 and maturing in the principal amount of $1,125,000 on June 15 in each of the years 1986 and 2993 to 2003, both inclusive, there are hereby authorized to he issued, sold and delivered an issue of 86-337 general obligation bonds of the County to be designated and known as "Public Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series of 1986" (heroin- after referred to as the "Bonds"). ~he Bonds shall be dated as of June 1, 1986; shall be numbered from No. R-1 upwards in order of issuance; shall be issued in fully registered form in the de- nominations of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof; shall bear interest payable on December 15, 1986 and semiannually on each June 15 and December 15 thereafter at such rate or rates per annu~ as shall be determined by subsequent resolution of this Board; and shall mature serially on June 15 in each of the years 1987 to 2003, both inclusive, in such amounts as shall be determined by subsequent resolution of this Board. SECTION 3. A~]~ointment of Registrar; Payment of Bonds; Books of ~egistry; Exchanges and Transfers of Bonds. (a) Appointment of Registrar. Bank of Virginia Trust Company and its principal corporate trust office in tho City of Ricbduond, virginia, is hereby appointed Registrar for the Bonds (hereinafter referred to as the "Registrar"). (b) Payment of Bonds. (i) The interest On the Bonds shall be payable by check or draft mailed by the Registrar to the registered owners of the Bonds at their addresses as the same appear on the hooks of registry as of the first day of each calendar month in which such interest is payable. (ii) The principal of and premium, if any, on the Bonds shall be payable at the principal corporate trust office of the Registrar, in the City of Richmond, Virginia. (iii) The principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be payable in such coin or currency of the United States of America as at the respective dates of payment is legal tender for public and private debts. (c) Books of Registry; Exchanges and Transfers of Bonds. (i) At all times during which any Bond remains outstanding and unpaid, the Registrar shall keep or cause to be kept at its principal corporate trust office in the City of Richmond, Virginia, books of registry for the registrationr exchange and transfer of the Bonds. Upon presentation at the principal corporate trust office of the Registrar for such purpose, the Registrar, under such reasonable regulations as it may prescribe shall register, exchange, transfer, or cause to be registered, exchanged or transferred, on the books of registry tho Bonds as horoln set forth. (ii) Any Bond may bo exchanged at the principal corporate trust office of the Registrar for a like aggregate principal amount of such Bonds in other authorized principal amounts of th same interest ra~e and maturity. (iii) Any bond may, in accordance with its terms, be trans- ferred upon the books of registry by the person in whose name it is registered, in person or by his duly authorized agent, upon surrender of such Bond to the Registrar for cancellation, accom- panied by a written instrument of transfer duly executed by the registered owner in person or his duly authorized agent, in form satisfactory to the Registrar. (iv) All transfers or exchanges pursuant to this Section 3(c) shall be made without expense to the holder of such Bonds, except as otherwise herein provided, and except that the Regis- trar shall require tho payment by the holder of the Bond request- ing such transfer Or exchange of any tax or other governmental charges required to be paid with r~spect to such transfer or exchange. All Bonds surrendered pursuant to this Section 3(c) shall be cancelled. SECTIO~ 4. .Redemption of Bonds. (a) Provisions for Redemption. The Bonds shall be subject 86-338 to redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated maturities, upon such terms and conditions as shall be provided by subsequent resolution of this Board. In the event less than all cf the Bonds of a particular maturity are called for redemp- tion, the particular Bonds of such maturity or portions thereof in installments of $.5,000 to be redeemsd shall be aelected by the Registrar by let. (b) Notice of Redemption. Notice of any such redemption shall be mailed not less than thirty (30) days prior tO the date fixed for redemption by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the registered owner of the Bonds to be redeemed at such address as it appears on the books of registry kept by the Registrar for the Bonds as ef the close of business on the forty-fifth (45th) day preceding the date fixed for redemption. Such notice shall specify thc date, numbers and maturities of the Bonds to be redeemed, the date and place fixed for their redemption and the premium, if any, payable upon such redemption, and if less than the entire principal a~ount of any Bonds is to be redeemed, that such Bond must be surrendered in exchange for the principal amount thereof to be redeemed and the ismuance of a new Bond equalling in principal amount that portion of the principal amount thereof not redeemed, and shall also state that upon the date fixed for redemption there shall b~come due and payable upon each Bond called for redemption the principal amount thereof and redemption premium, if any, thereon, together with the interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for redemption, and that from and after such date interest thereon shall cease to accrue. (c) Effect of Redemption. ~rnen notice of redemption of any Bonds shall have been given as herelnabove set forth, such Bonds shall become due and payable on the date se ~pecified for their redemption at a price equal to the principal ~mount thereof and redemption premium, if any, thereon together with the interest accrued thereon to such date. Whenever pa!rment of such redemp- tion price shall have been duly made or provided for, interest on the Bonds so called for redemption shall cease to accrue from and after the date so specified for their rsdemption. Ail redeemed Bonds shall be cancelled and not reissued. SECTION 5. Execution and Authentication of Bonds; CUSIP Identification Number~. (a) Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be executed in the name of the County by the manual or facsimile signatures of the Chairman and the Clerk of this Board, and the corporate seal of this Board shall be impressed, or a facsimile thereof printed, on the Bonds. (b) Authentication of Bonds. The County Administrator ~hall direct the Regfstrar to authenticate the Bonds and no Bonds shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose unless and until the certificate of authentication endorsed on such Bond shall have been manually executed by an authorized signator of the Regis- trar. Upon the authentication o~ any Bond the registrar shall insert in the certificate of authentication the date as of which such Bond is authenticated as follows: (i) if the bond is authenticated prior to the first interest payment date, the certificate ~hall be dated as of the date of the initial issuance and delivery of the Bonds; (ii) if the BOnd is authenticated upon an interest payment date the certificate shall be dated as of such interest payment date; (iii) if the Bond is authenticated on or after the first day of a calendar month in which there is an interest payment date and prior to such interest payment date, the certificate shall be dated a~ of such interest payment date; and (iv} in all other instances the certificate shall be dated as of the actual date upon which the Bond is authenticated. The execution and authentication of the Bonds in the manner above forth is adopted as a due and sufficient authentication of the Bonds. 86-339 (c) CUSIP Identification Numbers. CUSI~ identification numbers may be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print any such number on any Bonds, nor any error or omission with respect thereto, shall constitute cause for failure or refusal by the successful bidder for the Bonds to accept delivery of and pay for the Bonds in accordance with the terms of its proposal to purchase the Bonds. No such number shall constitute or be deemed to be a part of any Bond or a part of the contract evidenced thereby and no liability shall attach to the County or any of its officer~ or agents because of or on account of any such number or any use made thereof. SECTZON 6. ArbitraGe Bond Provision. The County shall make no use of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds which would cause the Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" under Section 103(e) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and the County shall comply with the applicable regulations of the Internal Revenue Service adopted under such Section 103(c) so long as any Bond is outstanding. SECTION 7. Source~ of Payment of Bonds. The full faith and credit of the County shall be and is hereby irrevocably pledged to the punctual payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds as the same become due. There shall be levied and collect- ed annually, at the Same time and in the same manner as other taxes are assessed, levied and collected, ad valorem taxes upon all property subject to taxation by the County, without limita- tion as to rate or amount, sufficient to provide for the payment of the principal of and interest on the bonds as the s~me respectively become due and payable. SECTION 8. Form of Bond~. The Bonds shall be in the form approved by subsequent resolution of this Board. SECTION 9. Sale of Bonds; Approval of State Council on Local Debt. The County Administrator and other appropriate officials of the County are hereby authorized to negotiate the sale of the Bonds to the underwriters for which Wheat First Securities, Inc. and Craigie, Incorporated have been designated to act as co-managers, provided that the principal amount e£ the Bonds, the maturity dates thereof, the rates of interest to he borne thereby, the provisions for the redemption thereof in advance of their stated maturities and the other details of the Bonds, and the terms and conditions of the sale thereof to such underwriters, shall be subject in all respects to the approval this Board by subsequent resolution. The County Administrator and other appropriate officials of the County are hereby au- thorized to request the State Council On Local Debt to approve the issuance of the Bonds, as required by Section 15.1-193 of Public Finance Act. SECTION 10. Filing of This Resolution. The County Attorne~ is hereby authorised and directed to file a copy of this resolu- tion, certified by the Clerk of this Board to be a true and correct copy hereof, with the Circuit Court of the County of Chesterfield. SECTION 11. invalidity.of Sectione~ ~ra9raphs, Clauses or Provisions. If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this resolution shall be held invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining portions of this resolution. $~CTION 12. Neadin~s of Sections. The headings of the sections of this resolution shall be solely for convenience of reference and shall not affect the meaning, construction, inter- pretation or effect of such sections or of this resolution. SECTION 13. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect upon its adoption. 86-340 15.C. 1986-87 LITTER GRANT. Ms. Susan Craik requested the Board to adopt a resolution seeking a grant in the amount of $11,071 for funding of the Keep Chesterfield Clean Corporation. On motion of Mr. Girone, seconded by Mr. Hayes, the Eoard adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors recognizes the existence of a litter problem within the boundaries of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Litter Control Act of 1976 provide~, through the Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, Division of Litter Control, for the allocation of public funds in the form of Grants for the purpose of enhancing local litter control programs; and WHEREAS, having reviewed and considered the Regulations and the Application covering administration and use of said funds; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors hereby endorses and supports such a program for Chesterfield County as is indicated in the attached application. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Administrator plan, budget, and apply for a Grant which, if approved, will be used to fund said Program; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, Division of Litter Control, eon~ider and approve ~aid Application and Program, said Program being in accord with the regulation~ governing use and expenditure of sai~ funds. 15.D. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS TO ~URCMASE MICRO-COMPUTER EQUIPMENT FOR THE POLICE DEPAHTMENT On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board appropriated $27,715 in additional revenue and expenditures to the Police Department for the purchase of Data Processing hardware and software equipment, which funds were generated through the sale of Police systems software to other localities. Vote: Unanimous 15.E. COPLMUNITY D~V~LO~MENT ITEMS 15.E.1. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved the following street light installation costs with funds to be expended from the accounts as indicated: 1. Clearlake Road and Battenburg Place, $672.00 Clover Hill District Street Light ~unds 2. Corbridge Road and Stornoway Drive, $1,213.00 Dale District Street Light Funds ($299.00) and the Dale District 3¢ Road Funds ($914.00). Vote: Unanimous 86-341 15.E.2. STREET LIGHT REQUESTS. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayer, the Board approved the Street Light Requests for; 1. The intersection of Stornoway Drive and Falstone Road, Dale District; 2. The intersection of Castlewood Road and Douglas Avenue, Dale District; 3. The end of Bollinger Drive, Matoaca District; and 4. The Midluthlan Library at 521 Coalfield Road, Midlothlan District. Vote: 15.E.3. AGREEMENT FOR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR BRANCMWAY OFFICE CENTER On motion of Mr. Applegate~ seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute the agreement for a storm water management system with the developer of Branchway Offic~ Center, as approved by the County Attorney'~ Office. Vote: Unanimous 15.E.4. TRAFFIC CONTROL AT THE COURTHOUSE ROAD/FIVE INTERSECTION Mr. Mayes stated he, Mr. Applegate and Mr. McCracken attended a meeting at the Nopewell United Methodist Church to discuss a request for traffic controls from citizen~ who were concerned with the Courthouse Road/Five Forks intersection. He stated these citizens are concerned with and desire traffic control at this intersection because it is very dangerous and inaccessible as five roads intersect at one location. He stated three alternatives to resolve the problem were offered to the group, involving the reconstruction of the area with proposed Route 288, the installation of signal lights or placing a patrol officer at the intersection until a better solution could be found. Re stated of these alternst~ves the citizens were most favorably impressed with Alternative 3 which would provide for the assignment of a police officer to control traffic at the intersection from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to p.m. He commented thet the Police Department budget does not include an appropriation for this service and feels further that this would be a dangerous situation. He stated then staff suggested clearing the site distance but he did not feel the people would be satisfied with that suggestion. He stated the Board needs to make these citizens aware that it is sensitive to their needs and is making an effort to resolve their problem even if it is only a temporary measure. Mr. Applegate stated that a tremendous problem does exist at thi~ intersection and that he had attempted to restrict through truck traffic on this road but the Board did not see fit to do so and the problem still exists. He emphasized that staff's reco~enda- tion to improve the sight distance at this location by cutting the grass and clearing ths area should have been done already, however, he did not feel the reco~endation was sufficient to resolve the problem. He stated he would recommend that two officers be placed at the location on a trial basis to monitor the situation during the critical hours as specified, which should help the safety situation along with site distance improvements. He further stated the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation should be requested to accelerate the construction of the Route 288 project at the Courthouse Road/Five Forks intersection to also assist in alleviating this problem. He stated funds appropriated for rewards to the Commonwealth Attorney's Office for a particular case, which has been solved, could be considered for this expenditure. 86-342 On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved placing two officers on a temporary basis to monitor the intersection of Courthouse Road/Five Forks during the critical hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and appropriated $25,000 of the Green Acres case reward money, which has not been used, for the project until such time as the funding expires. Mr. Dodd stated this i~ a bad intersection but there are numerous other intersections within the County which have similar problems. Ee stated he did not feel the motion would stop at $25,000. ~e further stated if a service of providing Police Officers for traffic control were to be initiated, the Board would have to authorize an increase in Police personnel of a substantial magnitude. He stated he could not support the request because initiation of such action will escalate the number of requests to provide the service for every congested intersection in the County and the County will not be able to sustain ~neh expenses. Mr. Mayes stated the Five Forks intersection is the only intersection in Chesterfield County that has five roads connecting at one focal point, it is unique, distinct and therefore requires a unique, distinct solution. ~e stated Mr. Applegate has recommended a motion which would resolve the problem. He stated such action would make the concerned area citizens aware that the Board is sensitive to its needs and is making an effort to resolve the problem. Mr. Dodd stated he felt another solution, such as a traffic light, etc., would be b~tter to eliminate this problem. Mr. Daniel inquired if those funds were still available. Mr. Hedrick stated he felt they were. Mr. Daniel indicated he could support the motion on a trial basis. Mrs. Girone suggested a one (1) month trial period. Mr. Applegate stated police officers could be hired after hours for this work until the funds were expended so it could be accomplished on a trial basis. Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes. Nays: Mr. Dodd. Mre. Girone inquired about the light for the intersection of Edenberr~ and Courthouse. Mr. M¢Cracken stated that a signal light has been reco~ended for that location. 15.E.5. BUFFER On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Cirone~ the Board authorized an amendment to the buffer condition for zonin9 case 86S057, Kenneth W. Wells, to be processed at no cost to the developer since it was an oversight by the Supervisor of the District and the application shall be in the nam~ of the Board. Vote: Unanimous 15.F. SET PUBLIC SEARING DATES 15.F.1. SET PUBLIC F~EARING TO APPROPRIATE RESERVED F~ND$ FOR ROUT~ 10 PROJECT IN C~ESTER AND THE ROUTE 36 GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT IN ETTRICR On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board set the dat~ of May 28, 1986, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the appropriation of reserved funds for the Route 10 Project in Chester and the Route 36 Grade Separation Project in Ettrick. Vote: Unanimous 86-343 15.F.2. SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18-36 RELATING TO ROAD PAVEMENT DESIGN STANDARDS On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board set the date of June 11, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. to consider the Ordinance amending Section 18-36 relating to road pavement design staedardz. Vote: Unanimous 15.F.3. SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CON%rEYANCE OF PARCEL IN AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PAP~K TO LANDMA~If COMPANY OF VIRGINIA AND AUTEORIZ~ COUNTy ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE CONTINGENT SALES CONTRACT On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board est the date of August 13, 1986, at 7:00 p.m.t to consider conveyance of a parcel in the Airport Industrial Park to Landmark Company of Virginia and authorized the County Administrator to execute a contingent sales contract. Vote: Unanimous 15.F.4. SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER Ai~ ORDINANCE RELATING TO BINGO GA~ES AND RAFFLES On motion of NLr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board set the date of June 11, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., to consider an Ordinance relating to Bingo Games and Raffles. Vote: Unanimous 15.F.5. CANCELLATION OF PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER PRORATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY Mr. Daniel stated that during the work sezsion it became apparent~ that the proration issue did not have the support necessary and suggested that the public hearing date of June 11, 1986, be cancelled. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board cancelled the public hearing previously scheduled for June 11, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., regarding the proration of personal property. Mrs. Girone stated she felt the hearing should be held as zeveral interested constituents have called relative to this matter because they feel the proration is fair and equitable. She stated she felt the revenue generated from the proration would bs beneficial to the County and would assist in alleviating the real estate tax burden. She stated there are nine other urban ~Oncept counties within the State who have adopted the proration tax and is confident there will be others in the future. She added staff has spent numerous hours developing the mechanism for implementing the tax and should be given the opportunity to present the issue to the public. She ztated the public should be given the opportunity to express its opinions on the issue. Mr. Applegate stated he concurred with Mrs. Girone and felt the public hearing date to discuss this issue should be held for citizen comment. He stated considerable time and effort were spent in considering the matter. He stated, although he did not vote for the ta~ rate, this issue does have an impact on it by about 1.4 to 1,6 million dollars in new revenue for the ensuing year. He stated he had requested that staff, rather than allow one year of depreciation before taxing an automobile, incorporate the current method and the proposed method to determine the total tax. Be stated he felt proration is one of the fairest and most equitable taxes that could be imposed in the County. Re stated he did not consider proration a new tax because individuals 86-344 already pay personal property taxes. He stated the Board may want to consider going to proration and reducing the rate. He stated there are alternatives which should be considered. Mr. Daniel stated that he felt the processes involved in this issue were much too complex and only eompounded the syndrome of big government. Be stated not to do this will not cost the County any money in the new fiscal year. He stated he would have no problem, at a later date, reviewing and considering a more simplistic Ordinance which can be easily administered and implemented, and requires no additional staf~ nor thousands o9 refunds, etc. He stated the proposal before the Board is something he feels the public in his area will not support and consideration at this time would not be beneficial or ~easible. Mr. Dodd inquired how a deferral would affect on going action~ by staff relative to this matter. Mr. Mayes commented that a delay in action by Mr. Hammer and his staff toward purchasing equipment for the new buildings would be detrimental to the upgrading of the entire network and he did not feel they should be subject to the Board's decision on the issue, as that is too critical. Mr. Ha~mner, in response to Mr. Mayes' concerns, stated there is sufficient activity with the work team that has been assigned to proration to work around the proration issue ~or two weeks and still not cause any damage to the time schedule on the project at this time. He stated staff is awaiting Board action to define certain elements of the procedures and processes. He stated, if the Ordinance is adopted, the Data Processing Systems Development staff would design the system around that Ordinance and ~taff i~ awaiting the Board action before proceeding further. He stated work to this point will only improve the system, whether the Board does or does net approve proration. Mr. ~ayes stated he is aware of the on qoing process of writing systems and adjusting systems to bring Social Services on line, as well as other services. He ~tated he does not feel these processes can be stopped and if they were to be stopped it would be detrimental te the upgrading of that system. Mr. Dodd stated he had a problem with making a decision to hold the public hearing knowing he would vote against the proration issue. Mr. Applegate stated he felt the Board owed it to the public to have the opportunity to address the situation and failure to hold the public hearing would be denying that opportunity. Mr. Daniel stated that if there is inadequate support for an issue the Board should not hold a public hearing. He stated the work session should have been conducted ~irst to give the Board an idea of what the problems are and then the decision as to whether or not a public hearing was necessary should have been made. He stated he felt conducting a public hearing would be a waste of the public's time. Mr. Maye~ stated that when the Board voted on the School Budget it could not find one item that could be cut out of a 16 million dollar increase, while he felt it could have been reviewed more closely as he knows of no budget that large that could not be reduced and it was painful for him to vote for it. He stated, however, he felt it was necessary to vote for the budget or the teachers would have suffered through salary cuts and the students would have suffered through educational cuts. Be stated the p~ople who have to pay the proration tax will be the same people who are paying for the 5¢ tax rate increase and he did not feel it fair to require these same people to contlnu~ to pay these taxes. He stated to reduce the rate and pass proration would cancel each other out. 86-345 Mr. Applegate stated this i~ the fairest method to tax people on personal property and he requested a thirty day deferral to look at the issue in more detail. He explained in detail the proration issue which would require people to pay taxes on what they own and for how long they own it. Ee stated all knew, when this was discussed, there would be start up costs in the first year but revenue of $1.6 would be generated next year. Mr. Daniel stated that he cannot support holding a public hearin~ to consider this issue based on the data that i~ before him at the present time. He reiterated his comments that he would be willing to consider, at a later date, a more aimplisti¢ proposal that involves less people and is more easily administered and implemented. He stated next year's budget might be financed on tho same rate as this year and thi~ may be unnecessary. Mr. Mayes stated this revenue of $1.6 comes from the people who are already paying taxes. Mrs. Girone stated it came from the people who bought their oars after January 1 and legally answer they did not own the vehicle on January 1; consequently they are not taxed until the next year on the new vehicle. She stated it puts the burden on the other taxpayers which is not fair. She stated she ielt proration was fair and equitable, Mr. Dodd stated he had e problem with hiring more people, the number of inoreased transactions, the interest net bein9 computed, etc. Ne stated it is equitable, but it is too much for the people to bear. He stated people are ~aking vehicles out of the County and registering them other places where it is cheaper and the County is losing. M~. Dodd stated he could not support the proposal es presented because he did not consider it cost effective. Mr. Applegate stated no other department could generate $1.6 in equitable and fair revenue. The question was called. Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Nays: Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone. 15.G. CONSENT ITEMS. 15.G.1. REQUEST FOR BINGO/RAFFLE PEP~MIT On motion of Mrs. Girene, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved a request for bingo/raffle permit from the John Rolfe Players, Inc. for calendar year 1986. Vote: Unanimous 15.G.2. CONPIR~4ATION OF P~OLU~Q~S PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED BY BOARE MEETING ON APRIL 9, 1986 On motion of Mrs. Girene, ~eeonded by Mr. Daniel, the Board reaffirmed its vote of support for the resolutions recognizing Mr. Jeffrey B. Muzzy and Declaring American Home Week, as two Board men~0ers had been absent. Vote: Unanimous 15.G.3. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Hnvironmental Engineer, in accordance with ~directions from this Hoard, made report in writing upon his examination of Turngate Road, Graymoss Road and Gateline Drive in Irengate, Section 2, Dale District. 86-346 Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Turngate Road, Graymoss Road and Gateline Drive in Irongate, Sectlcn 2, Dale District, be and they hereby are established ac public reade. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of ~ighways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Turngate Road, beginning at the intersection with Irongate Drive, State Route 3025, and running southerly 0.14 mile to the intersection with Graymoss Road; Graymoss Road, beginning at the intersection with Turngate Road and running westerly 0.06 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Again, Graymoss Road, beginning at the intersection with Turngate Road and running easterly 0.08 mile to the intersection with Gateline Drive; and Gateline Drive, beginning at the intersection with Irongate Drive, State Route 3025, and running southwesterly 0.10 mile to the intersection with Graymoes Road. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance and designated Virginia Department of Mighwaye drainage easements. These roads serve 31 lots. And be it further resolved, that th~ Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50' right of way for all of these roads. This section of Irongate is recorded as follows: Section 2. Plat Book 40, Page 40, December 14, 19el. Vote: Unanimous This day fhe County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Sandrock Drive, Turnaway Lane, Bryanbell Drive, Ironside Drive and Gateline Drive in Irongate, Section 3, Dale District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that gandrock Drive, Turnaway Dane, Bryanbell Drive, Ironside Drive and Gateline Drive in Irongate, Section 3, Dale District, be and they hereby are established as public reads. And be it further resolved, that the virginia Department of ~ighways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Sandrock Drive, beginning at the intersection with !rongate Drive, State Route 3025, and running northerly 0.07 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Turnaway Lane, beginning at the intersection with Irongate Drive, Stats Route 3025, and running northerly 0.09 mile to the intefcectlon with Bryanbell Drive, then continuing northerly 0.05 mile to end in n temporary turnaround; Sryanbell Drive, beginning at the intersection with Turnaway Lane and running easterly 0.06 mile t¢ the intersection with Ironside Drive, then continuing easterly 0.06 mile to the intersection with Gatellne Drive, then continuing easterly 0.04 mile to end in a dead end; Ironside. Drive, beginning at the intersection with Bryanbell Drive, and running northerly 0.03 mile to end in a dead end; and Gateline Drive, beginning at the intersection with Irongate Drive, State Route 3025, and running northeasterly 0.17 mile to the intersection with Bryanbell Drive, then continuing northerly 0.0S mile to end in n temporary turnaround. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance and designated Virginia Department of Highways drainage easements. ~hese roads ssrve 40 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of ~ighways a 50' right of way for all of these roads. This section of Irongate is recorded as follows: 86-347 Section 3. Plat Book 46, Page 29, June 26, 1984. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Pane Drive and Cotfield Road in Kimberly Acres, Section 3, Dale District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Pane Drive and Cotfield Road in Kimberly Acres, Section 3, Dale 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, Pane Drive, b~ginning at the southern end of existing Pane Drive, State Route 2429, and running southerly 0.05 mile to end at the intersection with Cotfield Road; and Cotfield Road, beginning at the southern end of existing Cotfield Road, State Route 2427, and running southeasterly 0.10 mile to the intersection with Pane Drive, the~ continuing southeasterly 0.03 mile to end in a dead end. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, Dire distance and designated Virginia Department Of Highways drainage easements. These roads serve 17 lots. And be it further resolved, that the ~oard of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50' right of way for all of these roads. This section of Ximberly Acres is recorded as follows: Section 3. Plat Book 44, Page 49~ November 10, 1983. Vote: Unanimon~ 15.H. APP0%NTMENTS i5.H.1. ACCEPT RESIGNATION OF DAVID E. THOMAS FROM THE PLANNIN~ COMMISSION AND NOMINATE A REPLACEMENT Mr. Dodd stated he would accept Mr. Thomas' resignation and nominate a replacement at the May 28, 1986, meeting. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Appleqate, the Board accepted Mr. David E. Thomas' resignation, effective May 31, 1986, as the Bermuda District representative for the Planning Commission. 15.H.2. BOAPJD O~ SOCIAL SERVICES. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board nominated Mrs. Elsie Elmore and Mrs. Janice Mack for appointment to the Board of Social Services, with the official appointl~ent to be made at the May 28, 1986, Board meeting. Vote: Unanimous 15.H.3. CRATER PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board nominated Mr. M.D. "Pete" Stith for temporary appointment to the Crater Planning District Commission as an alternate member, with the official appointment to be made at the May 28, 1986, Board meeting. 86-348 Vote: Unanimous 15.B.4. RICKMOND R~GIONAL PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board nominated Mr. M. D. "Pete" Stith for temporary appointment co the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission as an alternate member, with the official appointment to be made at the May 28, 1986, Board meeting. 15.I. UTILITI~ D~9ARTM~NT 15.I.1. PUBLIC BEARINGS 15.I.l.a. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE MAPLE AVENUE LOCATED IN CBESTERFIELD GARDRN$ Mr. Welchons stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to ooneider an Ordinance to vacate Maple Avenue located in Chesterfield Gardens. Ne one came forward to address the matter. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board adopted the following Ordinance: AN ORDINANCE to vacate a 50 foot right of way known as Maple Avenue within Chesterfield Gardens, Bermuda Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 4, at pages 230 and 231. WHEREAS, Temple Baptist Church, has petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a 50 foot right Of way known as Maple Avenue within Chesterfield Gardens, Bermuda Magisterial Distrlot, Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 4, pages 230 and 231, made by Clodfelder and Schisler Engineers, dated July 31, 1928. The right of way petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows: A 50 foot right of way known as Maple Avenue within Chesterfield Gardens, the location of which is more fully shown, on a plat made by Clodfelder and Schisler Engineers, dated July 31, 1928, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance. W~ERRAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431 oS the Code of Virginia, 1950, as ~mended, by advertising; and WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the right of way sought to be vacated except as hereinafter outlined. NOW TEBREFOt~E, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERfieLD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to Section 15.1-452(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid right of way be and is hereby vacated. The County hereby reserves a 10 foot drainage easement as shown on the attached plat. Thie Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-482(b} of the Code of Virginia, 26-349 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance, together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Cour~ of Chesterfield, virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 is to destroy %he force and effect of the recording cf the portion of the plat vacated. This ordinance shall vest fee simple title to the centerlln¢ of the right of way hereby vacated in the property owners of the abutting lots free and clear of any rights of public us~ ~xc~pt as hereinabove outlined. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names of the County cf Chesterfield, as grantor, and Temple Baptist Church, on its successors in title, as grantee. Vote: Unanimous 15.I.l.b. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN 0RDINANC~ T0 VACAT~ A PORTION OP A VARIABLE WIDTH UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACROSS LO~.~.¢ BLOCK C, MILLCREEK, SECTION 2 Mr. Welchons stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an Ordinance to vacate a portion of a variable width utility and drainage easement across Lot 3, Block C, Millcreek, Section 2. No one came forward to address the matter. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following Ordinance: AN ORDINANCE to vacate a portion of a variable width utility and drainage easement on Lot 3, Block C, Mill Creek Section 2, Matoaca Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, a~ ~ho~n on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 50, at page 64. WHEREAS, Pioneer Financial Corporation, has petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate portion of a variable width utility drainage easement on Lot 3, Block C, Millcrcek, section 2, Matoaoa Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 50, page 64, made by Charles C. Towhee and Associates, Incorporated, dated July 18, 1985. The variable widt utility and drainage easement petitioned to be vacated is mere fully described as follows: A portion of a variable width utility drainage easement on Lot 3, Block C, Millcreek, Section 2, the location cf which is more fully shown, shaded in red on a plat made by Charles C. Townes and Associates, Incorporated, dated March 26, 1986, a cody of which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance. WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as ~uaended, by advertising; and WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the portion of the variable width utility and drainage easement sought to be vacated. ~QW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OP CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to Section 15.1-452(b} of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid variable width utility and drainage easement be and is hereby vacated. 8~-350 The County hereby reserves a 10 foot drainage easement as shown on the attached plat. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) ef the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy 0£ this Ordinance, together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Cede of Virginia~ 1950, as amended. The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion of the plat vacated. This ordinance shall vest fee simple title of the portion of the variable width utility and dralnago easement hereby vacated in Pioneer Financial Corporation free and clear of any rights of public use. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names of the CoUnty of Chesterfield, as grantor, and Pioneer Pinancial Corporation, or their successors in title, as grantee. Vote: Unanimous 15.I.l.c. PUBLIC HE/LRING TO CONSIDER AN 0RDINANC~ TQ VACAT~ A 50' RIGHT OF WAY IN ROBERTSON SUBDIVISION Mr. Welchons stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an Ordinance to vacate a 50' right of way within Robertson Subdivision. No one came forward to address the matter. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board adopted the following Ordinance: AN ORDINANCE to vacate a 50 foot right of way within Robertson Subdivision, Midlothian Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Deed Book 349, at pages 11 and llA. WHEREAS~ Arthur R. Pemberton, has petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, virginia to vacate a 50 foot right of way within Robertscn Subdivision, Midlothian Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly shown cna plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Deed Book 349, pages 11 and llA, made by C.F. MoCurdy, dated August 1947. The right of way petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows: A 50 foot right of way within Robertson Subdivision, the location of which is more fully shOWn, shaded in red on a plat made by The Utilities Department Chesterfield County Virginia, dated April 10, 1986, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance. WHEREAS, notics has been given pursuant tc Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and W~ERHAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the right of way sought to be vacated except as hereinafter outlined. NOW THEREFORe, B~ IT ORDAINED BY TEE BOARD 0F SUPERVISORS O~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid right of way be and is hereby vacated. 86-351 The granteee hereby convey unto the County and the County hereby reserves a 25 foot water easement as shown on the attadhed plat. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-4S2(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance, together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield, Virginia pursuant to section 15.i-485 of the Cede of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The effect Of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion of the plat vacated. This ordinance shall vest fee simple title to the centerline of the right of way hereby vacated in the property owners of the abutting lots free and clear of any rights of public use. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names of the County of Chesterfield, as grantor, and Arthur R. Pemberton, or his successors in title, as grantee. Vote: Unanimous 15.I.2. CONSIDER PETITION FOR PUBLIC WATER ON HYDE PARK DRIVE On motion of Mr. Dodd~ seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board authorized the Utilities Department to proceed with the water extension of approximately 270' to serve residents on Ryde Park Drive at a cost of $6,000 to be appropriated from the 1986-87 CI~ or made at the time of construction. Vote : Unanimous 15.I.3. ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ON EMERGENCY BASIS AMENDING SECTION 20-1.35 AND 20-1.30 RELATING TO COUNTY WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM AND SET DATE FOR BUELIC HEARING On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following Ordinance on an emergency basis and set a publle hearing date of June 25, 1986, mt 9:00 a.m., to conslder adopting the following Ordinance on a permanent basis: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELDt 1978t AS AMENDED, BY A/4ENDING SECTION 20-1.35 AND 20-1.30 RELATING TO COUNTY WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: {I) That Chapter 20 of the Code of the County of Chester- field, Virginia is amended and reenacted by amending the fol- lowing sections: Sec. 20-1.30 Requlre4 use of county water system. Any individual structure for which a building permit has been obtained after the effective date of this ordinance and which is within 500 feet of a water line shall connect to the county water system. I~ a county water line is within or ad- jacent to property to be served by the owner or developer, any structure on such parcel shall connect ~o the county water system regardlese of the distance from the structure to the water line. In the event that a valid septic tank permit was obtained prior to April 1, 1986, the provisions of this section shall not apply. 864352