07-09-1986 MinutesBOA~ OF SUPERVISORS
July 9, 1986
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mr. R. Garland Dodd, Chairman
Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Vice Chairman
Mr. G. N. Applegate
Mrs. Joan Girone
Mr. Jems¢ J. Mayes
Mr. Richard L. Hedrick
County Administrator
Staff in Attendance:
Mr. Stanley Balderson~
Dir., Econ. Develop.
Mrs. Doris DoSnrt,
Legi~iative Cooed.
Mr. Mike Golden, Act.
Dir., Parks & Rec.
Mr. Bradford S. ~ammer,
Asst. Co. Admin.
Mr. Robert Hodder,
Building Official
Mr. William Howell,
Dir. of Gen. Senvices
Mr. Robert Masden,
Asst. Co. Admin. for
Mr. R. J. McCracken,
Transp. Director
Mrs. Mary A. McGuire,
County Treasurer
Mr. John Marling, Chief,
Comprehen. Planning
Mr. Stove Micas, Co.
Attorney
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Dir. of News/Info.
Col. Joseph Pittman,
Chief of Police
Mr. William D. Peele,
Acting Dir., Planning
Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir.
of Budget & Acctg.
Ms. Jean Smith, Dir.
of Social Services
Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr.,
Exec. A~st., Co. Adm.
Mr. Robert Wagenknecht,
Dir. of Libraries
Mr. David Welchons,
Dir. of Utilities
Mr. Frederick W. Willis,
Dir. of ~uman
Mr. Dodd called the meeting to order in ROOm 502 of the
Administration Building at 4:00 p.m. (EDST).
1. WORK SESSIOE ON HEALTH CARE CONTRACT RENEWAL
Mr. Hedrick stated the purpose of the work session was to review
the Mealth Care Contract Renewal proposal. He stated the work
session is informational and no action i~ e~pected to be taken by
the Board at this rims.
Mr. Frederick Willis presented nn overview of the Hospitalization
Committee's findings on the contract renewal proposal and
86-515
explained anticipated rate adjustments. He stated Health Care
Management Corporation (HMC), an affiliate of Blue Cross/Blue
Shield of Virginia, has advised the County that new rate
increases effective October 1, 1986 for the Comprehensive Plan
will increase by 29%. He stated, according to HMO information,
the reasons for these rate adjustments are due pr/marily to
higher than average utilization of services by employees,
increases in health care costs and the funneling of low-use
participants to other health care programs. He etated,
additionally, NMC has advised the County that the Comprehensive
Program may operate at a significant deficit. He then explained,
through the use of a slide presentation, a comparison of the
current and renewal rates for each of the plans offered by the
County and the impact of these rates on the employee and the
County. Based on this information, Mr. Willis apprised the Board
of the available alternative options and staff's recommendations.
The Board discussed issues relative to cost effectiveness, cost
containment efforts, anticipated deficit for the existing year,
monitoring the quality of service cf the carriers, utilization
tre~ds, contracts for five (5) year periods versus contracts for
one (1) year periods, the impact of the proposed rate increases
on employee salaries and County contributions, the difference
between the various coverages and their costs, etc.
Mr. Eedrlck stated competition is being introduced into the
insurance market and each health management organization is
providing quality, diversified health care services. ~e stated
employees must educate themselves, with assistance from the
County and the various health management organizations, as to
choices available and decide which selection best suits them.
Mr. Willis stated staff will be meeting, in the immediate future
with employees to discuss these health care issues and the
possible options available to them.
2. WORK SESSION ON 1987 APPROPRIATION AMENDMENTS
Mr. Hedrick stated tho next item on the agenda would be
discussion of the proposed 1996-97 appropriation amendments.
stated staff has provided detailed information on, as well as
financial impact of, each of the items on the budget.
It was generally agreed that the items listed under the followin~
headings were acceptable and needed no additional discussion:
Data Processing~ Social Services, Health Department, Building
Inspection and Debt Service.
Mr. Applegate stated that, by refinancing bonds, the County has
generated a savings of approximately $78,400 and he would suggee'
those funds be utilized for funding Mental Health and Mental
Retardation.
There was considerable discussion regarding the impact of the
MEDC and CONTOUR programs on the County. Mrs. Girone stated the
County's participation in funding the combined efforts of both
agencies would serve to promote the Richmond Region and would be
a good investment for the long range planning of Chesterfield
County. Mr. Mayes stated he felt the increese in funding was
significant for only a one year period and that the County did
not receive sufficient benefits to justify the expenditures. He
added that he felt the County is paying its appropriate share,
should stay within its adopted budget and that if additional
funds were available for use they should be expended on internal
programs. Mr. Applegate stated he felt that there should be only
one centralized agency responsible for promoting the region. He
stated the return on the monies invested did not appear to be
sufficiently beneficial to the County. Mr. Daniel stated he,
too, supports a regional concept. ~e stated, however, if there
were an additional $130,000 to be spent, he would suggest that
the County itself spend the funds to promote its region rather
86-516
than increasing the appropriation to CONTOUR. He stated he did
not feel an increase in appropriations for CONTOUR is justified.
Mr. Dodd stated he felt the County's investments in MEDC and
CONTOUR were more than sufficient at the prasent time and he
would prefer to see the County's money invested in its own
programs. Mrs, Girone stated that if ether members of the Board
felt the County was not receiving the benefits from its
investment, perhaps the entire program should be reevaluated and
the groups invited to outline their programs in detail.
It was generally agreed that the budget amendments be approved
but without additional appropriations to CONTOUR and MEDC at this
time and that County representatives and the Executive Director
of CONTOUR be invited to discuss the Board's concerns.
Mr. Bedrick stated the next item on the agenda would be
discussion on the update of the Personal Property Systems.
Mr. ~armuer stated that when the Board deferred implementation of
the system, that action created a revenue loss of $650,000 which
could be offset by a reduction in planned expenses. He stated,
however, Data Processing, the Commissioner of Revenue, and the
Treasurer are requesting $406,400 of the original planned
expenditures remain in the budget -- this amount being tied
primarily to replacing the County's ICL cash receipts system, as
well as e~hancing the bulk mailing process. Be stated the
existing ICL (cash receipts) system's scheduled replacement date
happened to coincide with the decision to initiate the new
system. ~e stated that rather than double count expenditures,
the two issues were joined together since both focus on altering
the existing cash receipts system. He stated replacement o~ the
ICL system must still be accomplished even if the Board decides
not to move ahead with the new personal property system.
Mr. Mayes stated he felt this system was essential and that the
Bersonal Property System is only a small portion of the Data
Processing System.
Mr. Hammer stated it was possible that the cos% of continuing the
proration system could be offset by increases in personal
property taxes. Mr. Daniel stated that, if this were the case,
staff should prepare an action to recommend that increased
personal property tau revenue offset the cost of continuing
development of th~ system.
The Board discussed the cost of the system, the difference
between proration and the possibility of a public hearing on
proration, It Was generally agreed that a public hearing on
proration would not be scheduled at this time.
The Board recessed for dinner.
Mr. Dodd called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at the
Courthouse at 7:00 p.m. (EDST).
3. INVOCATION
Mr. Hedrink introdueed Reverend Charles L. Thompson, Pastor cf
the Seuthside Church of the Nazarene, who gave the invocation.
~. PL~D,G'E OP .aT.T.~GIANCE TO THE FLAG OF 'J."a.~ UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America was recited.
86-517
5. APPRQvALOF MINUTES
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved the minutes of June 25, 1986, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved the minutes of July 3, 1986, as Submitted.
Vote: Unanimous
6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
Mr. Hedrlck announced and congratulated Mr. M. D. "Pete" Stith,
Executive Assistant, who had been appointed by the Governor to
the State Board of Veterinary Medicine.
Mr. Stith introduced Mr. Gene Augsburger of the Virginia Division
of Forestry who outlined the agency's land use programs, on-going
projects with developers on environmental issues, school
programs, economic values of the forest industry, goals and
objectives for improving the services, etc. He expressed
appreciation to County staff for the assistance, cooperation and
working relationships established with the FOreStry Service. He
presented the Board with brochures published by the Service
o~tlining available programs.
Ms. Jean Smith, Director of Social Services explained the "food
closet" program and advised the Board that the United Way of
Southside Virginia sponsored a fund raising activity, which
awarded the Emergency Food Program of Chesterfield County $532.61
to assist those in dire need of food.
7. BOARD COMMITTEE REPORTS
Mr. Dodd ~tated the Board would forego its committee reports for
this meeting.
8. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION~ EMERGENCY ADDITION~ OR CH~/~GES
I~ TRE ORDER OF ~RESENTATION
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
deferred Item ll.B., Consider De,erring the Condemnation of a
Sewer Easement for the Falling Creek Forc~ Main until July 23,
1986; added Item 13.J., 1986-87 Budget Amendments, to be heard
immediately after Item 13.G.4.; and adopted the agenda as
amended.
Vote: Unanimous
9. RESOLUTIONS .OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION
On motion of the Board, the following resolution wa~ adopted:
WHERRAS, Mrs. Mary Arlins McGuire served as Deputy Treasurer
for Chesterfield County and Chief Deputy Treasurer continuously
since March, 1948; and
W~REAS, Mrs. McGuire was appointed Treasurer of
Chesterfield County by the Circuit Court Judges in 1979 to fill
the unexpired term of her predecessor; and
86-518
WHEREAS, Mrs. McGuire was elected County Treasurer in 1980
and was the first woman elected to this Constitutional Office in
the history of Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. McGuire has taken measures tO reduce
operational expenses, increase interest on investments, automate
records for quick and efficient recovery, and activated other
modern technology to advance the operation of the Treasurer's
Office; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. McGuire has been recognized for her
outstanding ability, knowledge and expertise by her peers by
their electing her President of the Treasurers' Association of
Virginia.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors that Mrs. Mary Arline McGuire he and hereby
is congratulated On this professional success achieved in her
career.
AND FURTEER BE IT RESOLVED by the Chesterfield County Board
of Supervisors that the well-deserved respect and honor bestowed
upon her be called to the attention of all its citizens.
Vote: Unanimous
Mrs. Girone, on behalf of the Board, congratulated Mrs. McGuire
upon her achievements and success and presented her with the
executed resolution. ~rs. ~cGuire expressed appreciation for the
recognition as well as the support she receives from her staff,
the Administration and the Board.
10. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS
10.A. MR. BEN LINGERFELT~ COMPENSATION FOR DESTRUCTION OF POULT
MS. Karen Waldron stated Mr. Ben Lingerfelt submitted a claim in
the amount of $12,400 for compensation for the loss of
thirty-three (33) prize game birds which were destroyed by dogs
on his property. She stated that State law and the County Code
provide that a person whose poultry is killed by stray dogs is
entitled to receive the fair market value of the poultry from the
County's dog fund, provided that the claimant has complied with
certain requirements. She explained the process by which the
claim could be made, the insufficient monies in the appropriate
account, etc. She stated the Extension Service has reviewed the
claim and has determined that the fair market value of the game
birds is between $2,700 and $4,750. She stated staff, t~herefore,
recommended approval of the claim in the amount as recommended by
the Extension Service and appropriation of the money from the
contingency fund.
Mr. Dodd disclosed to the Board that counsel for Mr. Linqerfelt
is a partner to an attorney who does work for his firm, declared
a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive
Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting.
Mr. Fred Hunt, representing Mr. Ben Lingerfelt, stated the
Circuit Court of Chesterfield County accepted ~r. Lingerfelt's
evaluation as to the fair market value of the game birds and
through its written judgment order found one dog responsible for
the killing of One bird and awarded Mr. Lingerfelt five hundred
dollars ($500) in damages. Mr. Hunt stated Mr. Philip J. Clauer
of the V~I Extension Service, the preparer of the document
determining the fair market value of Mr. Lingsrfelt's birds for
the County, informed him that he had no expertise in this matter
that the information in his documentation had been derived from .
discussion with two (2) individuals who own game birds in small
quantities, that he was certain that Mr. Lingerfelt could much
better value his Own stock than he could, and that he recognized
86-519
there a~e publications which indicate quality birds of the type
in question are routinely valued at dollar amounts in excess of
five hundred dollars. Mr. Hunt stated Mr. Lingerfelt, as well as
several of his witnesses, have been in this type of business for
thirty (30) years, are considered experts in their £1eld and will
confirm that the amounts are accurate.
Mr. Daniel stated he had many questions as to the County's
responsibility, the value of the birds, the amount of payments
required by law, the insufficient funds available, etc., and
stated he would prefer to defer the matter until such time as
these issues could be addressed.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
deferred consideration of this claim until such time as the
matter can be more thoroughly investigated and a report compiled
from infermation furnished by staff and Mr. Lingerfelt for the
Board's consideration, which report should also be shared with
the claimant.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
Mr. Dodd returned to the meeting.
11. DEFERRED ITEMS
ll.A. APPOINTMENTS
ll.A.1, CAPITAL AREA AGENCY ON AGING
On motion Of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
appointed Mrs. Janice Mack to the Board of Directors of the
Capital Area Agency on Aging, representing Chesterfield County at
large, whose term of office will be effective immediately and
will expire June 30, 1989.
Vote: Unanimoue
ll.A.2. RICF~OND Mt~TROPOLITAN AUTHORITY
On motion of Mr. Appleqate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
appointed Mr. Read Goode to the Richmond Metropolitan Authority,
representing Chesterfield County at large, whose term of office
will be effective immediately and will expire on June 30, 1990.
Vote: Unanimous
PUBLIC REARINGS
12.A. ~UBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
C~L~RTER
Mr. Hedriek stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearinq to consider the proposed Chesterfield County
Charter. He indicated copies were available, if desired.
Mr. Micas presented a slide presentation and overview of the
history of the establishment of local government in Virginia. He
explained in brief detail the seven forms of government by which
the 95 counties in the Commonwealth are governed and how the
proposed Charter would affect Chesterfield County, if adopted.
Mr. Dodd stated t/%ere have been discussions on the County's fo~m
of government for many years. He etated the Board felt this
issue was of such importance that the citizens should be involved
prior to the Board taking any official action and, as a result,
fifteen {15) member committee was selected to draft a proposed
Charter. He stated the Charter Committee met many times in
endeavor to derive a proposed Charter that would serve to
86-520
organize the governmental structure of Chesterfield County and
hopefully benefit all its citizens. He commended the Committee
members for their diligent efforts and dedication in accomplish-
ing the task assigned to thom.
Mr. Steve Berkins introduced the following members of the Charter
Committee: Dr. Chong Pak, Mr. Bill Mohr, Dr. Ken Copeland, Ms.
Janet Alley, Ms. Mary Cooper, Ms. Lynne Cooper and Dr. Sam
Madden. He stated the subcommittee members who were present
would address and explain the modifications to the particular
portions of the Charter most effected by the Committee'~
recommendations.
Dr. Chong Pak expressed special appreciation tO Mr. Steve Micas,
County Attorney, for his many hours of diligent effort with the
group and his fine leadership while working on the Charter issue.
He then outlined the objectives of the Committee and the
procedures by which the Committee determined what proposed
modifications would be necessary. Be stated the Committee
adopted the following ~our principles as being significant in
relationship to the Charter: 1.) accountability, 2.) popular
sovereignty, 3.) protection of the integrity of the County
government against annexation, and 4.) efii¢iency of government
operations. He stated that after analysis of the many forms of
governmental option~ available, interviewing scholars, officials,
the judiciary, etc., the Committee determined that the current
form of qoverr~ent, to a large degree, has been quite effective
in giving the citizens the type of government they desire. He
stated, however, the rapid growth in the population of the County
and service demands, with increased complexity, requires that a
more flexible and tailored approach to the organization of
government he established. He stated the most precise method to
accomplishing the type of government closest to the desires of
the people, while maintaining the principles of the Committee, is
by the use oi a Charter. He stated the Charter fo~m of
government prevides greater flexibility in administering
governmental services while, at the same time, leaving the
governing of the County within the hands of elected representa-
tive~. He stated, with the adoption of the Charter, the County
would have the tool to cope with the needs of the County until
the year 2000, without relying on a form of government that was
designed for a less complex era. Be stated the Charter would
preserve both institutions while creating a better meanm to cope
with the future.
Mr. Perkins reiterated the four basic principles with regard to
the Charter.
Mr. Steve Perkins explained changes relating to the
responsibilities and powers of the Board of Supervisors and role
of the Chairman; Dr. Sam Madden, the role of the County
Administrator; Dr. Ken Copeland, the financial affairs and
borrowing; Ms. Lynne Cooper, the Police Department; Ms. Mary
Cooper, the Departments of Health, Social Services, Mental Health
and Mental Retardation; Ms. Janet Alley, Education; and Mr. Bill
Mohr, Transportation.
Mr. Dodd opened the meeting for public co~ent.
Mr. Carlton Stoddard recommended that the referendum on
ratification/adoption of the proposed Charter be deferred for a
year because the Charter would have a significant impact on the
County. Be stated there are major changes proposed by the
Charter, dealing with the authority of the County Administrator,
which the citizens should have the opportunity to review in a
more extensive and comprehensive manner. He stated he had been
informed that the Charter would be reviewed by state legislators,
when submitted for ratification, and could be modified by the
General Assembly. Be expressed concern that the Charter should
be as comprehensive and concise as possible, prior to its
submission to the General Assembly, in order to prevent the
ocQurrence of such actions.
86-521
Mr. Dodd stated members of the General Assembly had been invited
to attend the p~blic hearings on this issue and recognized
Senator Robert E. Russmll and Delegate N. Leslie Saunders, Jr.,
who were present.
Mr. James P. Bourque, Vice President of the Chesterfield
Fraternal Order of Police, stated his organization has grave
concerns with the proposed change in the Charter that would
remove the Police Department from the control of the County's
Circuit Court. He stated the County's law enforcement agencies
are "non-political" and are among the cleanest in the nation
because of the current method of administration. He added that
the safeguards in the Charter to prevent scandal~ are inadequate.
Be stated motives by this Board and Administration could make
this proposal work, however, the motives of other Boards and
Administrations may not he the game in future years. Hs stated
the average County resident will not have adequate time to
examine the Charter issues prior to the referendum proposed for
November, 1986. He stated the Fraternal Order of Police desired
to go on record as being in opposition to the proposed Charter in
its present torm.
Ma. Ann Anderson, Chairman of the Chesterfield Business Council,
read a statement endorsing the Charter concept as being a
positive step to further improve the administration of County
government. (A copy of the entire statement is filed with the
papers of this Board.)
Mr. Charles Bundley endorsed the Charter concept and particularly
the requirement that members of the Board of Supervisors be held
ultimately responsible for all facets and departments of the
County government which would be administered under the Charter.
With reference to i~sues raised regarding the Police Department,
Mr. Steve Perkins stated the Board of Supervisors presently
controls such issues as budgets, performance evaluations and
other administrative decisions. He stated the Charter Committee
felt that the proposed change is necessary to establish the
criteria by which the Police Department's ultimate responsibilit,
would be to the citieens of the County.
There was no One else present to address the matter.
Mr. Dodd stated two additional public hearings are scheduled on
the proposed Charter to allow additional input. It was noted
that there were approximately fifteen (15) people present
regarding this issue,
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE CENTRAL AREA LAND
USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider adoption of the Central Area Land Use
and Transportation Plan.
Mr. Bill Poole explained the principles for plans of this nature
and how they are utilized. He briefly reviewed background
information which initiated the preparation of the proposed Plan
and highlighted the issues considered most significant by
concerned citizens and the Planning Commission, which are
addressed in the proposed Plan. He stated the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the Plan.
Mr. Marling presented an overview of the proposed Plan. He
outlined in detail the area encompassed in the Plan and concerns
relative to the following major issues: development in the
Central Area at densities and intensities consistent with
existing area development, preservation of ~ufficient road
rights-of-way to provide for future road widening as necessary,
the establishment of an overlay zoning district for the Route 10
corridor to preserve the functional capacity of the arterial and
86-522
encourage high quality future development, improvement of the
collector road system, additional planning for certain areas and
the Planning Commission's particular emphasis on the endorsement
of the concept Of the overlay district and the creation of
special corrido~ standards which would affect development along
Route 10. When asked, Mr. Marling indicated there currently is
no interchange at salem Church Road and the Plan does not
recommend one.
Mr. Bob Farmer expressed concern regarding the Plan's proposed
extension of Salem Church Road. He stated he objects to the
proposed extension because of the impact it would have on traffic
in a residential neighborhood and it Would connect other areas
resulting in the proposed road serving as an arterial road, etc.
He further discussed issues pertaining to the potential for
increased and uncontrolled truck traffic, lower quality
residential development Occurring, depreciation of existing
property values, additional public services being necessitated,
the need for reductions in the tax base, approval of this
proposed extension will set a precedent for future development
proposals, etc. He stated the proposed extension is unnecessary
and discussed other road networks in the area.
~r. Karl Schlenker, representing the Salem Woods Civic
Association, stated the area residents' opposition to the
proposed Plan and expressed concerns regarding increased traffic
volu~es in the subdivision, the extension of Salem Church Road,
which will worsen the traffic sit,etlon, the detrimental effect
of the road network on the area school, congestion on the road
networks, quality of life issnea, depreciation of property
values, and compatibility of residential development. He
requested that the area remain residential and that Salem Church
Road not be extended to create a major arterial highway.
~r. Hlbert Howard expressed opposition to the proposed ~xtension
of Salem Church Road and addressed zoning eonuern~ which will
place undue hardships on developers in the area.
Mr. Robert Smith expressed opposition to the proposed zoning of
property near his residence in chester. He requested that
development in the area of Buckingham/Robinson Streets and Route
10 be changed from Light Commercial to Office development to
buffer %he residential zoning from anticipated development.
Mr. Sonny Currin expressed concern regarding the Planning
Commission's recommendation of a zoning overlay district between
Chester and the Courthouse Complex. He stated he wished to qo
record as requesting that consideration be given to designatinq
this area as a combination of Office and S-1 zoning as opposed tc
Office and Agricultural zoning. He stated property owners would
be adversely affected if this were not done.
Mr. Henry Myers stated that office development in the County
excessive and, as a result, is not selling/leasing very well. He
stated he opposed the proposed land use designations for
additional office development for property which he owns.
stated he would agree to th~ concept of quality development alon!
Route 10 if a combination Of Office and B-1 development were
approved.
Mr. LaVerne Cole stated that he supported the quality concept of
development along Route 10 and requested that the area not be
locked into only residential development, as he might like to
develop property he owns ae retail or office.
Mr. Harold ~cCabe objected to the proposed extension e~ Salem
Church Road because it will increase traffic volumes in the area
Be stated he would like to see the Board take COrrective action
regarding the hazardous conditions on "Dead Man's Curve." Mr.
Daniel stated this road improvement is in the Secondary Road
Plan, however, funding is a problem.
86-523
Ms. Phylli~ Bass, of the Bermuda Messenger Service, stated there
is nothing in the Plan which addresses the fact that the Route
1/301 corridor may be Chesterfield County's urban renewal area i~
something is net done and requested that serious consideration be
given to the matter before this Plan is adopted.
Approximately fifteen (15) people were present in opposition to
the Plan as proposed. Mr. Daniel stated this was only a small
representation of the citizenry who were in attendance at the
meeting he and Mr. Mayes attended at Salem Baptist Church
regarding this Plan.
There being no one else present to address the matter, Mr. Dodd
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Daniel stated, with regard to the Salem Church Road Extended
issue, he would like the County Planning staff to meet with and
work thronqh Bob Farmer and the citizens group to look
collectively and share ideas as to ways to achieve the County's
thoughts of providing access to the proposed properties. Me
stated, on the other hand, he did net want any additional traffic
burden on existing citizens. Re stated there are several
concepts which could be addressed. He stated that no action
should be taken on this issue until it is worked through the
citizens group and brought back to the Board as an amendment at
a later date.
Mr. Daniel stated the intersection of Route 288 at Five Forks is
of extreme importance to the overall economic development of
Chesterfield County when considering the recommendations for M-1
zoning in the area of the County Airport. Re stated he would
like to see a mere detailed overlay for the intersection of Five
Forks and Route 288, which would allow the opportunity to
accomplish sound planning for economic development that would
allow access at that intersection.
Mr. Daniel stated there are three parcels at the Route 10 and
Chippenham Parkway Intersection which are basically of no use and
have no access. He stated there is no overlay for area and he
would like staff to bring back, at some later date, a more
detailed plan for consideration;
Mrs. Girene inquired as to the Route 288 and Route 10 intersec-
tion. Mr. Daniel replied that the detailsd plan should cover an
overlay from the Courthouse which would cover Route lO. He
stated he would llke staff to develop an overlay plan from
Courthouse Road back tO the City limits in more detail than what
presently exists.
Re stated there is high density residential use along the
transition line between proposed industrial development and the
existing single family residential area. He stated the majority
of the Plan is still single family residential development and
the character of that has been preserved while, at the sams time
looking to the future for quality development along the major
thoroughfares. He stated he would like to see the Plan
address the Zoning Ordinances to assure that adoption of the Fla~
would result in high quality multifamily zoning, rsalizing this
is a guide. He stated he would like for this area to be flagged~
however, such action is not to be interpreted as carte blanche
multifamily development; that such development, and in particular
high quality multifamily development, would occur only after
thorough consideration. Me stated the subject area is designated
on the Plan map in "red" off Route 10 which buffers the Airport
and the proposed Industrial (M-l) development against the single
family residential development adjacent to it. Re stated it is
important that this area be preserved in very high quality, high
standard multlfamily development.
Mr. Daniel stated, with regard to road plans, he would like,
prior to adoption of the entire plan, for ~taff to meet with Mr.
Bert Howard to discuss and review highway read networks ih more
86-524
detail before passing a final vote on the Plan.
Mr, Daniel stated if there are any zoning cases pending action,
which conform to the overall concept of the Central A~ea Plan
particularly in the Dale District, and if they are in lin~ with
the concept that appears to be not that much controversy over er
that much additional work to be done, he would like to move those
zoning cases along but in concert with the Central Area Land Use
Plan.
Mr. Mayes stated' his p~imary concern was the proposed extension
of Salem Church Road and that issue had been addressed
satisfaotorily.
Mr. Dodd stated along the Route 10 corridor, west of Chester, all
the major property owners support the higher standard of planning
intended for Route 10. He stated he would like for all of that
corridor to be on the upgraded plan, not limiting development to
Conditional Use Planned Development but go into proffered
conditions; and he would like to see a mix between office and ~-1
development, which is a light use such as florists, banks, etc.,
for that complete corridor.
Mr. Dodd stated that the area of Buckingham and Robinson Streets
in Chester should be limited to office use only and that the
Chester area would receive closer scrutiny later on as suggested.
Mr. Dodd stated he would like the Route 1/I-95 Corridor studied,
as this is the sleeper area of the County. Be stated this area
was once the breadbasket of the County, it has been long
neglected in the area of planning and utilities and he would lik~
to have a basic Board understanding that this plan would be
accomplished differently. He recommended further review of this
area so staff can devise a Utility Plan, in conjunction with
Planning, because if the utilities are not provided then the ares
will not be planned properly.
Be stated there are deferred ~oning cases because of this Plan
and if they are in the spirit of the Plan, they be allowed to
proceed, as it is unfair to delay the developers while the road
grid is being worked out.
Mr. Dodd inquired if it is possible for the Board to approve the
Plan, leaving the road grid for approval at a later date. Mr.
Micas stated the Plan could be approved as recommended and
amended at a later date to include a more ~pecific or different
road grid. Mr. Daniel stated he would prefer to defer
consideration of the entire Plan until some of the concerns are
addressed.
Mr. ~edrick stated that part of the reason the County is facing
the controversy over Sa/em Church Road is because the =oning
preceded a Masker Road Plan and, once the zoning is in place and
the development has begun, the opportunity for coming back to
construct a road or preserving a corridor ia pretty well lost so
it is very difficult to bring these cases forward and not deal
with the transportation issue.
Mr. Dodd statad there are oases involving small parcels of land
t/~at canner, in good consoience, be delayed any longer while the
road grid Or issues such a~ Salem Church Road are being debated.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred
consideration of the Central Area Land Usa and Transportation
Plan until the September 10, 1986 Board meeting, and instructed
staff to address the issues listed and to allow zoning case~
which meet the spirit and intent of the Plan to be brought
forward for disposition, realizing if the case is a major zoning
request it could be deferred until the Plan is approved.
86-525
Mr. Applegate inquired as to how pending zoning cases could be
dimpo~ed of while the report on the detailed overlay of the area
is being addressed.
Mr. Daniel stated there is an overlay from the Courthouse to the
south but not from the Courthouse to the City or on the major
intersections; however, the spirit of the Master Plan can be
utilized in determining action on zoning cases that have been
pending for some time.
Mr. Peele stated staff has a land use plan designation for the
southern portion cf the overlay district and will work, at the
Board's direction, to improve the land use plan to the north. He
stated staff has only a conceptual set of standardm am a
guideline to eDllancing the development quality in that district.
Be stated staff has expended many hours with the development
community in an effort to be sensitive to their needs and
concerns, as well am the oppoming needs and concerns of private
citizens. ~e stated it would be difficult to bring forward
significant zoning cases in that overlay district (i.e., largs
acreages, complex mixed usem, etc.) and ensure, within the next
sixty (60) days, that these cases are within the compliance of
the recommended standards.
~r. Dedd stated the cases can be considered on a case by case
basis, realizing that if complex oases are presented they will be
handled accordingly.
Mrs. Girone questioned if the intersection of Route 10/Route 288
is to be considered in tills proposal. Mr. Daniel stated this
issue would be addressed, the same as the other intersections, ir
the detailm of the overlay of the area from the Courthouse to th~
City limits.
A vote on the motion wag as follows:
Nrm. Girone requested to suspend the rules to allow Item 13.A.,
Fresentation by the Chesterfield County Friends of the Library,
to be heard out of order.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
suspended the rules to allow the presentation by the Chesterfield
County Friends of the Library to the Board to be taken out of
order.
13.A. PRESENTATION BY THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTy FRIEND O~ T~B
LIBRARY
Mr. Wagenkencht introduced Ms. Nary Ann Harmon, President of the
Friends of the Library, who indicated their group was
contributing $10,450 in the form of a full sound system which was
installed at the Central Library, a copy of the printed winning
design of bookplates to be used in a special Historical Book
Collection for the County, videocasmette programming to the
County Library Video Collection, a micro-wave oven to the
Midlothian Branch Library, and outside book return drops for sack
of the librariem (LaPrade, Midlothian and Ben Air Branches havin¢
already received their book return drops this date and Chester,
Central and Ettrick-Natoaca expecting theirs this Fall).
Mr. Dodd, on behalf of the ~oard, expressed appreciation for the
the hard work and dedication of the Friends of the Library and
their generous contributions.
86-526
12.C. PUBLIC HEAPING TO CONSiDeR TH~ SOUTHERN AREA
LAND USE AND TRANSPORTA~ION PLAN
Mr. Hedriok stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider the Southern Area Land Use and
Transportation Plan.
Mr. Peele explained briefly the background information which
initiated the preparation of the proposed Plan and highlighted
the issues considered most significant by concerned citizen~ and
the Planning Co~ission, which are addressed in the proposal.
stated that citizen concerns were expressed regarding the initial
plan, with particular emphasis on the proposed limited access
arterial which would cut diagonally across the study area from
the Walthall interchange to the Village of ~atoaca and the
proposed o£fiee, commercial and light industrial development area
proposed along this new roadway. Ee stated that in evaluating
the Consultant's Plan and considering the concerns expressed by
citizenS, the Planning staff prepared a revised Plan for this
area and presented it to the community. He stated this Plan did
not satisfy all community concerns and, subsequently, the
citizens presented their own Plan to the Planning Commission. He
stated the Planning Commission recommended that the Board adopt
the Citizens' Plan Alternative with several changes that better
reflect existing conditions and potential needs.
Hr. John Marling presented an overview of the proposed Plan. He
outlined in detail concerns relative to the significant
differences in staff's recommended Plan and the Commission's
recommendation for adoption of the Citizens' Plan Alternative,
the primary concerns being over the preservation of right-of-way
widths along major roadways and land use densities.
Mr. Jerry Journigan stated he wished to go on record in support
of the Citizens' Group Alternate Land Use and Transportation
as recommended by the Planning Commission. Be briefly outlined
the events of how the citizens became involved, the meetings
held, and the results of a questionnaire used ts canvass citizen
opinions, which resulted in the proposed alternate plan. He
stated the southern area residents oppose the proposed Woods
Edge/Hatoaca Village connector road and the proposed land use
densities designated along this new roadway.
~r. Tom Park stated he wished to go on record as supporting the
Planning Co~ission's recommended Plan, while recommending that
th~ following Plan amendments be included:
1. Delete Action 5.102 of Strategy 5, dealing with density
bonuses, as it is inconsistent with the wishes of the
citizens of the southern area;
2. Preserve the right-of-way as depicted on staff's
Transportation Plan ~ap as it relates to Section 3, page 5,
Strategy 12, Actions 12.101 and 12.102, where ne_~w
development occurs;
3. Amend the Legend on the Planning Commission's Land Use Map
to read: Rural density .5 units per acre Or less from .3
units per acre or less.
He stated these recommendations are consistent with the desires
of the Matoaca District citizens as expressed in their
There were approximately forty (40) citizens present in favor of
the amended Plan.
Mr. Hayes stated he felt the citizens of Matoaca have shown the
ultimate of citizenship in that they have become involved with
plans which impact and affect them and expresse~ admiration for
the cooperation the citizens exhibited with the County staff in
an effort to resolve their concerns. He stated the residents and
the Planning staff worked diligently toqether to resolve the
86-527
issues concerning this Plan. He stated they could not accept
Alternative I but could accept Alternative II, as modified.
On motion of Nr. Nayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted
the Planning Commission's Recommende~ Southern Area and Land Use
Plan, with the following modifications:
1. Section 3, Strategies and Actions proposed by staff and
citizens to implement the Planning Commission's Recommended
Land Use Plan. Delete Action 5.102 of Strategy 5;
2. Preserve the right-of-way as depicted on Staff's
Transportation Plan Map as relates to Section 3, Page 5,
Strategy 12, Acticn~ 12.101 and 12.102, where new
development Occurs; and
Amend the Legend on Planning Commission's Land Use Map to
read: Rural density .5 units per acre or less from .3 units
per acre or less.
Mr. Mayer stated the residents of the Matoaca District view the
southern portion of the County as the "home of the family farm"
and desire to preserve and maintain that way of life.
There was discussion regarding the ~on~icten~y of zoning in the
portion of the Clover Bill District which is adjacent to the
Natoaca District, the road rights-of way, limited densities, the
difficulty of extending utilities to the southern area if the
rural densities are maintained as the residents desire, etc.
Mr. Maye~ ~tatad he hoped the position that the citizens of the
Matoaca Dict~ict have taken on the way in which they desire their
portion of the County to be developed will draw attention to the
neoe~city for determining how the County should look in the
future and that others should take advantage of the opportunity
to begin to develop in such a fashion.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
Vote: Unanimous
It was generally agreed that the ~oard would recess for five
minutes.
ReeQ~vening:
13. NEW BUSINESS
13.B. PRESENTATION BY TME STEERING COMMITTEE ON THE 1986 FARM
MANAGEMENT TOUR IN CHESTERFIELD AND POWHATAN COUNTIES
Mr. Dick Nunnally introduced Mr. Rob Sheffield, Chairman of the
Steering Committee of the 1986 Farm Management Tour in
Chesterfield and Powhatan Counties. Mr. Sheffield invited the
Board to attend a pre-tour dinner on Friday, July 25, 1986, at
Bellson Farm, presented a brochure and an invitation to visit
some of the tour farms on Tour Day, Saturday, July 26 from 9 a.m.
to 4 p.m., and presented each member of the Board with a sample
basket of items grown or produced on the seven farms included in
the tour.
The Board expressed its appreciation for the invitations and the
gift.
13.C. PJ~QUEST FOR NEW POSITION IN POLICE DEPARTMENT
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
established an additional Police Planner position in the Police
Department in the 1987-88 operating budget at Grade 40.
86-528
Vote: Unanimous
13.D. AM~DM~NTS TO TEE DATA PROCESSING BUILDING LEASE
Mr. Dodd disclosed to the Board that he is involved in a business
venturs with one of the owners of the Data Processing Building,
declared a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia
Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from
ths meeting.
Mr. Micas stated that Judge John E. Saffron, Jr. has forwarded a
letter to the Board indicating that he has ownership interests in
the said property and has requested that his disclosure be set
forth as a matter of public record.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute an
amendment to the lease of the Data Processing Building which
provides for an annual rent adjustment, an option to purchase,
and an option to sxtend the lease if there are construction
delays of the new County building. (A summary Of the amendments
in detail, is filed with the papers of this Board.)
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Gi~one and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
Fir. Dodd returned to the meeting.
13.E. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS
13.E.1. REQUEST FROM VDH&T FOR DEDICATION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT
AT RIGHT OP ENTRy FOR ROUTE 288 AT THE COUNTY AIRPORT
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrate
to execute two drainage easements at the County Airport, on
behalf of the County, and authorized the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation to enter the 11.95 acres for the
purpose of constr~ctlng Route 288 with the understanding that th.
options will be forthcoming. (A copy of the Plat is filed with
the papers of this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
13.E.2. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER CONVEYANCE
PARCEL AT AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK TO FORTUNE PLASTICE~
INC. AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CQNTINGENT SALES
CONTRACT
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board set
August 13, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., for a public hearing to consider
the conveyance of an 8.5± acre parcel of land in the Airport
Industrial Park to Fortuns Plastics, Inc. and authorlzsd the
County Administrator to execute a Contingent Sales Contract.
Vote: Unanimous
CONSIDER CHAMBER QF COMMERCE PROP08AL FOR RICHMOND
SBA 503 CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
On motion O£ Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the ~oard
approved full participation in the Richmond Regional Certified
Development Company, directed staff to work with the P~RPDC to
develop a formal agreement for establishment of the Richmond
Certified Development Company and appropriated $16,860 from the
General Fund Contingency as the County's share of the first year
budget.
86-529
Unanimous
APPOINTMENTS - INDUSTRIAL D~VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
On motion by Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
nominated Mr. Thomas Steger, from the Dale District, and ~r. Knex
Ramsay, from the Midlothian District, to serve as members of the
Industrial Development Authority, whose formal appointment will
be made at the July 23, 1986 meeting.
13.G. CONSENT ITEMS
13.G.1. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING PROCEEDINGS OF INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPROVING ISSUANCE OF REVENUE
BONDS TO FORTUNE PLASTICS, INC.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County
of Chesterfield, (the Authority), has considered the application
of Fortuns Plastics, Inc. (the Company) for the issuance of the
Authority's industrial development revenue bonds i~ an amount no~
to s×~eed $4,000,000 (the Bonds) to assist in the financing of
the Company's acquisition, construction and equipping of a
facility for the manufacture of plastic bottles and other plaetic
containers (the Project) to be located on Whitepine Road,
immediately adjacent to Commonwealth Controls Corporation and
near the intersection of virginia Pine Court and Whitepine Road
in the Chesterfield County Industrial Park, Chesterfield,
Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on June 19, 1986;
and
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board of
Supervisors (the Board) of Chesterfield County, Virginia (the
County), to approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with
Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended
(the Code);
WHEREAS, a copy of the Autherity's resolution approving the
issuance of the Bonds su/oject to terms to be agreed upon, a
record of the public hearing and a "fiscal Lmpaet statement" with
respect to the Project have been filed with the Board.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CBESTE~IELD
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by
the Industrial Development Authority of the County of
Chesterfield, Virginia, for the benefit of Fortune Plastics,
Inc., to the extent required by Section 103(k) of the Code, to
permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project.
2. Approval of the issuance of the Bonds as required by
Section 103(k) of the Code, does not constitute an endorsement oi
the Bonds Or the creditworthiness of the Company, but, as
required by Section t5.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended, the Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the
Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest
thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues
and moneys pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit nor
the taxing power of the Coamlonw~alth, th~ County nor the
Authority shall be pledged thereto.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
Vot~: Unanimous
86-530
13.G.2. REQUESTS FOR BINGO/RAFFL~ P~F~ITS
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved the requests for bingo/raffle permits from the Optimist
Club of Chesterfield, Virginia and the Chester Civic Association
for calendar year 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
I3.G.3. APPOINTMENT OF CLERK TO TBS BOARD QF SUPERVISORS
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
appointed Mrs. Joan S. Dolezai as Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors, effective July 9, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
13.G.4. STATE ROAD ACC~PTANC~
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordanoe with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Irongate Square in Irongate Square, Dale District.
Upon consideration whsreof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Irongate Square in
Ironqate Square, Dale District, be and it hereby is established
as a public road.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
~ighways and Transportation, be and it hereby ia requested to
take into the the Secondary System, Irongate Square, beginning ag
the intersection with Irongate Drive, State Ronte 325, and
running ~outherly 0.09 mile to end in a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent elope, ~ite distance
and designated Virginia Department of Highways drainage
easements.
This road serves the adjacent eommerolal property.
And be it further resolved, that the Eoard of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50'
right-of-way for this road.
Irongate Square is recorded as follows:
Plat Book 50, Page 60, August 27, 1985.
Vote: Unanimous
13.J. 1986-87 BUDGET AMENDMENTS
On motion of Mr. Daniel~ seconded by Mr. Mayes, th~ Board adopted
the following 1986-87 Budget Amendments:
1. Data Processing - Approve two positions funded by a reduc-
tion in the estimated cost of the mainframe upgrade. The
positions will improve system documentation and operations.
2. Personal Property Systems - Approve changes in expenditures
and revenues for Data Processing, Treasurer, and Commission-
er of Revenue totaling $322,300. Increase budgeted revenues
for personal property taxes by $322,300.
3. Social Services - Approve $99,300 in additional State and
Federal Revenue and expenditures.
4. Health Department - Increase estimated state revenue and
expenditures of $131,600 to covsr the costs of six position
86-531
fro
and telephone charges. In addition, withhold $40,136 from
the final FY87 payment to the Stats unless it becomes
necessary at year end to make this payment.
5. Economic Development - NO change in the adopted budget.
6. Buildin~..Inspection - Approve $200,000 appropriation for
sight positions linked to departmental reorganization. An
ameunt of $200,000 in fee revenue is anticipated and will
cover the costs of the positions.
7. Debt Service - Approve new amortization schedule tied to
debt ~efunding. A savings of $78,400 will be returned to
General Fund Balance.
S. Mental Health/Mental Retardation - Reduce State revenue by
$38,500. Increase revenues and expenditures by $196,000.
Approve $85,900 from General Fund Balance to fund critical
needs.
vote: Unanimous
13.H. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
13.B.1. CON~IDER CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS
13.B.l.a. MRS. MARTHA L. WOODFIN, ALONG SHERINGRAM DRIVE
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation
proceedings against the following property owner if the amount at
get Opposite her name is not accepted. And be it further
resolved that the County Administrator notify said property owner
by registered mail on July 10, 1986, of the County's intention to
enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of
said condemnation proceedings. This action is on an emergency
basis and the County intends to exercise immediate right of entr
pursuant to section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia.
Mrs. Martha L. Wood£in W86-14B $460.00
Vot~: Unanimous
13.H.l.b. CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES, INC.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
authorised the County Attorney to institute condemnation
proceedings a9ainst the following property owner if the amount a
set opposite their name is not accepted. And be it further
resolved that the County Administrator notify said property ownei
by registered mail on July 10, 1986, of the County's intention tc
enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of
enid condemnation proceedings. This action is on an emergency
basis and the County intends to exercise immediate right of entr
pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia.
Consolidated Industries, Inc. W86-14B/17 $1,026.00
Vote: Unanimous
13.H.2. CONSENT ITEMS
13.H.2.a. CONTRACT FOR RELOCATION OP WATER LiNE ON ROUTE 360
AT POCOSEOCE BOULEVARD
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents to award Contract Number W86-86C, in the
amount of $98,840, to T & ~ Construction Company Inc. for
relocation of a 24 inch water line on Route 360 at Po¢oshock
86-532
strip of land, across the property of Sandra G. Goss, along
Moseley Road.
Vote: Unanimous
13.N.2..~. ACCEPTANCE OF DEED OF D~ICATION ALONG SUNCREST DRIVE
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Hoard
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute a
deed of dedication accepting, on behalf of the County, a 5' stri
of land along ~uncrest Drive from Vernon E. LaPrade, Jr.
Vote: Unanimous
13.H.2,i0 AGREEMENT WITH VDH&T FOR ADJUSTMENT OF UTILTTIE~ ON
HUGUENOT ROAD
On motion of Mrs. Giro~e, seconded by Mr. Apptegate, the Board
app~0ved and authorized the County Administrator to execute an
agreement with the Virginia Department of ~ighways and
Transportation for adjustment of Utilities on Huguenot Road,
subject to approval of the County Attorney. It is noted that
funding for the utilities water adjustments will be expendsd frs
5B-5835-400E Miscellaneous Highway Projects, which is in the
approved 1986-87 Capital Improvements Budget.
Vote: Unanimous
13.H.2.h. AGREEMENT WITH VDH&T FOR ADJUSTMENT OF UTILITIES ON
ROUTE 288 BETWEEN ROUTE 360 AND ROUTE 10
Mr. Mayes expressed concern that there was no map attached to
this Board paper indicating the location of the proposed project
and he was not familiar with this location. Other members of the
Board indicated it wac in order.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute an
agreement, on behalf of the County, with the virginia Department
of Highways and Traneportation for the adjustment of Utilities or
Route 288 between Route 360 and Route 10, Project 0288-020-103,
C501, subject to approval of the County Attorney, to provide for
the construction of water lines d~ring the construction of Route
208; and further the Board transferred $480,000 from 5B Surplus
to 5H-5335-6C6E,
Vote: Unanimous
13.H.3. ~PORTS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a report on the developer
water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator.
13.I. P~PORTS
Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with status reports on the
General Fund Contingency Account, General Fund Balance, Road
R~serve Funds, and District Road and Street Light Funds.
14. ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Mr. Applegat~, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
adjourned at 11:00 p.m. until 9:00 a.m. On July 23, 1986.
vote: Unanimous
· cha~'d L. He~'r'iok
County Administrator
R. Garland
Chairman
86-534