Loading...
08-14-85 MinutesBOARD OF SU~RVISO~ MINUTES August 14, 1985 Supervisors in Attendance: Mr. G. H. Applegate, Chairman ~. Jesse J. Mayas, Vice Chairman Mr. Harry G. Daniel Mrs. Joan Girone Mr. Richard L. Hedriok County Administrator Supervisors Absent: Mr. R. Garland Dodd Staff in Attendance: Mr. Sta~lley Balderson, Dir., Econ. De=elep. Mrs. DOris DeHart, Legislative Mr. Elmer Hedge, Asst. County Administrator Mr. William Howell, Dir. of Gen. Services Mr. Manten Kibler, Nursing Home Controller Mr. Bobert Mas~en, Asst. Co. A~in. for Ruman Services Mr. Richard McElfish, Dir. of ~nv. Eng. Mr. R~ J. MeCracken, Transp. Director Mr. Steve Micas, Co. Attorney Mrs. Pauline ~itchell, Dir. of News/Info. Services Mr. F. O. Parks, Dir. o~ Data Processing Cot. Joseph Pittman, Chief of Police ~r. Laha Ramsay,. Dir. of ~udget ~ Acctg. Mr. Jay Stegmaier, Chief of Bnd. ~ Mst. Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr.~ E~ec. Asst., CO. Mr. David Welchons, Dir. of ~tilitiea Mr. James ~csk, Acting Dir. of Plaaning Mr. Appl~gate ealled ~he meeting te or,er at the Courthouse at 7:05 p.m. (EDST). 1. INVOCATION Mr. Applegate introduced Reverend V. R. Wheeler, Pamtor of Webber ~morial Maptist Church, who gave the invecation. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of I.~r. Daniel, seconded bs; :.: (~irone, the Board approved Che minutes o~ July 24, ].985, ~ amended. Ayes: Mr. App]a~ate, Mr. Mayas, Mr. Danle.i a~.(] Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd~ It is noted that staff will prepare a po) icy statement re~arding the operation of the laedfil~ aI~d celiac±ion station for the ~%ext Board meeting for clarJ, ficatio~ p~rpos,~j 85-587 3. COUNTY ADMINiSTRATOR'S COMMENTS Mr. Hedrick congratulated Mrs. Girons on her second place award for bagging groceries in a contest sponeered by Safeway. He stated she designated her $50 award to the Forest View Rescue Squad. Mr. Hedrick introduced and welcomed Ms. Jane Waldron of the News Leader who is substituting for Mr. Hugh Rcbertson who is in the hospital; introduced and welcomed Me. Robin Terry who is substituting for Mr. Greg Coy of Channel 8 and Stated Mr. Coy has accepted another position with WT~G - Channel 5 in the Washington, D.C. area; a~]*l introduced and welcomed Ms. Paula Otb( with W~;R - Channel 6 who is substituting for Mr. Eric Allen. 4. BOARD CO~94ITTEE REPORTS Mr. Daniel stated he had attended the MPC and the RRPDC meetings in the past two weeks. Mrs. Girone ~tated that baseball reigns supreme in Midlothian as the Midlothian Post %186, American Legion, won the state championship for the second year in a row. She stated a lot of the players are from Clover Hill as well as from the Midlothian High School team who also won the state championship earlier. She stated the assistant coach at the Post was the coach et the High School and this is an outstanding accomplishment. Mrs. Girone stated she attended the Air Pollution Control Board meeting as the RRPDC may he requi~ed to do an air quality plan for the region. Mrs, Girone stated she spoke to a government class at Monacan High School, she met with r~preseetatives of The Old Coach/Old Buckingham area discussing futur~ ].and use and commercial, growth in their area and she attended the MPC and RRRDC meetings. Mr. Mayas stated he represented the Board on a trip to Hannover, S~st G~rmany, to investigate an existing facility operated by the handicapped and mentally retarded. Re stated the program was reviewed, 'they do a fine and impressive job, they compared the two programs, their program wa~ not self-sufficient but funded primarily ky the gOvernment; our Drogram is better but can be improved by applying some of their concepts, etc. He presented the Board with a plaque presented by the director of the factory employing the mentally retarded and handicapped. Mr. Mayas stated a letter of apprecia~.ion should b~ sent. Mr. Applegate stated he attended the Metropolitan Economic Development Council meeting. Re stated the Richmond area is being highlighted in Business We~k Magazine ~or economic development and, consequently, through the MEDC the Board w~ll be requested to recognize Septe~nber 30 - October 5 in honor of business and development in ~he Richmond Metropolitan area. ~r. App]egate stated ~he Capital Region Airport Commission had resolved the qro~d transportation differences with ~he taxicab drivers and limousine drivers. 5. REQUESTS TO POST~ONE ACTION~ EMERGENCY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES IN T~E ORDER OF PRE~E~TATION On motion o~ Mr, Daniei~ secon(~ed by Mr. Mayas, the Board deleted Items 8.1-~, Consider Condemnation for Sewer Easements in Rock Spring Farms; deferred Item 9.B, 85SOS2~ S. L. Nusbsum & Co., Inc., Matoaca District until Augl~sr 9~, i1985; deleted d~scussion of EM~ v. ~hesterf.i~ld County and Plantation Pipe]ina v. Chesterfield Counzy in Item ].0.K., Exeeut~ve Sass~on~ ~d~ed l. tem 88-588 10.I.l.e., Authorize County Administrator to Sign Letter Restricting tho Dates upon Which the County Could Redeem the $20 Milllon Sewer and Water Bond Issue~ added Item 10.I.4.n., Authorize the County Administrator to Exeoute a Contract to Acquire a Parcel for the Willis-Coach Road Industrial Access project; and adopted the agenda as amended. Ayes= Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent; Mr. Dodd. 6. RESOLTTIONS O~ SPECIAl. R~COGNITION Mr.S. Pauline Mitchell introduced Mr. and Mrs. Charle~ Taylor and their son, Richard, who recently attained the rank of ~agle Scout, She stated he is a men, er of Boy Scout Troop #874 sponsor~ by st. Luke's United ~ethodist Church and is a member of the Manchester Migh School Show Choir and wrestling team. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, Richard Taylor, son of Fir. and Mrs. Charles A. Taylor of 435] Round Hill Drive, Chesterfield, who is a member of Boy Scout Troop ~874 sponsored by St. Luke's United Methodist Church in Chesterfield and a student at Manchester High School, has achieved the rank of Eagle Scou=; and WHEREAS, ~t is known and recognized that this is an honor that must be earned over a long period of time, requiring physical skills, and knowledge and training in 24 different categoriee; and WHEREAS, Richard has proven fo his leaders that he is a good citizen of outstanding character; and WHEREAS, The rank of Eagle Scout that he has attained is an honor that will remain with him forever. NOW~ THEREFORE, RE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby extends its congratulations to Richard and acknowledges the geed fortune of Chesterfield County to have such an outstanding young man as one of its ~:itizens. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. ~osen't: ' Mr. Dodd. Mr. Applegate presented Richard Taylor with the executed resolution, 7. ~EARINGS OF CITIZENS ON ~SCRED(~L~D ~.TTERS OR CLAIMS A. MS. BARON LIVINGSTON AND MR. D~N CO~~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITY Ms. Karen Livingston requested that the existing horse riding facility at the Chesterfield Complez rema~ -is is or be relocated if the s~te is necessary for const~'uction o~ ,~'~*~anty buildings. She stated since the late t800's horse zacJ. ng ~nd chows have been a part of the County's heritage. She ~tated th~s provides a wholesome sport whi~:h allows youth to learn r,~i~ponsibi]ity and sportsmanship while haling f~lD. She stated tl]a't horse Showing has increased, for the last 20 y~ars there have Dean shows at the existing facilities, there are ~pproximately 4,000 horses in the County, the facility is currently used by 13 horse associations in the County on a regular basis of ~hich ~:hr~ are 4-H gr'Oups, horse shows provide goo(] clean family fun usually ~t no cO~t to the spectators, youth participation plays a major role in the shows, shows have designated classes fo~ ~outh partioipat~on only, often youth participation call numbers the adults, the shows )rovide s major way of fund raising fI~r youth ],nembers of the association, etc. :he stated that individuals and clubs have supported the facility :into 1965 and before the Parks and Recreation took the facility ~ver from General Services, most repairs, additions, etc. were ~aken care Q£ by clubs and individuals. She o~tli~ed the various !und raising activities and individual donations contributed to ~he complex for water lines, gates~ water wagon~ 0elf shoots, ~dditional stalls, e~¢. ihs stated in 1985 there were 34 bookings which were one, two or ~hree day shows. She reviewed what the County rental and charge !or facilities is and indicated that the money taken in far ~xceeds what the actual operabien cost of the facility is. She 'eviewsd the other facilities mafntsined by Parks and Recreation luch as a boat ramp, parks, a~hlstic complexes as well as th~ los~ for diamonds, field~, etc. for which r~ntsls are collected luring tournament play only. She stated this County facility is :he only place where ho~se~ can be r~dden as they are restricted !rom parks. :he requested that the existing facility remain as is until such :ime as a new facility can be completed for ~heir use. She :tated estimates for a new facility range from $250,000 - :350,000. She stated that the Direeter of Parks has also ndicated that this has the potential to be a good facility and .t would be a shame to deprive citizens the opportunity of using :he presented the Board with a her statement, newspaper clippings ,f events at the complex and a petition signed by approximately 95 people in support of the existing facility. There were pproximately 150 people present in support of the existing acility remaining in existence until another could be completed. ir. Don Coates ~tated he is a member of the board of directors of we state he,se organization~, he is an approved breed judge and does have an interest in this facility. ~e stated there are organizations using the £acility, a number of breed seciations are also involved but also 'the Quarterhorse ssociation. He stated that each year the Virginia Quarterhorse .ssociaticn approves 12-15 shows which take up 4-5 weekends at hesterfield alone. H~ stated there ars approximately 100+ crees on the grounds; that means there are 300-408 entries articipating in the shows; that approximately $100,000 is raised nd/or spent during eACh show at hotels, restaurants, service rations and veterinary clinie~ iD the jurisdiction; the uarterhorse Association has 600 m~ers on its ~oster wish pproximately §0-60 members from Chesterfield; etc. He stated hose shows help the economy as indicated as well as the owners pond money for feed, they pay taxes ¢n acreage where the horses re kept and trailers and vehicles to t~ansport the animals hav~ o he purchased on which taxes are paid. Re stated other sports nthusiasts may buy a.baseball glove once every few years and niforms but they do not spend the money that the owners of creek do. He stated these people contribute greatly to the tax ass and economic growth of the County~ He stated the horse hews involve non-prefi~ organizations a~'d enaourage youth ctivities which a~e well super%is~d~ there are no alcoholic averages, they are not rowdy groups a:~d they have had nc olicing problems. Rs stated the Qua~terhorse exh:ibitions at the ounty bring to the area horses from alt over Vi:~ginia and the asr Coast. He stated there ere a large number of executives who ave been here from the State and Country jUS~ =c ~ee the acilities and Chambers of Co~u~erce enjoy this type of exposure. e stated the County is one of the fastest growing jurisdictions n the State and it has a horse facility whinb has good qualities nd he could not See the County doing away with it add he hated ~ see the County tak~ a ~ack seat ~a Faiffa~ Chesapeake and ~nrico who h~ve facilities as well. He stated the Chesterfield 85-590 Jaycees had a petition which they are circulating requesting that the existing facilities remain as is until such time as other facilities can be completed for use. Mr. Applegate expressed appreciation to those who were present for their time and o0noer~$ expressed. He stated he understood staff had met with representatives of the horse oon~nity and had made them aware cf the dilen~a that the County does face with regard to facilities because of its fast growth in :ha State and Southeast. He stated the situation is not easy to deal with and stated it was the intent to keep the hoxse community representatives abreast with how the County plans to move forward and we will try to work with them in any way possible. He stated the Board understands their situation. Mr. Daniel submitted a letter from Ms. Colleen Smith as well, supporting the existing ~acilities and a petition from the Jaycees. It was generally agreed the Board would recess for five minutes. Reoonvenin~: 7.B. MODEL DEVELOPFiENT CORPO~KTION - DAMAG~B A~ RESULT OF UNReCORDeD OPFSITE DRAINAGE EASEMENT FOR AFTON SUBDIVISION Mr. Welchons stated that the County had received a claim from Model Development as the result of financial damages from an unrecorded drainage easement in Alton Sabdivision. He stated the , deed was signed by the owner but not by the trustee, it was not ~recorded by the County and the property changed hands. He stated !Mr. LaPrade of ~odel Development has submitted a claim in the !amount of $28~000 for two easements, the loss/profit from two i homeS and the diminished value of t'so lots. Be stated the County :Attorney indicate~ the Board need not pay the claim becaus~ of :the protection of sovereign immunity. Ee stated~ h0wever~ if the Board sees fit to pay =ha claim staff recommends that it pay $4,000 for the Lot 8 easement and deny the claim for ~he easement for Lot 9 and deny claims for the lost profit and values of the two lots. Mr. LaPrade stated that easements were presented to the County prior to going record in 1982, they were unaware that they were not recorded, they did not know anything about it until they applied and were denied building permits because the easements were not put to record, He stated they acquired the easements during negotiations at which Mr. Micas was present and they did pay $4,000 for the first easement, ~e stated there was not several months delay in working on the second piece of property hut the owner reconsidered and he would ~ot give the ~asement free of charge and wanted $5,000 which they paid. ~ stated it has been tied up for over three years because the County did not do what they were supposed to do. He st~ ted they 9o~ %:he easements, took them to the County for rec;erdaticn which was not accomplished. Ee stated he felt the complete request was justified and re~erred to hie letter to M~. Muzzy outlieing the justification. Be stated this $9~000 wa~, '.':tual out of pocket expenses because they had to pay for easc~.~nts that the County did not record after they had been obtained in 1982. Mr. Applegate inquired e×actly what happened. Mr. Micas stated when this transaction occurred~, the County policy was to accept the easements and to perform the reco~dlng functions aud we did 85-591 tell the developer we would do it and it was not done an a timel' fashion. ~e stated the current policy, in light e£ those problems, is that the developers will per~orm those functions. He stated at the time that occurred, the developer was told the County~would handle the matter. Mr. Daniel stated he met with Mr. Muzsy who prepared a history the matter. Ee stated that a previous landowner granted the easement~ ~o Mr. LaPrade, the easements and ali proper paperwork were delivered to the County with the understanding the County would record the easements which did not happen in a timely fashion. He stated he did not see any reason to try to determin why or why not this did not happen but they w~re not recorded. He stated in the meantime, the property was sold to another landowner with none of the easements recorded and the new property owner made the developer pay for easements that the County was to have recorded. He stated he felt this claim in th amount of $28,000 is excessive but he felt a claim in the amount of $9,000 would be more reasonable. He stated the loss of profi on the house, etc. is highly speculative and cannot be determined. ~e stated he felt th~ Cost of resecurlng the easements that had been obtained by the developer in 1982 wa~ a legitimate claim. Mr. 5aPrade discussed the computation of lost profit, the fact that houses were sold and the contracts had to be voided a~ber loans had been approved, thc need to have all easements, etc. recorded prior to any section or segment of a subdivision being recorded and they were allowed to do that because they believed everything was done and they had sold the houses and lots and ha to let them go as they were the only two lots remaining in the subdivision at that point. He stated ne one told them they coul not use the lots until they had sold them, had loans approved, were ready to build the homes and they applied £or building permits, ~e stated ~hey just this year ~ot a building permit fo the lots. Mr. Applegate stated he did not have a problem with the easement costs but wag concerned with the figures submitted for profit and lOSS On the houses and lots. Mr. Applegate inquired if the price paid for the drainage easements were excessive. Mr. LaPrade stated they were excessiv but it was the best deal that could be obtained and County staff wa~ ~nvolved in t}~e $4,000 easement negotiation. Mr. Daniel stated that although the costs were excessive, he, too, undsrstood this was the best deal to be made. Mr. Mayes stated he did not feel Mr. LaPrade should be penalized for the County not doing what they were supposed to. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, resolved that the Board approve the claim of Model Development in the amount of $9,000 for the cost of easements for Lot 8 and Lot 9 and denied the claim ~or the profit of two houses in the amount of $14,000 and denied the claim for the diminished value of two lots in the amount of $5,000 and further the Board authorized the expenditure of $9,00 from the Utility Department right of way funds for this claim upon execution of a fei. ease being prepared by the County Attorney's Office. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes~ ~r. Daniel and Mrs. Gircne, Absent: Mr. Dodd. 8. DEFERRED ITEMS It is noted that consideration of condemnatlcn proceedings against property owners in Reel( Spring Farms scheduled for meeting was deleteo from the uganda at the beginning of the meeting. 85-5~2 pUBLIC EEARINGS LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR POWHITE/ROUTE 288 BBVELOPMENT AREA Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider public comment regarding the land use and transportation plan for Powhite/Reute 288 development area. Mr. Applegate dieclosed to the Board that he i~ a trustee for property which could be affected by the realignment of the road, declared a conflict of interest pursuant the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. Mr. Zook stated when adopted, this Plan will revise the County's General Plan. He stated the land use and transportation plan for the Powhite/Route 288 development area involves 85 square miles and has been in progress for about 1% years. He stated a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission who recommended approval with the amendments forwarded to the Board for consideration. He stated the Board received a staff report which identi£1ed citizen concerns with respect to the plan. He stated as a result of public comments received since the Plan's referral from the Commission to the Board, five amendments are being suggested in addition to the Commission's recommendation. He presented slides of the metropolitan area, stated the major issue for bringing this plan to the forefront is the imminent extension of Powhite Parkway from its present location at Chippenham Parkway. He stated that the Board, seei~;g that development was rapid in the area~ directed staff to determine how that future road could be extended and what land uses were appropriate with that major roadway being extended into Chesterfield County. He stated that Kellerco had prepared the plan in association with two other firms; he reviewed development in the area and.major landmarks; the core area where the two major roads intersect; he reviewed major road improvements, the e~isting system, the committed system and the long range system; he stated the major · ssue was the continuation of Route 288 with its intended connection with John Rolfe Parkway in Henrico County; he identified numerous c0nflicts with existing subdivisions ~nd historic sites and seeing that the future corridor had these conflicts the consultants tried to find a different corridor as the original plan'was no longer feasible; he reviewed several alternatives studied; he reviewed the proposed land use/transportation plan recommended by Kellerco; he reviewed the existing and reeommended development which allows for more effective use of public roads~ utilities and facilities; he stated this would not be an easy plan to implement because of the major road problems which the County faces with regard to encouraging the Highway Department and Metropolitan agencies to consider the relocation of the existing Route 288 alignment further to the west; he stated the Board should adopt the alternative corridor, this would be an indication to the State thau there is a consensus of 'the general location for a future corridor; it would not be a specific location that one could count on in the future until the ~ighway Department defines precisely where it would be and acquires rights o~ way so there is no interference with the future development in the area such as subdivisions entering into the proposed right of way. He reviewed the proposed amendments which the Commission did not review which were: _. The roads designated by the Plan as minor arterials with rights of way of 90 feet should be reclassified as major arterials with rights of way of 90 feet, 2. The elimination of the Urban Service Line shown on the map. 3. Inclusion of the following wording i~ the Plan text: Upon extension of'water and sewer ~aci!ities to the area west of the Village of Midlothian along Route 60, or upon approval of private development plans assuring the extension of such facilities to this area; or after VND&T has identifi~ an e~act corridor location for Route 288 west of the Village, upon direction the Board, s=aff will reexamine the area's economic development potential and prepare an area plan for Board consideration. The area plan would revise the Plan now under consideration. 4. That the consultant has delineated a corridor for the northeJ extension of Route 288 but recognizes that further detailed analysis will be required. An alternative alignment to the consultant's recommendation has been proposed by area residents. Since any alignment will only be conoeptual, either map location will accomplish the Plan objectives. 5. To insure that the north/south movement will be accommodated staff recoramends that unless a bond Or other acceptable surety is received for the construction of relocated Coalfield by October 1, 1985, the Board should request VDH&T to design and construct an alternative method to accommodate the north/south movement through the study area. Mr. Daniel inquired if a new corridor is determined what safeguards are in place to insure that development within that corridor is not allowed to occur. Mr. Zook stated that many of the alternatives for insuring such development does not occur may require changes in State enabling legislation. He stated we need to know where the road is going and need to have the consensus in the Metropolitan Area; the Highway Department and the State ~ighway Commission have to act to endorse that alignment~ the State Highway Department hae to star't to centerline that alignment and look at the alternatives to preserve the necessary right of way. He stated VDH&T will hold public meetings and hearings to examine a~te~natlve corridors for Route 288. Be stated this process would take a minimum of two years. Ne stated right now without any changes in State enabling legislation, the State must allocate ~unds to preserve these rights of way and without it, development will occur. ~e stated the consultants have taken the Route 288 extension about as far west as is practical and something needs to be done to preserve the rights of way. MS. Jo Hesbach, representing residents of Walton Park, Queensmill and Queensmill North and othe~ areas along the Highway Department's alignment, was present. She stated they were in support of relocating Route 288 from its current Highway Department corridor to the route further west as indicated in the Kellerco proposal. She stated co--unity disruption would be minimized as the recommended plan would run through a much less dense area than the Highway Department's proposal. She stated with the amount of residential growth in the County, it is only natural for the County to want the business spectrum to grow as well. She stated the County in order to attract bueiness needs an adequate high speed highway and no~ an awterial highway with traffic signals. Sh~ stated with adequate roads the County would enjoy a more profitable position in the business community. She stated the latest aerial photographs show the road running through flood plains, they did a little ~ig ~a~ging to show the road could stay wh~re it is~ she understood the natural environment of a flood plain could not be dis~urbed but yet the Righway Department can use it, etc. She stated this plan should put to rest the conflicting stories that people receive regarding this read and will take the High%ay Department alignment of this road off the map ~hat serves the Richmon~ Metropolitan area. She Stated there were Over 350 letters delivered to the Planning Commission in support of the R~!le$co P1jn. She requested that the Board edopt the Kellerco Plan which will put the road there it will serve all the residents to the bust capacity. There wure approximately 150 people present in support o£ the Kellerco Plan. Mr. Mayes recognised and welcomud Dulegste John Watkins who was ~s. Virginia Rudd was present and stated she was in favor of the plan involving 0tterdale Road which was introducud at Mrs. Girone's monthly meeting, she presented a putition with over 400 signatures in favor of this plan, Mr. Zook indicated the citizen recommended alignment was very similar te the one Mrs. ~dd was in favor of. Mrs. Rudd stated she was concerned about the traffic int~rchanges. stated he thought it important to keep in mind that the developments such as Charter Woods would be affected by the routu of 288 as it is prusently situated. He stated another subdivision has been approved behind Charter Woods which would also be affected. Be stated this would be about 350 additional lots in the dlreet route of 288 as proposed within the next 8 yuars. He stated when he built his home, state and local officials indicated that the prusunt location would not be constructed and he relied on that information. He stated thuy indicated that a large commercial development had been planned in the proposed route as we!i so it seemed logical and it seemed that it has been the idua historically to relocate the road to the wust. He stated to duny the plan as proposed aftur intensive study and expenditures of large sums of monuy for the consultant would be a denial of what most recognize as the direction in which Chesterfield County needs to go. He stated the proposed route by Kelleroo causes the least disruption. Mr. J. P. Causey~ secretary and gunura! counsel for Chesapeake Corporation and a director Of the real estate development subsidiary, Delmarva Properties, was prusunt. ~u stated they own a 325 tract in Chesterfia!d County lying on =he western side of Swift Creek Lake and on both sides of Woolridge Read. He stated he appreciated thc ~lannlng Departmeut's responsivenuss 'to the issuu of the urban service line which gave them substantial concern as it ran right through the middle of the tract. He stated they are affected by the division that exists along Woolridge Road which divides the densities of the residential ~reas on'both sides of that road. H~ r~quested the Board move that line to the natural geographic boundary of Deep Creek which lies slightly to the north.. He a~ated consistent with the concept of developing contiguous development, this tract is susceptible for development as one unit even though it lies on both sides of the road. He stated they are in a s~tuation whereby part of it lies in an area wh~r~ the density permits development now and the other part lius in an area where it is not economically feasible to develop now, He stated that also creates a situation of incompatible daveiopm~nt bucause of the different densities o~ eit}xer side. ~{e requested that the Board review the location of the density line alon~ Woolridge Road by moving it slightly tO the north to the natural geographic boundary of the creek bottom so that the sam=~ density can be developed on either side and they cad utilize the tract in the same manner throughout. He stated he admired the progress which Chesterfield County is making, this plan provides for crdurly development, it is a good plan a~d they request that one minor consideration. Mr. John Smith stated Route 288 is s long discussed ltam, Route 28~ has net oi~iicially been considered by the Highway Departmen~ 85-595 !or more than three years. He stated there are not many houses .n the Route 288 right of way, the Highway Department bought ,roperty in the Village of Midlothian 14 years ago and still ;etains a considerable amount of property and they decided about !our years ago they would not use that Route 283. He stated i~ :emains on the map because certain funds ~cerne to it as mileage ~n a map and he did not think the Highway Department will take it ~ff the map until it has another place to go. He stated no ~eferenee has been made to a study made during Governor Godwin's Ldministration resurveying and restudying how to handle Route 288 ~rom Route 360 to wherever it would go =e the other side of the :iver which also included environmental and Other aspects. He .nquired what will happen to the propesty owner who will not be lble to develop and will they have reduced taxes. He stated the ~owhite extension as it was originally planned met Genito within :he Brandermii1 area before you got to school and it then bename ~pparent that the road should not be run across the reservoir for ~nvironmental reasons. Be stated it was then agreed that the :cad should he moved north and would hit Genito Road, north of ~randeIT~ill and would continue north and ultimately open the vast ~rea between Route 360 on the south and Route 60 on the north, ~estern Chesterfield and Powhatan. He stated in the current :roposal he sees no reference to any of that bu~ there are :hanges in zoning from what was worked on and changes to what was ~pproved. He stated it appears that west of Coalfield Road there ls LUCKS Lane and another road that appears will parallel Route ~88 for 1,000 feet which he felt did not have any advantage. He ~tated there is an effort to divert Old Hundred Road traffic :cming east and in computing the income from the toll road, Old {undred Road was to bring in a great deal of that traffic and was :o tie into the toll road just north of Brandermi!l at its )resent location. ~e stated it concerned him that the road has )een changed to the ~orth, goes between the two roads and there ;ill be three roads within 1,800 feet, Route 76, Powhite and ~oute 288. He stated there was no r~ason for that. He suggested :hat the Board refer the ree0~mendations which were submitted by ;ta£f after the Planning Commission review back to the Planning 2o~,unlssion and start the review process again. {r. Jerry Jewett, a real estate broker in Midlothian, stated that Ln 1969 they looked at maps of Route 288 and those maps have ;lighted this County ever since. He stated he did not feel there ~ould be anyone h~re tonight to discuss the eld proposed Route !88 but that shows the power of a line on a map when there is not :he bureaucratic will to move it. He stated th~ original Route ~88 line was effectively stopped 10 years age when the U.S. )istrict Court enjoined the Highway Department ~rom constructing ~hrough Tuckahoe Plantation and there was no appeal ed it is .rrevocable and they cannot build a bridge on the James River at ~hat point. He stated that has continued to haunt the landowners ~n that right of way, it has the people in Walton Park concerned ~out a phantom road, otc. He urged the Board not to put a road ~n the map unless two things hav~ happened: the Highway )epartment has approved it officially and they have the money to ~y the right of way. He stated anything less will disrupt .anning, will confiscate the landowners property as it cannot be ~cld as the Planning Col~mission will honor it, the market will ~OnOf it and it will be effectively taken out of the market. ~e ~fated theoretically the~e will be co~ventional development of ~wo lots to the acre en the right and on the left 'there will be )ne residence on a three acre lot. H= stated on the right of the .ine, that concept is not a p~.an ~or th~ future but what actually ~xists today from Route 360 to Route 60 wil~ One or two ~elatively small p~reel$ that are not subdivided. He stated the .arguer tract is the Lo'uis Reynolds tract that is not develoged ~ut platted and approved and next to it is the Evergreen property ~nd the Brandermill tracts. ~Ie stated the adoption Of thi~ plan ~ans that there will be no more development in that area when ~he present relatiYe]y small number of lo.ts are used up. He ~tated the. Board could develop 'this pOii~y~but he felt the ~oncept that the growth of ~he metropolitan area will stop in 85-596 western Chesterfield is not something that the public is generally aware of. He stated before that step iS taken, it should be thoroughly debated. He stated there is no urban development in the country with three acre lots. He stated this land is solid woods owned by a lumber company, there are no farms which need protecting, etc. He stated he felt the plan was unrealiefic, it did not include a watershed, it is a random concept going through the woods, etc. Mr. Jo~ Matyiko stated his Support for the recommendation to foz~ward the Plan back to the Planning Comm/ssion for additional consideration. He stated he dic not think Route 288 would be built where it is and the people should not be concerned but the road needs to go further west. He stated he felt additional studying was necessary. Mr. Don Bright, a resident of the area, stated he i~ concerned with the ability of the entrances and exits that have been discussed to accommodate the traffic that will be generated in that area. He stated th~ road is projected to be a high speed road that will carry people from residential areas to town. He stated when back up at interchanges delay traffic 10-15 min~te~ that is not a high speed roadway. He stated he did not feel adequate attention has been given to get p~ople to and from their neighborhoods such as Lucks Lane, Runnymeade, Lake Crystal, etc. He stated he understood there would be about 15,000-20,0Q0 people in the area within the next 8 years and if that is the case, two entrances/exits are not sufficient. He stated there will be massive bottlenecks trying to get on and off of the roadway. He stated if we are to protect the tax money that is spent now and the people that will live in the areas in the future, there should be additional consideration to the entrances/exits. He stated although the'State has the f~nal decision on these matters, he felt since it is the County's tax money, additional consideration should be given. Mr. John Watkins, representing Watkins Land Corporation which constitutes 620 acres on the northern and southern side of Route 60, was present. He stated they are concerned with the land use and the mixed use which exists On the north side of Route 60 from appreximately Otterdale Road fo th~ west. He stated that there are several different kinds e£ classifications of land use ranging from residential, office~ light industrial and general commercial. He requested the ~eard consider the amendment brought forward to 'use the light industrial classification for all of that land use area. He stated they fee! this is the highest and best use of the land and will give them the ability to do a more thorough job of planning at the time they wish to develop which is quite a distance off in the future. He stated one of the problems facing Chesterfield County is that of commerclal development and that is one area where we need to allow latitude where it can b~ done and this would give them the Opportunity to promote some of that development. H~ stated they supported the plan with that one amenffm%ent. Mr. John Harris, stated fhey own property .~! Old Hundred Road, and currently the church is close to the present highway. He ~tated he ~nderstood that the road would be extended to 90 ft. rather than 45 ft. He inquired about the effecu of the road on the property of the church and its cemetery. Mr. McCracken stated the 90 ft. right of way would be set up as ~he guide line for future development along that corridor and they will try to obtain the rights of way based on the 90 ft. ~e stated in areas where there is existing development, they would try to avoid areas such as the church and try to minimize the impact. He stated construction will follow ~ch later than the actual donation of the rlgbt o~ way. Mr. Harris stated there are also residences along the road and ~eir ~eils are 15 ~t. from the present road and there are only WOods on the ether side and inquired what would be done. Mr. McCracken stated where existing development is on one side, if the opportunity is available to go to the other side and avoid the residents, they would t~y to 85-597 do so but ~till obtain rights Of way. Mrs, ~irone inquired if the residents would agree to have the road shifted behind the houses and church. Mr. ~arris stated that would be fine. Mrs. iGirone stated that might be feasible and asked staff to make a There was ne one else pre~ent to speak. Mr. Daniel expressed appreciation to those who were present for taking the time to express their views. ~e stated he felt the Mrs. Girone stated that she was glad to see support for this proposal and she would like to incorporate some of the amendments into the plan and come back at a tat%r date to bring it all together in a final document. Mrs. Girone stated she owns stock in Chesapeake Corporation and she did not know they had land involved in this study area. She stated that she had been advised by the County Attorney that since she does not own 3% of the stock in the corporation and realizes less than $10,000 a year in dividends, it is not a conflict. Mr. Mayes expressed appreciation for the residents coming to the meeting. Mr. Daniel stated that he felt the old Route 288 dusignation should be taken off any official maps and if an alternative design for Route 288 is developed, that certain procedures be put into place which would maintain that integrity. He stated help will be necessary from the General Assembly and others in order to take necessary steps to prevent what has happened from occurring in the future. Hs stated eventually there will be a western route and it is a necessary transportation link in the regional highway system and if we don't take necessary steps now to preserve it, it will never happen. Mrs. Girone stated she felt it all amounts to money. She stated the reason the existing corridor was developed was because neither the state nor the County had the money fo buy the rights of way and the developer took the County to court and we were told we had to buy it Or turn it loose for developmsnt. She stated the same thing will happen unless there is some kind of change in state law or some kind of funding off,red by the state, when a new corridor is chosen. She stated that is an issue that has to be worked on. She stated.~his is the very beginning of a process, and what we are talking about now are corridors and after the Board finalizes this with the help Of citizens, it will go to the State Highway Department for consideration, it will have to go to public hearings through the ~ighway Department, then the Highway Commission will vote on the corridor. She stated at that time they will take the old corridor off and put the new on. She stated this is a long process which will take approximately a year. She stated the residents will be kept informed. On motion of Mrs. Gir'0ne, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board continued the public hearing and deferred the decision on the land use and transportation plan for the Powhite/288 development area until October 9, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. Ayes: Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Applegate and Mr. Dodd. Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting. It was generally agreed the Soard would r~cess for 5 minutes. Reconveni~: 85-595 9.C. ORDINANCE REGARDING ANNUAL TAX ON PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLES, ~OTORC¥CLBSr TRUC~.~ TRAILERS SEMITRAILERS AND CAMPERS Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance imposing an annual tax on passenger motor vehicles~ motorcycles, trucks, trailers~ semitrailers and ca~pers. Mr. Stegmaier was present and reviewed the ordinance changes. There was no one present to discuss the matter. Mr. Daniel stated the budget revenues had been based on these proposed changes. He stated he felt the changes were comparable with other jurisdictions and lower than some. Mrs. Girone stated that this was part of the budget discussion and she felt most of the taxpayers were aware of it. On motion of Mrs. Girone, ~econded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANC~ ~0 AMEND THE CODE OF TEE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 14.1-19 AND 14.1-21 IMPOSING AN ANNUAL TAX ON PASSENGER MOTOR VEEICLES, MOTORCYCLES, TRUCKS, TRAILERS, SEMITRAILERS AI~D CAbL~ER~ BE IT ORDAINED by the Board Of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 14.t219 and 14.1-21 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia are amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 14.1-19. Amount of tax--Automobiles, motorcycles. On each and every passenger motor vehicle there shall be an annual license tax of twenty dollars; and on each and every motorcycle there shall be an annual license fee of ten dollars. Sec. 14.1-21. Same--Trucks, trailers, busses, etc. (a) On each and every truck not designed an~ used for the transportation of passengers, and not exempt from taxation as otherwise herein provided, the license tax shall be a~ follows: With gross weight of 6,500 pounds or le~s ............ $20.00 With gross weight of 6,501 pounds to 12,000 pounds...$25.00 With gross weight of 12,001 pounds to 20,000 pounds..$30.00 With qro~ weight of 20,001 pounds to 30,000 pounds..$35.00 With gross weight of 30,001 pounds or over ........... $40.00 (b) On each trailer and semitrailer with a gross weight of 1,501 pounds or more constituting a part of a combination cf a truck or tractor truck and trailer or semi-trailer, the license tax shall be seventeen dellar~. On each trailer designed for use as living quarters for human be:ngs or designed exclusively for the transportation of boats, regardless of weight, or on each one or two wheel trailers with a gross.weight of 1,500 pounds or less of a cradle, flatbed or open pickup type~ the license tax shall be six dollars and fifty cents. {d) In the case of a combination of tractor-trailer, or semitrailer, each vehicle constituting a part c: such combination shall b~ licensed as a separate vehicle and separata license indicia shall be issued t~erefor. (e) On each and e~ery motor vehicle, 'trailer or semitrailer upon which well-drilling machinery is a%~ached and which is permanently used solely for transport~hion of such machinery, there shall be a license tax of twel~e dollars. 85-599 (2) That this ordinance shall be effective upon passage and shall apply to tax years beginning on and after January 1, 1986. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Oirone. Absent: Mr. Dcdd. 9.D. ORDINANCE REGARDING IMPOSITION OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance imposing a transient occupancy tax. Mr. Stegmaier was present and explained the ordinance. There was no one present to discuss the matter. on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND C~A~T~R 8 OF THE CODE OP THR COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, DY ADDING ARTICLE XI RELATING TO TEE IMPOSITION OF A TPJtNSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Sup~rvlsors of Chesterfield County: (t) That Chapter 8 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia is amended as follows: Article XI Transient Occupancy TaR Section 8-42. Definitions. For the purposes of this article the following words and phrases shall have the following respective meanings, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Hotel: A~y public or private hotel, inn, hostelry, tourist home or house, tourist cabin, camping grounds, motel, rooming house or other lodging place within the county offering lodging for.compensation to any transient. Lodging: Any space or room furnished any transient. Transient: Any person whc, for a period of less than thirty consecutive days, either st his own expense, or at the expense of another, uses spaces or obtains lodging at any hotel, as defined in this section. Section 8-43. Impose~j_..~nt. (a) Pursuant to the provisions of ~58.1-3519 of the Code of Virginia, there is hereby imposed on each a~d every transient a lodging tax in the amoun~ of ~wo (2) percent of the total amount ~aid ~or room or space rental by such transient to any hotel; )rovided however, that this tax shall not apply to rooms or spaces rented for continuous occupancy by the sam~ individual or group for thirty 130} days or ~e. section 8-44. Collection. Every person receiving any payment for lodging on which a tax is levied under this article shall collect the amount of such tax from the transient or the person paying for the transient'S lodging, at the time payment f~r such lodging is made. The taxes so collected shall be deemedto be held is trust by the person require~ to cellect such taxes until remitted a~ required by 'this article. Section 8-45. Repo~ts and remittances ~enerally. The person collecting any tax as provided in ~8-44 shall m~ke out a report thereof, upon such forms.and setting forth such information as ths commissioner of revenue may proscribe and require, showing the amount of lodging charges collected and the tax required to be collected and shall sign and deliver such report to the count~ treasurer with a remittance of such Such reports and remittances shall be made on Or before the twentieth ~ay of each month covering the amount of tax collected during the preceding month. Section 8-46. Collector's records. It shall be the duty of every person liable for the collection and payment to the county of any tax imposed by thfs article to keep and to preserve, for a period 6f two (2) years, such suitable records as may be necessary to determine the amount of such tax as he may have been responsible for collecting and paying to the county. The commissioner of revenue may inspect such records at all reasonable times. Section 8-47. Duty of collector going out or dis~osin~ of When any person required to collect and pay to the county a tax under this article shall cease to operate or otherwise dispose of hi~ business, any tax payable under this article to the county shall become immediately due and payable and such person shall ir~ediately make a report and pay the tax due. Section 8-45. Penalty for late remittance or false return. (a) If any person, whose duty it is so to do, shall fail refu~e to remit to the county treasurer the tax required to he collected and paid under thi~ article, within the time and in the amount specified in. this article, there shall be added to such tax by the county treasurer a penalty in the amount of five (5) percent for each additional thirty' (30) days or fraction thereof d~ring which the failure continues, not to exceed nwenty-five (25~ percent in the aggregate, with a minimum penalty of ten dollars (b) In the case of a false or fraudulent return with intent to defraud the county of any tax due undsr this articls, a penalty Of fifty (50) percent of the tax shall be assessed against the person required to collect such tax. Section 8-49. Procedure upon failure to collect, r~port, etc. (a) If any person, whose duty it is so to do, shall fail Ox refuse to collect the tax imposed under this article and to make Within the time provided in this article, the reports and remittances ~equired in this article, the commissioner of revenu, shall preened in such manner as he may deem best to obtain facts and information on which to base his estimate of ~he tax due. As soon as the commissione~ of revenue shall procure such facts and information as he i~ able to obtain upon which to base the assessment of any tax ~ayable by any person who has f~iled or refused to collect such tax and to make such report and remittance, he.shall proceed to determine and assess against sue~ person the tax and penalties provided for by thi~ article and shall notify such person, by registered mail, sent to his last known place of address, of 'the total m~ount of such tax and penalties and the total amount thereof shall be payable within t~n (~0) days from the date of ~uch ~otice. (b), 'it shall be the duty of the ¢cmmiasioner of revenue to ascertai~ the ~ame of every per~bn operating a hotel in the county, liable for the collection of the tax isvisd by this article~ who fails, refuses or neglects ~o collect such tax or tc 85-601' make, within the time provided by this article, the reports or remittances required in this article. The coK~issioner of revenue may have a summons issued for such person in the manner provided by law and may serv~ a copy of such summons upon such person in the manner provided by law and shall make one return of the original to the general district court of the county. Section 8-50. Violations of article. Any person violating or failing to comply with any provision of this article shall be guilty o£ a Class 1 misdemeanQr. Conviction of such violation shall not relieve any person from the payment~ collection Or remittance of the taxes provided in this article. (2) This amendment shall become effective January 1, 1986. AyeS: ~Lr. Applegate, Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 9.E, OPJDIN~/~CE RELATING TO LICENSE TAxX ~OR PERSONS SEVERING OIL Mr. Hedrick stated this date and t]ma had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to a license tax for p~rsons severing oil. Mr. Micas explained the ordinance. There was uo one present to discuss the matter. On motion o£ Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS ~MENDED, BY ADDING SECTJON 12-181 REI~TING TO A LICENSE TAX FOR PERSONS SEVERING OIL BE IT ORDAINED by the BOard of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Chapte~ 12 of the Code of the County of Chester- fieldr Virginia is amended and reenacted as ~ollows: Sec. 12-181 Persons severing oil. Every person engaged in the business of severing oil from the earth shall pay for the privilege a lioanse tax equal to one-half o£ one percent of the gross receipts of the business generated from the sale of oil severed in the county. Such gros~ receipts shall be computed based on the fair market value of the severed oil at the time the oil is uti!i~ed ~r sold for utiliza- tion in the county, Or at such time the oil is placed in transit for shipment from the county. All persons severing oil and all common carriers transporting such oil shall be required to maintain records for five y~ars showing the quantities of and receipts from oil which they have severe~ or transported; these records shall be made available to the co~.~issioner o~ revenue and the county's license inspectcr.~pon reque~.t uhere~ore. Ayes: Mr, Applegate, Mr. Maye~, Fir. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. ~2~sent: Mr. Dodd. '10. NEW BU$IN~SS 10.~'~ PURCHASE uP N~$ AIRCRAFT TOWING EQUIPMENT On motion of ~. Mayas, seconded by 14.¢. Daniel, the Board appropriated $11,700 to the Airport from the General Fund Contingency account ~or nhe purchase of a new aircraft towing vehicle. 85-602 Ayes: Mr. Applega~e,' Mr. MayJs, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 10.B. WAIVER OF DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE REQUIREMENT OF 1977 REVENUE BOND FOR NURSING I{OM~ On motion of Mrs. Girone~ seconded by Mr. Mayes~ the Board hereby requests that Central'Fidelity Bank waive the net income to debt service coverage ratio of 120% contained in Section 602 of the Indenture of Trust for the 1994/85 fiscal years. Tn anticipation of a permanent resolution of the inadequacy of the Medicaid roimburSement, the Board of Suporvi$or$ is morally oon~nitted to provide annual funding for the operating deficits at the nursing home. The Board has appropriated $400,000 for the fiscal year 1985-86 for this purpose and will review the operation of the nursing home annually to consider future supplements. It is the Board's intention to continue the present level of quality care in the future. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 10.C. ENTERTAINMENT/MUSICAL FESTIVAL pERMITS 1O.C.1. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY FAIR ASSOCIATION On motion of Mr. Mayes~ seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the request by the Chesterfield County Fair Association for an entertainment/musical festival pe~it for September 8~14, 1995 for the County Fair to be held at the Stadium subject to the County ordinances. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 10.C.2. BELLWOOD DRIVE-IN Mr. Micas stated the County has received a request from the Bellwood Drive-in for an entertainment/musical festival permit. Ne stated there is a report before the Board outlining soma of the problems experienced last year with the same type of festival. He stated the Police Deparf~ent has expressed some concerns regarding the request. Mr..Daniel inquired if uhe promoter agreed to the ]0 conditions outline in the paper. Mrs. Riddle was present and the stated the conditions were acceptable. Chief Pittman stated the Police Departmen~ agreed with the conditions as well. Mrs. Girone stated she had a problem in that the report indicates that the Police Department is agreeable although there is a potentia~ for health and safety problems and criminal violations due to the participants being able to hide alcohol and weapons in their vehicles. She stated she felt this was just asking for problems and was unwise. She reviewed other problems that e~isted last year with security and the promotion of drinking by the disc jockeys. When ask.ed, Mr. Steve Mast, a promote~, stated there would be approximately 3,100 peoule participating. Mrs. Riddle stated they had their own security as well as Chesterfield Police officers, posted window signs and radio and news media coverage indicated no alcoholic bev%rages would be allowed and they have increased their police security. She stated that when vehicles are allowed in, it is difficult to control what is brought in but there were no serious incidents last year. Chief Pittman stated there was a disc jockey who was promoting drinking which was a major problem. Mrs. Riddle stated that particular disc jockey was told to cease making those types of co~ents and he will not be participating this year. Mr. Applegate stated this was in Berne:da District and he was concerned about the Board sppro~ing something of ~his magnitude in another district without the supervisor being present. Mr. Micas stated that to defer the issue would present severe difficulties in expectations in attendance. Mr. Daniel stated there were 'three arrests at tbs festival. Mrs. Riddle stated that the three arrests were in three niqhts of the festival. Mr. 85-603 Daniel stated he f~lt everyone supported all necessary steps to maintain public events to be held in an orderly manner, however, anywhere there is a gatherinq of 3,000 there will be incidents. He stated even at the Diamond several people were escorted out. He stated to penal~se the applicant is wrong and the staff has outlined 10 conditions which they feel adequate and he did not feel Mr. Dodd would have any objection. Mr. Mayes stated the County is insured, the promoters are insured and the ~olioe Department does not object. Mrs. Girone stated that the report indicates the plan is acceptable although potential for health and safety problems and criminal violations exist, M~. Daniel stated a lot of events such am football games are potentials for the same type of thing. He stated na was not advocating Or opposing this request, but felt the applicant should be given proper consideration. Mr. Appleqate inquired if the ~vents coulf be controlled with the 10 additional conditions. Col. Pittman stated that this could be a successful festival. He stated from looking at other localities, the problems occur when the attitude of the owners, promoters and disc jockeys encourage drinking, rowdinessr etc. He stated that if the attitudes are known from the start that this will not be advocated or allowed, then you will not have a lot of problems. ~e stated some problems will occur like at football games, but the danger of this type of situation is worse, unless the attitude is different then the problems are insignificant. Mr. Applegate inquired if the County could shut the festival down if it were out of control. Col~ Pittman stated they could at any time. There was some discu~sio~ of the disc jockeys, the age limits, etc. Mr. Applegate indicated he would prefer to have Mr. Dodd present for this decision. After further consideration, it was on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, resolved that, based on the personal commitment of the promoters to maintain good order and taking all necessary steps to p~event similar situations as last year, Sellwood Drive-in bm granted an entertainment/festival permit a ~usic festival on Auqust 24, 25 and 26, 1985 subject to the County ordinances as well as the following 10 conditions: t. A supervisory police officer be paid for by the applicant and be present during all performances. 2. ~he applicant acquire twelve port-a-johns. 3. An inspection by a County b~ilding inspector of the electrical equipment and hook-up be sntisfactorily completed be~e:e each performance. 4. A bond in 'the amount of $10,000 be submittcd to the County insuring faithful performance of all the applicant's responeibilitiem. 5. A deposit in the amount of $5,000 be submitted to th~ County to insure payment of all personnel expenses. 6. A guarantee from the applicant that th~ number of cars admitted will not exceed parking capacity. 7. Insurance coverage acceptable to the Risk Manager. 8. The ban on alcohol and drugs be strictly enforced by Bel!wood. 9. ~he promoters.advise the bands that use of fireworks in any manner Without a fireworks permit is prohibited. 10. A guarantee from thm app!~mant that the bands, disc jockeys or announeer~ will not encourage or mention the consumption of alcoholic beverages or use of dr~gs. Ayes: Mr. App!egate, Mr. Mayas '~nd ~Ir. Daniel. Abstenflen: ~rs. Cirone beoanse of her concerns mentioned. Absent: ~. Doda. ® Mr. Daniel stated that if there is a problem this y~ar, he would not favorably consider the request any other year. 10.D. O~DINANCE ADOPTING BY R~FEREMCE INTO COUNTY CODE ALL STATE M(Y~OR VEHICLE OFFENSES On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted on an emergency basis the following ordinance and set the date of September I1, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. for its public hearing~ AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ARTICLE I, SECTION 14.1-1 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CNESTERFI~D, VIRGINIA, I978, AS AMENDED RELATING TO ADOPTION OF STATE LAW DP2%LING WITI~ MOTOR VEHICLE OPFENSES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia: (1) That the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended by amending the following section: Sec. 14.1-1 Adoption of state law. Pursuant to the authority of section 46.1-188 of the Code O: Virginia~.~s amended, all of the provisions and requirements of the laws of the state contained in Title 46.1 and Article 2 of Chapter 7 of Title 35.2 of the Code Of Virginia, as in ~orce on July 1, 1985, except those provisions and requirements the violation of which constitutes a felony, and except those pro- visions and requirements which by their very nature can have no application to or within the county, are hereby adopted and incorporated in this chapter by reference and made applicable within the county. References to "highways of the state" contained in such provisions and requirements hereby adopted shall be deemed to refer to the streets, highways and other public ways within the county. Such provisions and requirements are hereby adopted, mutatis mutandis, and made a part of this chapter as fully as though set forth at length herein, and it shall be unlawful for any person, w~thin the county, to violate or fail, neglect Or refuse to comply with any provision of Title 46.1 or Article 2 of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia which is adopted by this section; provided, that in no event shall the penalty imposed for the violation of any provision cz requirement hereby adopted exceed the penalty imposed for a similar offense un,er Title 46.1 or Article 2 o~ .Chapter. 7.of Title 18.2 cf..the Code of Virginia. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 10.E. APPOINTMENTS 10.E.i~ YOUTM SERVIC~ CO~iSSION Mr. Hedrick stated ther~ were vacancies on the Youth Services Commission. Mrs. Gircne stated that she felt it might be wise t have one youth representative from eack of the high schools. On motion of Mr. Daniel secended by Mr. Maye~ the Board deferred until August 28, 1985 consideration CE a~.~intments to the Youth Services Commission to allow Mr. Sti'th ~,~ ~heck to see what is necessary in order to allow one youth representative fro~ each 0 the high suhools. Ayes: Mr. Appleqate~ Mr. Mayes, ~r. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. ~sent: Mr. Dodd. Mr. Daniel requested Mr, Stith to check with current mes~ers ca the Youth Services Comm] ssion to see if there were any recommendations for the adult ~a~ers. 85-605 ® ® 10.E.2. CONTOUR On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board nominated ~rs. Marie Beach to Contour representing the County at-large for an additional two year appointment. Ayes: Mr. Applegate~ Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: ~. Dodd. 10.E.3. APPOMATTOX RIVER WATER AUTHORITY On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board appointed Mr. David H. Welchons, Director of Utilities, as an alternate representative for Chesterfield County to the Appomattox River Water Authority effective immediately. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 10.F. CONSENT ITEMS 10.F.1. POLICE OFFICERS On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board of Supervisors hereby respectfully recommended to the Circuit Court Judqee the appointment of the following people as police officers for the County of Chesterfield effective September 9, 1985: John Harvey Atkisson, Jr. Charles Randall Conner Cynthia Dale Cooke Ronald Gregory Daniel Daniel Gordon Dinius Scott Andrew Earley Virgil Alexander Forbes, Jr. Robert Wayne Gerber Daniel Joseph Geary James Barry Kennedy Charles Randall Leedy Joseph Franklin LeCato, Jr. Gary Xavier Lovatt Malcolm Vaughan Lowery Romaine Martin, II William Harold Morgan Thomas James Page Richard Stephen Pittman Gregory ~lair Turpin Su~an Elizabeth Weigland Edward Michael Wessel Judith ~]ne Williams Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr, Dodd. Mr. Daniel indicated that he was unrelated to any of the applicants. Chief Pittman reviewed the process by which applicants qualify and were recommended for appointment. ~e stated these appointees would be on the road in the first week o~ March. Me stated 11 would be replacements, the balance are new positions and he outlined in which divisions they would be assigned. Chief Pittman stated, Eot the record as well, that none of the applicants were related to h£m. Mrs. Girone stated that there had been an accident on Route 147 and the man in whose yard i5 happened, complimented the County on the poli0e officers in charge at the scene. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Env~romnental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Hoard, made report in writing upon his examination of ~nchcape Road in Beekenh~N~ section B, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Inchcap¢ Road in Beckenham, Section B, Clover Hill District, be and it hereby is established as a public road. 85-606 ® ® ~d be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of ~ighways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to ~ake into th~ Secondary System, Inchoape Road, beginning where ~tate Maintenance ends, Inchcape Road, State Route 1242, and ~oinq 0.05 mile southeasterly to a dead end. ~his request is inclusive of the adjacent slope and site distance ~asements. Phis road serves 3 lots. %nd be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors ]uarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 60' ~ight-of-way for this road. ~his section of ~eckenham is recorded as follows: ~ection B. Plat Book 23, Pages 81 & 82, March 6, 1975. %yes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. iAbsent= Mr. Dodd. ~his day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with ~directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of gllesmere Drive, Edmontho~pe Road and Cassaway Road in Powderham, Sections E and C, Mid[uothian District. Upon consideration whereof~ and on motion of Mrs. ~irone, iseconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that ~llesmere Drive, '=dmonthorpe Road and Cassaway Road in Powde~ham, Section B and C, Midlothian District, be and they hereby are established ae public iroad~. iAnd be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of ]Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to itake into the Secondary Syetem, Ellesmere Drive, beginning at the int~rseetlon with Glendower Road, State Route 1069, and going 0.13 mile northwesterly to the intersection with Edmonthorpe :Road, then continues 0.2~ mile northwesterly to the intersection :with Cassaway Road, then continues 0.06 mile northwesterly to tie ~into existing Ellesmere Drive, State Route 1069; Edmonthorpe iRoad, beginning at the intersection with Ellesmere Drive and going 0.25 mile northwesterly to the intersection with Cassaway Road; and Cassaway Road, beginning at the intersection with Edmonthorpe Road and going 0.05 mils northeasterly to a temporary turnaround. Again, Cassaway Road, beginning at the intersection with gdmonthorpe Rohd and going 0.16 mile southwesterly to the intersection with Ellesmere Drive. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope and site distance easements These roads serve 44 lots. And be further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50~ right-of-way for all of these roads. These sections of Powderham are recorded as follows: Section B. Plat ~ook 28, Pages 63 & 64, April 20, 1977. Section C. Plat Book 38~ Pages 16 a 17, January 30, 1981. Ayes: Mr, Applegate, Mr, Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. CONTRACT FOR E~GINEERING SERVICES FOR EON AIR LANDFILL Qn motion o~ Mats. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board authorized the County Administrator to e×ecutn any neoeEea~y 85-607 documents for Charles C. Townes and Associates for engineering services on the Ben Air Landfill project, Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 10.G. ~IGHWAY ENGINEER Mr. McCracken introduced Mr. Dennis Morrison, recently appoineed Resident Engineer for Chesterfield for the Virginia Department of ~ighways and Transportation. Ne briefly outlined his educational and professional background. The Board welcomed Mr. Morrison to the Co~ty and wished him much success in his new capacity. Mr. Morrison crated h~ looked forward to working with the County and offered hie assistance at any time to the Board or staff. Mrs. Girone stated there was a serious accident at Devenwood Road and stated that this has happened twice and had the residents been in their yard at that time, something more serious could have happened. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Hoard requested the Highway Department to install a guardrail on the east side of the intersection of Devenwood and Huguenot Road at the location of the recent accident. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Gircne. ~bsent: Mr. Dodd. Mrs. Girone stated ehe had received some complaints of dump trucks coming from Powhatan down Robious Road to Salisbury Road and out Winterfield to the job sites. She stated the resident~ would like a ban on through tr~ck traffic in the area. Mr. McCracken was requested ~e begin the process. Mrs. Girone stated she would like the speed limit reduced on Salisbury Road because near Robious it is 45 mph and it is 35 mph at the other end and they would like the entire length of road to be 35 mph. Mr. Daniel requeste~ Mr. McCracken to discuss with Mr. Morriso~ and advise him of the situation on Bellbluff as the area residents are concerned about the quality of construction. Mr. Mayes expressed some concern as to who the Board should funnel complaints through regarding the highways. He stated some members address questions to Mr. MOrt!son, and Mr. McCraoken and he submits problems through ~r. ~edrick's office. Mr. Applegate stated the Board looked forward to working with Mr. Morrison in the future. 10.t{. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS 10.H.1. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dan~e]., the Board approved the installation costs for street lights at the following locations with funds tO be expended from the district street light funds as indicated: 1. Belmont Road and Sue Jean Drive - $351 - Dale 2. Cranbeck Road and Cranbeck Terrace - $213 - Midlothian 3. Coalfield Bead and Genito Road - $!~1651 - ~lid./Clover Hill Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 85-608 (-) 0 10.H.2. STREET LIGHT BEQUESTS Mr. McElfish stated a request had been received for the County to assume the cost of 11 street lights in the ~enn Acres Subdivision. He stated of the 11, only four met the criteria~ There was some discussion regarding the criteria, the cost of installation, the annual cost of the street lights, establiahing precedents, etc. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Beard deierred consideration of a request for the County to assume the cost of 11 street lights in the Penn Acres Subdivision until August 28, 1985 to allow Mr. Applegate time to review the situation further prior to making a recommendation. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved the installation of a street light at the intersection of Greenbriar Drive and Windward Drive with necessary funds to be expended from the Matoaca District Street Light Funds and assumed the cost of the lights at the following locations: 1. I~terseetion of Vernetta Lane and Serena Lane 2. Intersection of Vernetta Dane and Edwin Lane And further the Board denied the request for the County to assume the cost of two additional street lights in Beverly Acres which did not meet the criteria. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayms, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Giro~e. Absent: M~. Dodd. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved the installation of a str~at light at the intersection of Beulah Road and Bopkins Road with any assooiated costs to be expended from the Dale District Street Light Funds. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayer, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. Mr. Daniel stated he had pressnt~d a letter with petitions to Mr. Hedge from Mr. Nelson regarding the street light in .~eadowbrook. Mr, McElfish stated a report has not come hack from vepco with regard to the location of this street light. 10.B.3. STORM WATEB ~NAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR COURTHOUSE COMMONS On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes~ the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to e×ecute a Maintenance Agreement for a storm water management system with the developer of Courthouse Commons, as approved by the County Attorney's Office. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mro Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. Mr. Applegato stated that there is a problem with the detention basin off of Blkhardt Road. Mr, MeElf~sh stated the Elkhardt situation was not a maintenance problem and ~oning addremmed this particular question as it was a xequirement of the developer =o maintain this to protect Ms. Tyl~r~s pond. 10.M.4. PUBLIC SEARING FOR OROINANCE RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board set the date of September 11, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. to consider an amendment to Section 21-24 of the Zoning 0rdina~c~ relating to conditional uses. 85-609 Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 10.H.5. INDUSTRIAL ACCESS FUNDING FOR RUFFI~ MILL ROAD On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Bo~rd adopted the following resolution: Whereas, Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virginia permits the State Highway and Transportation Commission to make an equivalent matching allocation to any County for designatione by the governing body of up to twenty-five percent or $500,000 whichever is greater, of funds received by it during the current fiscal year pursuant to the "State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972" for use by the State Highway and Transportation Commission to construct, maintain or improve primary and secondary highway systems within such County; and Whereas, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation ha~ notified the County that ~425,889 is the maximum amount of Chesterfield County funds that will be matched by the State during FY 1985-86; and Whereas, the Fiorucci Foods (U.S.A.), Inc. will complete and occupy a new processing plant on Ruffin Mill Road (Route 746); and Whereas, in order to provide a safe access road to Fiorucoi's plant, Ruffin Mill Road must be reconstructed. Now, Therefore, He It Resolved that the Board designates $98,500 from its revenue sharing funds, to be matched by the State, for the preliminary engineering, right of way acquisition and utility adjustments for the reconstruction of Ruffin Mill Road. And Be It Further Resolved, that the Board intends to request the Highway Department to reconstruct with industrial access funds, Ruffin Mill Road from its intersection with 1-95 tc the proposed Fiorucci plant entrance. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, }~. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Eodd. When asked, Mr. MeCracken stated that there may be $190,000 that the County may have to provide. Mr. Applegate inquired if this is obligating the County to that amount. ~hr. McCracken stated this resolution only obligates the revenue sharing ~unds so that the project can begin. 10.H.6. CONCRETE CURBING ALONG EDGEMERE BOULEVARD On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors is interested in pursuing the installation of concrete curbing alon~ Edgemere Boulevard IRouta Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that C~%~sterfield County Board of Supervisors appropriates $12,000.00 from the Dale District 3¢ Road Funds for the installation of curbing along Sdgemere Boulevard from Falstone Road to Drakeshire ~oad. 95-610 Further, Be it Resolved that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to construct these improvements on an accounts receivable basis. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, ~r. Hayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 10.H.7. BEACH ROAD RECREATIONAL ACCESS PROJECT On motion of Mrs. Girone, ~econded by Mr. Hayes, the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereas, in June of 1977, the Virginia Department of ~ighways and Transportation Commission approved a $200,000.00 allocation from recreational access funds ior the improvement of Beach Road (Route 655); and Whereas, on May 11, 1983, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors requested the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to secure the right of way and adjust the utilities for the project on an accounts receivable basis; and Whereas, a mutually acceptable agreement regarding this arrangement has not been developed between the County and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors recognizes tha need and desire~ to have Beach Road improved. NOW, Therefore, Be it Resolved that the Board will not acquire the right of way or adjust the utilities for the Beach Road project; and He It Further Resolved that the Board authorizes the County Administrator to forward to VDB&~ a one time $127,000.00 contribution to the Beach Road project. These funds to be appropriated from the 1985-86 capital improvement allocation for industrial/recreational access projects. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, ~ir. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 10.H.$. RESOLUTIONS CO~FIP~IING ACTIONS OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 10.H.8.a. FIORUCCI FOODS (USA) On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Mayes, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the "Authority"), has ce:~idered the application of Ficrueci Foods (USA) Inc. (the "Compani~'") requesting the issuance of the Authority's industrial de~]opment revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $9,500,000 (the "~ond~") to assist in the financing of the Company's acquisition, construction and equipping of a meat processing facility coDs~sting of approximately 70,000 square feet (the "Pr~ieot#) to be located on approximately 190 acres at ths northwesi' acre%er of Ruffin Mill Road, the western boundary of which is approximately 1/2 mile east of Route 620, in the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, and has held a p%~lic hearing thereon on July 31, 1985; and WHEREAS, Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of industrial development bonds and over the area in which any facility financed witk the proceeds of industrial develop~nt bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bond~; and 85-611 WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "County"); the Project is to be located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County (the "Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental ~nit of the County; and W~ER~, the Authority has recommended that the Board ~pprove the issuance of the Bonds; and Whereas, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing, and a Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with the Board; BE IT P~$OLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF T~ COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD~ VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Company, as required by Section 103(k) and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Virginia code, to permit the Authority to assiet in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a prospactive purchaser ef the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Project or the Company. 3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary Income Tax Regulations Section 5f.103-2(f) (1), this Resolution shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of its adoption. 4. This Resolution ~hall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Ayes: Mr. Applcgate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. D0dd. 10.M.8.b. DRAW COMPANY On motion of Mrs. Qirone~ seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREASt the Industrial Develo~=ment Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the Authority) has considered the application of Draw Co., a Virginia general partnership (the Applicant) for the issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $505,000 (the Bonds) to assist in the financing of the Applicant's acquisition and construction of a 15,000 square foot warehouse~ shop and office facility (the Project) to be located at the northwest corner of Nasty Lane and Specks Drive in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on July 31, 1985; and WBEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board of Supervisor~ (the Beard) of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the Countyl, to approve the issuance Of the Bonds to comply with Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended; and W}~EREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuanne of the Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with respect to the Projec~ have been filed with the Board; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD 0r SUPEk~;ISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board of Supervisc=s of the County of Chester£ield, Virginia, approves the issuance Of the Bonds by the InOustrial Development Authority o~ the Ceunty of Chesterfield for the benufit of Draw Co., a Virginia genera], partnership, to the extent required by Section 103(k), to permit the Authority to a~sist in the fin&n¢isg of the ~ro]ect. 85-612 2, The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by Section 103(k), does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Applicant, but, as required by Section 15.1-1380 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 Commonwealth, the County nor the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 3. This resolution shall take affect iramediately upon its adoption. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girona. Absent: Wr. Dodd. 10.H.8.c. NOLAND COMPANY On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS; the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the Authority), has considered the application of Noland Company (the Company) for the issuance of the Authorlty's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $4,000,000 (the Bonds) to assist in the financing of the Company's acquisition, constructlcn and equipping of warehouse/distribution facilities (the Project) to be located West of Interstate 95 on Bellwood Road in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon July 31, 1985; and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested ~he Board of Supervisors (the Board) of the County of Chesterfield (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); and WHeReAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the · ssuance of the Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with respect to the Project have been filed with the Board. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF 1.. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield, for the benefit of the Company, bo the extent required by Section I03(k) of the Code, t¢ permit the Authority to assist in the ~iaancing of the ProjeGt. 2. Approval cf the issuance of the Bonds, as required by Section 103[k) of the Code, does not constitute an endormement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Company, but, as required by Section 15.].-1380 of the Coda of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the Bonds shall provide thaf neither the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the B~nds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto ~cspt from the revenues and moneys pledged therefor, and neither :~e faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Coa~6onwealth, blip.. County nor the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 3. The Bonds shall not be issued unless they shall have received an allocation of any "private activity bend limit," as provided ia Section 103(n) of the Cede shall be made to bonds from the Project. Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as any assurance that suuh allocation will be availab]~ or, if available, will be made. 85-613 ® 4. The resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. A~sent: Mr. Dodd. 10.H,8.d. RIWAY OF VIRGINIA On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield {the Authority), has considered the application of Riway of Virginia, Inc. (or Clayton D, Eaglin and Jeffrey W. ~arshall, for lease to Riway of Virginia, Inc.t (the Company) for the issuance of the Authority's industrial development fey,hue bonds in an amount not to exceed $700,000 (the Bonds) to assist in the financing of the Company's acquisition, constrnetion and equipping of a poultry further processing facility (the Project), including appurtenant offices, to be located on Ramblewood Drive in the Seaboard Small Farms subdivision, in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on July 31, 1985; and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board of Supervisors {the Board) of the County of Chesterfield (the County), to approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with Section t03(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the code); and . WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with respect to the Project have been with the Board. RE IT RESOLVED BY TEE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 0E THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD: 1. The Board Of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield, for the benefit of the Company, 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 Bo~ds, as required by Section 103(k) of the Code, does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Company, but, as required by S~ction 15.1-1380 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 revenue~ and moneys pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth, 'the County nor the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 5. The Rands shall not be ~ssued unless they shall have received an allocation of any "privat~ nctivity bond limit," as provided in Section 103(n) of th~ Code shall be made to bonds frc~ the Project. Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an assurance that such allocation will be available or, if available, will be made. 4. This resolution ~hal] take effect i~nediately upon its adoption. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, ~. Mayes, Mr. Daniel a~d Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 85-614 10.Bo9. PUBLIC NEARING DATE TO CONVEY PARCEL IN AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO ~k~CUTE CONTINGENT SALES CONTRACT On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board set the da~e of September 11, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. to consider the conveyance of a parcel of land in the Airport Industrial Perk to Michael J. Pausic and further the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute a contingent sales contract. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent= Mr. Dodd. 10.I. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITEM 10.I.1. WATER AND SEWER ITEMS 10.i.l.a. SEWER AND WATER REVENUE BONDS On motion of Mrs. Giron~, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board appropriated $27,205,872 from existing cash in the Utilities fund~ and $4,500,000 from the proceed~ of the Virginia P~sources Authority for the purpose of defeasing outstanding water and ~ewsr debt. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. ~aniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. Mr. Ramsey stated Chesterfield County represented approximately 95% of the funds that were sold in the Virginia Resources Authority'$ first bond issue. t0.I.l.b. FOUR ENGINEERING FIRMS TO PERFORM WORK FOR TWO YEAi~$ On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel~ the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute agreements for four (4) Engineering Firms for engineering services for a period of two (2) years which are: 1. Austin Erockenbrough & Associates 2. ~. Stuart Boyer & Associates 3. Wiley & ~ilson 4. Carrouth & Associates/Baldwin & Gregg Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, F~r. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr, Dodd. 10.I.l.c. ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR WILLIS R0~dD AREA TANK O~ motion of Mrs. Girdle, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board made an additional appropriation in the amount of $190,014.00 from 5F ~ond surplus to §H-§835-432N, in order ~o cover change orders required to move the location of this 2 MG water tank from Pams Avenue to Norcliff A~enue and further authorized the County Administrator to sign the necessary change orders. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayas~ Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent= Mr. Dodd. 10.I.l.d. WATER CONTRACT FOR REULA~ ROAD WATER LINE Mr. Welchons stated staff recommended the water contract for the Beulah Road water line be awarded to Richard Crowder Construction, Inc. Mr. Daniel inquired why this was necessary in order to abandon the Falling Creek water plant. Mr. Welchons stated that the plant produced 2,000,000-3,000,000 gallons a day, and water lines are needed to replace that supply of water and to loop lines together. There w~re two lad~es present who were concerned with blasting in the area. Mr. Welchons sta~ed there will be blasting in the area because of the rock. Mrs. Jean Meeks stated there was blasting in the area now which they can feel. Mr.' Daniel inquired what recourse a property owner has regarding damage from blasting. Mr. Micas stated the contractor is legally obligated and liable fox damages. Mr. Welchons explained the policy and procedures when blasting is anticipated. Mr. Daniel requested that Mr. Welchons arrange for the contractor to meet with the people and explain what will be happening. On motion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Hoard awarded water contract W84-40B, Beulah Road water line with pressure regulator to the low bidder, Richard Crowder Construction, Inccrp0rated~ in the amount of $201,092.86 based on ductile iron pipe, and further the Board appropriated $100,000.00 from 5F Surplus (Water Bond Fund) ~o 5H~5835-440N, and transferred $1,185.00 from 5E-2461-997 (Advances from Dovelopers) to 5H-5835-440N. It is noted that there has been a prior appropriation in the amount Of $120~00Q.00 on previous C.I,P. budgets and this additional aopropriation and transfer include~ a 10 percent contingency. Ayes: Mr, Appl~gate, Fir. Mayes~ Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. Mrs. Girone inquired what would happen to the reservoir and dam when the plant is abandoned. Mr. Hedrick stated that is currently under review by staff and the Board will be informed as soon as possible. Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone expressed concern that the people be made aware of what was proposed. 10.I.l.e. LETTER RESTRICTING DATES UPON WHICH COUNTY COULD REDEEM $20 MILLION SEWER AND WATER BOND ISSUE On motion of Mrs. Girone~ seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board authorized the County Administrator to sign a letter that would restrict the County in redeeming its bonds in the first year of redemption in 1985 to r~deeming those bonds on the interest dates in which interest is payable. (A copy of the letter is attached to the papers of this Board.) Ayes: Y~. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. A~sent: Mr. Dodd. 10.I.2. INTERVENTION IN PEDEHAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS AFFECTING APPOMATTOX RIVER WATER AUTHORITY On motion of Mrs. Girone~ seconded by Mr, Dodd, the Hoard approved a "Motion to Intervene" in an application for major water power project 5 megawatts or less at the Brasfield Dam in the Federal Energy Regulatory Co~u~isaion proceedings affecting the ADDomattox River Water Authority, a copy of which is filed with the papers of this Hoard. Ayes: Mr, Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Gi~one. ~sent= Mr. Dodd. 10.I.3. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS 10.I.3.a. PURCfL~SE TWO PARCELS OF LAND ALONG REAMS ROAD ~{D SET HATE FOR CONVEYANCE OF PORTION OF PROPERTY On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board 1. Approved purchase of a parcel ~f land containing 0.24 acres from Frank E. Watkins and Frances L. Watkins for $1,000,00 2. Approved purchase of a parcel of land containing 0.98 acres more or less from George L. Hicks, Jr, and Vivian J, ~icks for $3,000.00 85-616 Set a public hearing d~te of September 25, 1985, to convey a portion of this property to Mr. and Mrs. Raymond L. Brown, III and Agnes E. B. Cain. Authorized the County Administrator to execute any and all necessary documents for these transactions. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent= Mr. Dodd. 18.I.3.b. CONDEMNATION ACROSS PROPERTY OF R.L. AND D. J. FLOYD On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board rejected the counteroffer of Mr. and Mrs. Robert J. Floyd in the amount of $1,400.00 and further the Board authorized the County :Attorney to institute condemnation proceedings against the following property owners if the amount as set opposite their names is not accepted. And be it further ~esolved,that the i County Administrator notify said property owners by registered mail on August 15, 1985 of the County's intention to enter upon and take thc property which is to be the subject of said condemnation proceedings and pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia these proceedings are on an emergency basis; and further that ~taff is authorized to continue negotiations to try to reach a reasonable settlement. Mr. and Mrs. P~Dber% L. Floyd Beulah Road $536.00 Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mru. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 10.I~.c. DECLAI~E 31% ACRE PARCEL SURPLUS PROPERTY AND S~I.L On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, tho Board declared a 31% acre parcel o~ land owned by the County north of Iron Bridge Road to be surplus and authorized the Utilities Department to seek bids on its sale by sealed bids. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 10.I.3.d. COUNTER-OFFER FROM VIRGINIA D~PARTMENT OF RIGRWAYS CONCERNING STATE RIGEWAY AND TRANSPORTATION COmmiSSIONER v. C~ESTERPI~I~D COUNTY. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. ~aniel, the Board accepted the $40,000 eounter-o~fer for 4.99 acres and various additional easements at the Falling Creek Sewage Treatment Plant taken by VDH&T for the 1-95 interchange and authorized the Chairman and County Administrato~~ to ~ign the necessary documents to transfer the property to the Highway Department. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, M~. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and ~s. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 10.I.4. CONSENT ITEMS 10.I.4.a. WATER CONTRACT PeR ~UNT~RS LANDING, SECTION~ 1, 2 and On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Beard approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for th~ following water contract: 85-617 Water Contract W85-124CD, Hunters La~ding, Sections 1, 2, and 3 Developer: Roper Land Corporation Contractor: Castle Equipment Corporation Total Contract Cost: $104,384.94 Total Estimated County Cost: 4,290.50 (Refunds through Connection Fees) Estimated Developer Cost: $100,094.44 Number of Connections: 120 Code: 5E-2511-997 Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 10.I.4.b. WATER CONTRACT FOR BRANDON, SECTION A On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following water contract: Water Contract W85-12SCD, Brandon, Section A Developer: Brandon ~evelopment Corporation Contractor: RMC Contractors, Incorporated Total Contract Cost: Total Estimated County Cost: Estimated Developer Cost: Number of Connections: 48 Cod~: 5E-2511-997 1_~6 352.00 $73,315.00 (Refunds through Connection Fees) Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 10.I.4.c. SEWER CONTRACT FOR WEST BRANCH TRUNK SEWER, PHASE Mr. Applegate inquired if this sewer contract would serve property south of Route 360 or north cf Genito Road. Mr. Welchons stated it would not. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel~ nhe Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following Sewer contract: Sewer Contract $85-84CD/7(8}584M, West Branch Trunk Sewer, Phase I Developer: Investors Woodlake Development Corporation Contractor: RMC Contractors, incorporated Total Contract Cost: Total Estimated County Cost: Estimated Developer Cost: Number of Connections: 6 Code: 5N-2511-997 S130,330.00 28,335.6~ (Refund through Connection Fees) $101,994.35 Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. ~odd. 10.I.4.d. SEWER EXTENSION FOR BRIGHTON GREEN/NORTH PINETTA DRIVE On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel~ the Board: 1. Awarded the sewer project £or Brighton Green - North Pinett~ Drive Sewer Extension, S85-16C/7(8)516~ to the low bidder, G. L. Howard, Incorporated, in the amount of $37~R09.00. 2. Aufhori=ed $9,000.00 be transferred from 5N surplus to 3. And authorized the County Adminis%r~.te~ to sign the contrac'~ on behalf of the County. @5-618 Ayes; Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. ~irone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. It is noted the amount previously appropriated was $35,000.00. 10.I.4.e. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG LITTLE ROAD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents accepting on behalf of the County, a deed of dedication Conveying a 5~ wide strip of land along Little Road from Robert P. Perkins and Pamela E. Perkins. Ayes: M~. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 10.I.4.f. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG LITTLE ROAD On motion of Mrs, Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the Connty Administrator to execute any necessary documents accepting on behalf of the County, a deed of dedication conveying a 25' wide strip of land along Little Road from John William Elko, Jr. and Ruth Louise Elko. Ayes: Mr. App!egate, Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 10.I.4.g. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG REAMS ROAD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents accepting on behalf of the County, a deed of dedication conveying a 45' wide strip of land along Ream~ Road from Merle P. Condrey and Irene J. Condrey. Ayes: ~r. Applegate, Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 10.I.4.h. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG LITTLE CREEK LANE On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents accepting on behalf of th~ County, a deed ~f dedication conveying a 30' wide strip of land along Little Creek Lane from Walter O. Trouper III ~nd Sharon L. Troupe. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: ~r. Dodd. io.I.4.i, DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG WOOLRIDGE ROAD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County .',>~inistrator to execute any necessary documents accepting on h~!..~t of the County, a deed of dedication conveying a 35' wide stz~ of land along Woolridge Road from Richard W. Stepf and Lind>~ ! , Stopf. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayas, Mr. ~>~n~l and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 10.I.4.j. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG WOODPECKER ROAD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary ~ocuments accepti~.g on bet~alf of the County, a deed of dedication conveying a 35' wide strip of land along Woodpecker Read from Richard L. Jordan and Frederick M. Loehr. 85-619 Ayes: Mr. Applega~e, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 10.I.4.k. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG TAYLOR ROAD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents accepting on behalf of the County, a deed of dedication conveying a 30' scrip of land east of the centerline of Taylor Road from Steven L. Worley and Shelia Worley. Ayes= ~. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. t0.I.4.1. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG HOPKINS ROAD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents accepting On behalf of the County, a deed of dedication conveying a 20' wide strip of land along Hopkins Road from the Chesterfield County School Board. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 10.I.4.m. PE.~4IT FOR DAVID TR~BOUR TO ENCROACB ON EASEMENT On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by ~. Daniel, the Board approved a request from Mr. David Trebour te encroach on a sewer construction easement in order to develop Lot 9, Riverbirch Trace Road and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary agreement when finalized on behalf of the County, subject to approval of the County Attorney. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Maye$, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 10.I.4.n. CONTAC? TO ACQUIRE PARCEL FOR WILLIS-COACH ROAD INDUSTRIAL ACCESS PROJECT On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute a contract to acquire a parcel for the Willis-Coach Road Industrial ~ccess Project from Leo Myers and other trustess for $135.00. Ayes: Mr. Appl~gate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs, Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 10.I.5. REPORTS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. 10.J. Pd~PORTS Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a status report on th~ General Fund Contingency. ~Lr. Hedrick stated the County had been formally notified that the roads in the following subdivisioes ha~ been officially accepted into the State Secondary System, effective as indicated: 85-620 Afto~ Su~i~, Sections 5 & 6 (6-28-85) Sara Kay Drive - From Route 2752 to 0.02 mile west of Edington Drive - S. Sara Kay Drive - Prom Pox Run Drive to 0.04 mile west of ~dington Drive - N. Fox Run Drive - From Sara Kay Drive - S to Sara Kay Drive - N. Edington Drive - From Sara Kay Drive - S to ~ara Kay Drive - N. Length 0.12 mi. 0.11 mi. 0.13 mi. 0.15 mi. Kings Forest, Sections 7 & 8 (7-22-85) Cyrus Street - From Route 739 running south to a cul-de-sac. 0.25 mi. Amasis Court - From Cyrus Street running 0.18 mile to a east cul-de-sac. 0.18 mi. MacBeth Court - From Cyrus Street running 0.16 mile to a east cul-de-sac. 0.16 mi. Dorius Drive - From Cyrus Street to 0.17 mile east of Cyrus Street. 0.17 mi. Cameron Run, Section 4 18-6-85} Castlebury Drive - From 0.13 mile e=~ of Route 3280 to a northeast cul-de-sac. 0.38 mi. Solar I~ Section 2 18-6-85} Scottingham Drive - From 0.06 mile wemt of Routo 3359 to 0.12 mile east of Route 2725. 0.14 mi. Scottingham Terrace - From Scottingham Drive to a southwest cul-de-sac, 0.04 mi. Eastwood Drive - From 0.03 mile north of Route 2730 to Route 2664~ 0.13 mi. Eastwood Court - From 0.05 mile northwest of Route 2669 to a northwest cul-de-sac. 0.09 mi. ~astwood T~rraoe - Fro~ Eastwood Drive to a southeast cul-de-sac. 0.04 mi. 10.K. EXECUTIVE SESSION On motion o~ Mrs. Girone, s~condad by ~r. Mayas, the Board went into Executiv~ Session to discuss the condition, acquisition or use of real property for publio purpo~e~ and personnel ~atters pursuant to Sections 2.1-344 {a) 12) and {1! ~ respectively, of the Code of virginia, 1950 as amonded. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. Reconvening: 10.B.10. BUDGET A~ENDMBNT FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayem, the Board suspended its rules because of the emergency nature of a certain issue to be taken under consideration. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes~ Mr. Daniel and Mrs. G~rone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. On motion of Mrs. Girone~ secon(~ed by Mr. Daniel, the Board: 1. Amended the County's 1985-86 budget and appropriated $60,000 from the General Fund Contingency and transferred these monies to the Economic Development budget; and 2. Authorized the County Administrator and Director of Economic Development to proceed with employing recruitment services. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd. 11. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Beard adjourned at 11:59 p.m. until 9:00 a.m. on August 28, 1985. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Dodd, Richard L~ ~edri6k County Administrator