Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
08-28-85 Minutes
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES August 28, 1985 Supervisors in Attendance: Mr. G. H. Applegate, Chairman Mr. Jesse J. Mayas, Vice Chairman Mr. Harry G. Daniel Mr. R. Garland Dodd Mrs. Joan Girone Mr. Richard L. Hedrick County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Mr. Stanley Balderson, Dir., Econ. Develop. Mr. Kenneth Cronin, Acting Dir, O£ Personnel Mrs. Doris Da~art, Legislative Coord. Chief Robert ~anes, Fire Department Mr. Phil Hester, Dir. of Parks & Rec. Mr. Elmer Hodge, Asst. County Administrator Mr. William Howell, Dir. of Gen. Services Mr. Robert Masden, Asst. Co. Admin. for Human Services Mr. Richard McElfish, Dir. of Env. Eng. Mr. R. J. McCracken, Transp. Director Mrs. Mary A. McGuire, County Treasurer Mr. Steve Micas, Co, Attorney Mrs. Paulin~ Mitchell, Dir. of News/In~o. Services Mr. ~effrey Muzzy, Asst. CO. Ad, in. for Development Mr. Richard Nunnally, VPI/SU Exten. Agent Mr. Lane Ramsay, Dir. of Budget & Acctg. Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., Exec. Asst., Co. Adm. Mr. Robert Wagenknecht, Dir. of Libraries Mr. David Welchons, Dir. of Utilities Mr. James Zook, Acting Dir. of Planning r. Appls~ate called the meeting to order at =he Courthouse at 9:00 a.m. (EDST). 1. INVOCATION Mr. Applegate introduced Reverend Kenneth D. Amstutz, Minister of Matoaca United Methodist Church, who gave the invocation. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved the minutes of August 14, 1985, as amended. 85~623 Ayes: Mr. Applegate, ~r. ~ayes, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Gircne. Abstention: Mr. Dodd as he was not.present at the meeting. 3. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S C0~9~ENTS Mr. Hedrick stated there were some guests present who were scheduled under Agenda Item 10.D., Mutual Support Agreement with John Tyler Community College. He stated they would like to make some co~muents and the Board could consider the item in order at the appropriate time. He introduced Mr. Masden. Mr. Masden stated the Board has received a second annual report on the mutual support activities between Virginia Commonwealth University and Virginia State University and the County. He stated there were various beneficial activities that would not have been practical for either one of the universities or the County without the support of the other. He stated John Tyler Con~unnity College would also like to join with the County in the mutual support activities which would also be beneficial to both as well. He introduced Dr. Sam Hancock, Director of Continuin9 Education at John Tyler Community College. Dr. Hancock stated there are many fine activities and traininq programs throughout the year and the resources of the College can be an asset to the County on a long-term and on-going basiS, both formally and informally. He introduced Dr. Miohael ~ensley, Dean of Academic Student Services. Qr. Hensley stated their College is different from Virginia State University and Virginia Commonwealth University and he did not feel it would involve competition. Me stated they are especially interested in helping market the County, in helping people gain employment, in contributing to the tax base, 9to. Se stated the College has concentrated on developing comprehensive training programs on-site for business and industry and they have developed 11 such programs over the past yean~. Me stated they have trained over 400 local public school teachers in computer literacy, they have training programs for presoreening and hiring manpower pools for three new industries in their service region, they have developed new off-campus training centers, and they have developed national certification training programs. Me stated their true success is to help people gain employment and help people obtain promotions. Me stated they are a comprehensive community college but their uniqueness is the two year OCCupational technical degree and the mini-certificate vocational technical certificate. He stated approximately half of their students are from Chesterfield County. Dr. Nicholas, President of John Tyler Community College, ~tated t~e College is the seventh largest of the 23 community coll~ges in the system, t'hey have enrolled 4,100 students this year, and among those approximately 1,700 are from Chesterfield County. He expressed appreciation to the Board for the local support t~ the College's annual budget and for the mutual agreement which is to be considered this date. He stated they stand ready to assist the County in any way and at any time they M~. Dodd stated the County was fortunate for this specialized curriculum, it does serve the conu~unity well and the County is proud o£ the College. Mr. Nunnally presented the Board with a report on the Wealth of Health Program. He stated Ms. Suzan Craik, coordinator o£ the program, had another commitment today and could not be present. He stated she works under the direction of County employees who represent several different programs from Mental Health, Personnel, Health, Parks and Recreation and the Extension Service. He stated since its initiation in March, 1984, there have been over 1,600 employees involved in a health related program. He stated the program hae received national recognition through some local government publications, Ms. Craik has been 85-624 invited to speak at a health forum in Tennessee on the program and how it serves emDloyees, and she spoke to a group of local governments in Charlottesville who were interested in doing a similar program. He stated that people are most impressed with the fact that in Chesterfield, departments have worked together to provide this service and there has been very little cost because of that. He stated most of the classes have been on the employees own time, so far 160 people have taken computerized analysis of their current health situation at their own expense. He stated the program is making the employees more aware of their health and, hopefully, there will be some change reflected in sick leave and health care costs to the County. 4. BOARD COMMITTEE Pd~PORTS Mr. Dodd stated he attended the Capital Region Airport Commiasion meeting and it was noted that air traffic is up 24.$% for the month even though construction ia underway. He stated the construction is on schedule and appears to be within the funds allocated. He stated the Airport Museum is a private project that has been underway for a period of time by some of the Airport Commission members but not of the Capital Region Airport Commission itself. He stated the Museum will be completed by donations. Mr. Applegate stated Mr. Neil ~ovember initiated this project and the original goal was $400,000 for Phase I which iMr. Mayes stated he attended the play, the "Taming of the Shrew" at the Manufacturing Center of Philip Morris, Ms. Helen Hayes was present although not performing in the play, and it was the first time Shakespeare appeared in a factory and this was a great tribute to Chesterfleld County. Mrs. Girone stated the Midlothian American Legion POSt 9186 won the Mid-Atlantic Regional Baseball Tournament and will be playing in the World Series in Indiana. ~r. Daniel stated this is the first time since 1948 that a Post #1 team made it to the World Series in American Legion Baseball. Mrs. Girone stated the assistant coach of this team is the coach at Midlothian High School who also won the State Championship. She stated the County is proud of the team's accomplishments. Mrs. Girone stated.she attended the Transportation Safety Com- mission~meeting at the County, the awards ceremony for the Employee of the Year for the Mental Health Workshop at the Library, the Maymont Boar,.meeting and the LGOC Conference in Charlottesville for three days. She stated that Stuart Couneck, Secretary of Finance, spoke to the general meeting and stated that education is the highest priority in Virginia and that 1985-86 ehould bring teach~re salaries to the national average and there will be $5,000,000 in new dollars addressed to the standards of quality. She stated the Governor's budget will propose full funding of the standards of quality which we have worked for in Virginia for 15 years. Z~s. Girone stated We have an aggressive economic development program and they are looking forward to a bond issue for ports. Hr. Daniel inquired if they were amenable to consider a port facility bonding for the Richmond regional metropolitan area more ~pecifically known as Meadowville. Mrs. Gircne stated that was sot mentioned in his speech. Mr. Daniel stated perhaps the Board should write a letter to Mr. Connuck reminding him of his tu~nts, keeping the issue on the front burner and indicating there is a nice inland port site ready for development. Mr. ~pplegate stated, in the interest of the County, Mr. Hedrick has ~een working with Messrs. Deese and LaVeochia and he had been ~orking with Mayor West and Mr. Shadwell to come up with a task ~orce tO look into the possibility of having the three iurisdictions join together and have a feasibility study to see [f it might be possible to do something in the Dutch GaD area On =he James River. He stated although the task force has not been ~stablished, he has requested that they give him a list of 85-625 individuals who might serve. ~irs. Girone stated the RRPDC has money in the budget if there is a need for a request for proposal but they cannot do a study but they can do some background work. Mrs. Girone stated ~r. Connock made the announcement abo~t the overcrowded jails and that five hundred from th~ local jails would be taken into the State system. She stated that equated bo two from the County jail according tc the Sheriff. Mrs. Circne stated there was a panel on transportation with Senator W&ddell and Delegate Bagley at the conference. She stated that the Transportation Committee is looking into supporting a statewide bond referendum for roads but those gentlemen thought that the funding for anything as large as that should be in a way that would provide a steady stream of income and not ~ust a one shot situation. She stated they felt other mechanisms might have to be investigated in addition to bonds statewide such as matching money from localities~ more toll roads, possibly adding a sales tax to the gas tax, sanitary district assessments, a lottery, increasing the titling tax, adding 2¢ to the gas tax to pay the debt service on any bond, etc. She stated this gave new direction to the Transportation Committee who will be bringing recommsndatlcns to the Homestead on how ko get additional funds for roads. She stated it will take a 9e increase in the gas tax to continue the present level of funding for roads in Virginia ever the next five years. Mrs. ~irone stated there was also a session on County charters which enabling legislation was sponsored by Roanoke County. She stated the reason they are doing a charter is to find additional £unding sources as they have been hit hard by annexation several times. She stated there was a lot of interest in charters and the two main concerns that people expressed were a desire to get relief from annexation and they do not want to have that section of the Code any longer and they felt that if they wrote a charter that said they were free from annexation, they would be. She stated the Senator, the Delega=e and Mr. Baliles indicated that a charter will not free a locality from annexation. She stated that the charter must abide by the Code and laws of Virginia as written and the charter will not free you from the Dillion Rule. She stated they advised those present that they should look toward a better organization of government and to protecting the quality of good government and service delivery. She stated they indicated it would be difficult to pass a charter in the next few years, the law is written in such a liberal way that almost anything can be written ~nto it and when all the counties in Virginia start to structure their own, they don't know what they will have. She stated they want to bring some order to the entire situation, they felt there would be discussion of a charter by the General Assembly next year. She stated that one of the candidates for governor stated that when you are looking at a charter it brings to mind the changes that have happened in Virginia, in that originally the cities had the industrial base and the business and they had the tax revenues to run the local government and so the state supplied money to the counties that were largely rural and now things have changed to the point that you drive from the City of Richmond, to Eenrico or Chesterfield and you cannot tell whether you have left the City and are in the County. She stated all of the funding comes to the local governments according to category, by county or city. She stated this candidate stated that he wanted to app. eint a commission, if he became governor, to study the structure of local government in Virginia and find out what the cities have in their charter, if we are aligned in a proper fashion, what we should do about the structures of government and the funding, etc. 85-626 Mrs. Girone stated that the major local governments have their legislative aids present at the LGOC meeting and she suggested that the Board consider having our mid at the meeting every day as they are a good resouree. She stated they participate in the meetings and can provide information to the committees, Mr. Daniel stated in order to prevent any allegation of confliet of interest, he had nothing to do with the Philip Morris performance for the "Taming of the Shrew" which Mr. Mayes attended. He stated it is a different approach to public relations and a different approach to bringing the arts %0 the community. He recon%mended anyone receiving an invitation, make an attempt to attend. REQUESTS TO POST~O~I~ ACT!ON~ EMERGENCY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES IN THE ORDER OF PRESEN'rATION On motion Of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board moved Items 10.C.1, Resolution Requesting the Circuit Court to Order Election for the ~urpose of Considering Whether the County Should be Governed by a Charter, and 10.C.2., Dates Involving County Charter, to Items 7.H.1. and 7.B.2., respectively; deleted 10.I.2.o., Water Contract for E×bury, Section 1; and adopted the agenda am amended. Vote: Unanimous 6. RESOLUTIONS OP S~CIAL I%ECOGNITION 6.A. MRS. JAMIS W. PULLANO, TREASURER'S OFFICE Mr. Cronin introduced Mrs. McGulre. Mrs. Mc~uire introduced Mrs. Pellano and briefly outlined her working experience with the County. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mrs. Jamis W. Pullane will retire from the Trea- surer's Department, Chesterfield County, on September 1, 1985; and WREREAS, Mrs. Pullano has provided over nine years of quality-service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors will miss ~rs. ~ullano's diligent service. NOW, T~R~PORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Mrs. Pullano and extends on behalf of its members and the citisens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for her service to the County. AND, BS IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution be presented to Mrs. Pullano and that this ResolutiOn be per- manently recorded amonq the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate presented Mrs. Pullano with the executed resolution and introduced her husband who was also present. 6.B. MR. WALTER B. TAYLOR, SR., UTILITI~ DEPARTMENT Mr. Cronin introduced Mr. Welchon$. Mr. Welchon$ introduced Mr, Taylor and briefly outlined his work experience with the County, 85-627 On motion of the Beard, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Walter S. Taylor, will retire from the Utilities Department, Chesterfield County, on September l, 1985; and W~RHAS, Mr. Taylor has provided Over seventeen years of q~ality service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisor~ will miss Mr. Taylor's diligent service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVBD that this Board of Supervisors publicly recognize~ Mr. Taylor and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for his service to the County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of ~his Resolution be presented to Mr. Taylor and that this Resolution be per- manently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate presented Mr. Taylor with the executed resolution. SUPPORTING APPOINTMENT OF JOHN F. DAFFRON, JR. TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE Mr. Applegate stated that he had been advised that The Ronorabls John F. Daffron, Jr., Chief Judge of the Circuit Court, had been nominated to serve on the Board of Directors of the state Justice Institute which is quite an honor as there are only 11 seats on that Board. Ee stated the appointment will be made by the President of the United States. He stated he felt the Board should support this appointment a~ it would be a great honor for the County to have someone of his stature serving on that committee. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREASr The Congress has established a private nonprofit corporation to be known as the State Justice Institute to improve the administration of justice in the state Courts in the United States; and WNEREAS, Said Institute will be supervised By a Board of Directors consisting of eleven members to be appointed by the President of the United States with subsequent approval by the United States Senate, of which six of the members are to be judges; and WHEREAS, The Honorable Jehu F. Daffron, Jr., Chief Judge of Virginia's 12th Judicial Circuit has judicial experience includ- ing service as a U.S. Magistrate from 1970-1973, as a General District Court Judge from 1973-1981, and as Circuit Court Judge since 1981; and WHEREAS, Judge Daffron has significant involvement in judicial education and training, both within this Commonwealth and nationally at the National Judicial Coilege in Reno, Nevada. Me has actively sought to improve the administration of justice through such national organizations as the American Bar Association, having served as it~ Education Chairman for the National Conference of Special Court Judges, Council Member o~ the Judicial Administration Division of the American Bar Association, ~nd the Executive Committees o£ the National Confer- ence of Special Court Juages and the National Ccnferenc~ of State 85-628 Trial Judges, havin9 represented thereon the States of Virginia South Carolina~ North Carolina, West Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Judge Daffron, because ct his total commitment to the improvement to the administration ct justice, would serve the State Justice Institute with distinction, bringing creditability and reliability to the Institute and its efforts. FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board Supervisors hereby unanimously supports the appointment of The Honorable John F. Daffrcn, Jr., Chief Judge of the 12th Judi¢ia Circuit to the Board of Directors o~ the State Justice Institute and further requests that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Members of the United States Senate representing this Commonwealth and the Members of th~ House of Representatives representing the citizens of Chester£ield, and respectfully requests their favorable consideration and support of the appointment of The Honorable John F. Daffron, Jr. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate stated a letter would be forwarded to the County's legislative delegation in Washington requesting their support oi this appointment. 6.D. RAY HEVENER ON RECEIPT OF VIRGINIA GASOLINE AND AUT~{OTIV~ REPAIR AWARD Mr. St/th stated that Mr. Ray Hevener of Chester received the Virginia Gasoline and Automotive Repair Award and briefly outlined his outstanding qualifications. He introduced Mr. Hevener who was present. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WI~BREAS, The Virginia Gasoline and Automotive Repair Association, Inc. is a trade association representing gasoline service dealers and owners of automotive repair facilities in th Con~cnwealth; and WHEREAS, VGARA has for many years maintained and presented aunually an award to one of its deserving members who is known its VGARA Member of the Year; and WHEREAS, The VGARA Member of the Year award is presented a member who provides outstanding service to. his customers, mak substantial contributions toward his church and civic affairs in the community and who exemplifies the highest and best qualities of the membership in VGAE~% through exemplary service rendered to the association; and WHEREAS, Mr. Raymond Hevener of Chester, Virginia is the owner of two service stations ~radlng as Havener'~ Exxon and providing quality products and ssrvice to the motoring public; and WHEREAS, Ray Mevener has for many years been active in his church and civic affairs in the eenu~unity of Chester and Chester field County, along with his dedication and ~ervice to VGARA through his service as a member of the Board of Directors and th Association Liaison to the Virginia General Assembly and his efforts to strengthen the membership of VGARA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the ~oard of Supervisor of Chesterfield County does hereby honor Mr. Raymond Hevener for 85-629 his receipt of this award, and wishes him continued success as a viable business in Chesterfield, Virginia. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Stith introduced Mr. James Heizer, Executive Director cf the VGARA, who was also present. ~r. Dodd presented the executed resolution to Mr. Hevener and expressed appreeiation for his courteous and honest mannsr in dealing with the traveling public. He introduced and ~xpressed appreciation to Mrs. Hevener as well. 6.E. JOHNSTON-WILLIS HOSPITAL'S CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC NEED FOR OBS'~'~%'KICAL SERVICES AI~D REORGANIZATION OF OUTPATIENT SURGICAL SERVICHS Mr. Stith introduced Mr. W. S. tyne, Administrator fsr Johnston- Willis Hospital. Mr. Lyne briefly outlined the request for a certificate of need for obstetrical services and the reorganization of outpatient surgical services, the process this certificate needs to go through prior to approval, health care in general, services which were surrendered when ths hospital relocated to the County, etc. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Johnston-Willis Hospital (the Hospital) is pro- viding quality health care to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, ~mproved access to quality health care provided by the presence of the Hospital in the County including a full range of services is of significant benefit to the health and welfare of the citizens in the County; and WHE~=AS, The Hospital is seeking approval from the State Health Commissioner for the addition of Obstetrical services and the reorganization Of outpatient surgical services; and WHEREAS, The addition of the obstetrical services and the reorganization of outpatient surgical services would signifi- cantly improve needed access to such care for the citizens of the County, (which is among the fastest growing in the Commonwealth) and would reduce the need for many obstetrical patients to travel greater distances to other facilities and would reduce the need for Outpatient surgical patients to commlingle with inpatient surgical patients; WHEREAS, The citizens of Chesterfield County clearly represent a population that u~illzes obstetrical and outpatient surgical services. NOW, THEI~EFORE, HE IT RESOLVED by the Hoard of Supervisors of Chesterfield County that the State Health Commissioner is urged to approve the application of Johnston-Willis Hospital a Certificate of Puhlic Need to establish obstetrical services and to reorganize outpatient surgical services. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate presented %he executed resolution to Mr. tyne. 6.F. HUSINESS D~V~LOPM~NT WEEK IN RICHMOND AREA Mr. Balderson stated the Metropolitan Economic Development Council resolved to request that the participating localities 85-630 adopt a resolution endorsing September 30, 1985 - October 5, 1981 as "Business Development Week". He stated this will coincide with an issue of Business Week magazine which has a substantial article-on the metropolitan area. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: W~EREAS, The Richmond metropolitan area is in the midst of a building and economic development boom that ie unparalleled in the history of the community; and WI~=R=AS, There is an accompanying boom in amenitieo that i! broadening and embellishing the comrm/nity's cultural, social and recreational life; and WHEREAS, To take note of these events, BUSIN=SS WEEK magazine will publish a special section on the Richmond area on September 30, 1985; and WHEREAS, The Metropolitan Economic Development Council will host an EXECUTOUR ~or out-of-town executives and facility planners on October 1 and 2, 1985; and WHEREAS, Business enterprises have helped make this one of the most livable and innovative communities in the United States NOW THEREFORE, In appreciation of the contribution local buslness~s make to the area, BE IT Pd~SOLVED, that the Ches- terfield County Board of Supervisors declares that the week of September 30 - October 5, 1985 be proclaimed "BUSINESS DEVELOP~=NT WEEK IN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY." Veto: Unanimous 6.G. D~SIGNATING BRANDBKMILL SUBDIVISION AS BIRD SANCTUARY Mr. stith stated the County has been requested by the Erandermil Garden Club to declare the Brandermill Subdivision as a bird sanctuary. He briefly outlined what tho designation would entail. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Conservation or the saving, protecting, preservin¢ of our natural resources should claim the deep and considered concern of every patriotic citizen of tho County; and WHEREAS, Some provision must be made for wildlife if it is to continue to exist. NOW, THEREFOtLE, BE IT R~OLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, that the entire area known as the Brandermill Subdivision be designated as a Bird Sanctuary. That it shall be unlawful to trap, hunt, shoot or attempt to shoot or molest in any manner any bird or wild fowl or to rob bird nests or wild iowl nests. Provided, however, if starlings or similar birds are found to be congregating in s~ch numbers in a par=icular locality that they oonstitute a nuisance or menace to health or property in the opinion of the proper health authorities of Chesterfield County, then in such event said health authorities shall meet with representatives of the Audubor Society, Bird Club, Garden Club or Humane Society, or as many of said clubs as are found to exist in the Brandermill Subdivision, after having given at least three day~ actual notice of the time and place of said meeting to the representatives of sai~ clubs. If as a result of said meeting no satisfactory alternative is found to abat~ such nuisance, then said birds may be destroyed ir such numbers and in such manner as is deemed advisable by said health authorities under the supervision of the Chie~ of Police of the County of Chesterfield. 85-631 Permission is hereby granted to the Brandermill Garden Club to place, subject to the regulations of the State Highway Department suitable plaques at the various entrances of Brandermill stating that said Brandermill Subdivision is a Bird Sanctuary, as an appeal and reminder to Tourist and Native alike. Vote: UnanimOus MX. Stith stated he would forward the resolution to the appropriate individuals. 7. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS 0R CLAIMS Mr. Hedrick stated there were no citizens scheduled for this meeting. 7.B. COUNTY CHARTER 7.B.1. RESOLUTION REQUESTING CIRCUIT COURT TO ORDER ELECTION FOR PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING WHETHER THE COUNTY SHOULD BE GOVERNED BM COUNTY CHARTER Mr. Applegate stated it has been a very trying five weeks for thc Board, each member o£ the Board has spent countless hours trying to come to grips with what will be offered this morning regardin? a County Charter. He reminded the Beard that it should do what is in the best interest of the County in making its decision. Ms expressed appreciation to Mr, Daniel for his hard efforts regarding the preparation of the proposed charter as it is something that is not to be taken lightly. Be announced that this is a Board matter and not a public hearing and the public would not be allowed to make comments. H~ stated the process that would be initiated by the Board would allow for public work sessions and public hearings which would be the appropriate time for the public to address their concerns. Mr. Dodd stated he felt ~. Daniel needed to be commended for his efforts as well as this was proposed, not without pain, as it cuts across some old traditions in the County, and he supported Mr. Daniel's efforts. He stated he felt in the long term it will be good for the County but he believes the people need some time to be informed. Mr. Daniel expressed appreciation for the Board's support. Be stated that since the first time the proposed charter was brought to the attention of the public, there had been a lot of support from all districts of the County. ~e stated the concept of the charter turned over the accountability of all of the governmental institutions to the public which was the cornerstone on which it was proposed. He stated these discussions started last ~pring and it was in line with that cornerstone that the Beaxd formally began the process Of considering a structured form of government. He stated it has been reviewed with the legislators, each has indicated they will support the charter and that if the public votes for a charter it could pass the General Assembly. Be stated there have been many misinterpretations and misunderstandings of the dra£t that has been prepared. He ~tated the County Attorney's office drafted a charter that would address the fundamental concepts that other urban communities have the privilege cf enjcyin9 now and nothing more. He stated he was surprised at what other communities have available to them in order to provide mechanisms for meeting citizen need~. Me stated he did not agree with everything that is included in the charter. Me stated the educational process should begin today. He stated he would like the Board to agree on a formal system for develop- ing a charter for the County, that an appropriate resolution be adopted to put that mechanism in motion and specifically agree on what that process would be with dates and timetables established So that it can be placed as an issue before the voters in 1986. He presented a letter from the Chesterfield Business Council indicating their support of a charter form of government presented in a referendum in November, 1986 as they feel what 85~632 they have read would be in the best interest of Chesterfield County. He stated this letter is indicative of the support ~o move in this direction. Ee presented and read a proposed resolution. Re stated if the Board should adopt this resolution he would like dates established for work sessions, public hearings and a June 1, 1986 target date for completing the entir~ process which will allow sufficient time for the proposal to be presented to the voters. He stated this will allow time for the public to get involved, it should be a public process and there should be a citizens committee which represents a cross section of the County to draft and reco~end a type of government that they would like for the future. Ee stated he felt this would be the proper way to move, the Board is not single issuing any particular group, that the majority of the Board does not want to get into single issue politics, if the Board feels that a change is necessary then it should look at a structured change across all lines to insure accountability of our institutions and that our framework is constitutionally consistent with other urban areas across Virginia. He stated if other types of government are good for Fairfax, Richmond, Virginia Beach, and the majority of the population in Virginia, then it ouqht to be good for Chesterfield. He stated if something is unique about Chesterfield's form, why have not the other urban communities come to us to adopt Our form. He stated our form is thc one that is being abandoned. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Dodd, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, Chesterfield County is a rapidly growing urban community in the Commonwealth of Virginia; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County's population currently trails only Fairfax, Henrico and Prince William Counties, each with structured £orms of governments; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County's population currently trails only Virginia Beach, Norfolk and Richmond among Virginia's ten largest cities; and WHEREAS, Virginia's ten largest cities and four of the five largest urban counties h~ve structured forms of qovernment which require the institutions which their tax revenue support to be accountable to the people; and WHEREAS, The Commonwealth cf Virginia estimates that in ten years the population of Chesterfield County will trail only Fairfa× County, ~irginia Beach and Norfolk; and WEEREAS, The citizens of Chesterfield County do not curren%!y enjoy the accountability of its institutions granted to other urban communities within the Commonwealth of Virginia; and ?~REAS, The Connnonwealth of Virginia by Acts of 1985 General Assembly has permitted by Section 15.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended for counties to adopt a charter as their form of government. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors on August 28, 195~ initiate all necessary legislative processes required by law to adopt a charter as its form o~ government; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that the question "Should the General Assembly cf Virginia Grant Chesterfield County a Char%er as Its Form Of Government?" be placed to the voters on November 4, 1986; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors appoint a citizens advisory committee to review forms of government availabls to localltie$ along with the 85-633 concept and format of the Chesterfield County draft charter prepared by the County Attorney's Office and make their recommendation for a structured change in Chesterfield County government. Mrs. Girone stated she had three concerns: the time that this needs, that there be public involvement and the largest problem is that of philosophy. She stated that if there is a citizens committee that they be given a charge that deals with the philosophy of government first. She stated she understands that the proposal they have is a beginning; however, what really concerns her is the change in power from elected people to the administration. She stated she felt this is what has happened with the Congress in Washington--they have abdicated their power to the bureaucrats, to the administration, and to the agencies who take ~ simple law and expand on it and make it into something that no one ever intended. She stated she felt they have abdinated their given responsibility and she does not want that in Chesterfield. She abated we are the most conservative County in the State at a time when President Reagan ie returning power to the local governments and what the people in the County want is the power with the elected people so they can monitor those people and change them at will, She stated this proposal is moving the power on two issues away from the Judge and giving it to the elected people but it also moves most other powers away from the elected people and gives it totally to the administration. She stated she understands this ia a draft and she isonly using it as an example of what she would like to see any citizens co~i~tes address first--the philoaophy of government and what we stand for in Chesterfield and do we want a representative government or do we want one with the power with the administration. She stated that is her largest concern with what has be~n presented, she stated as far as the process goes, she feels delaying it is good, and that a citizens committee is needed. M~. Applegate stated the portion regarding the citizens advisory group states very plainly that the group will review forms of government available to localities. Se stated he felt that adequately addressed her concerns. Mrs. Girone inquired if it were the intent that the committee would make a recommendation to the Board and will they work through and develop a proposed charter. Mr. Applegate stated the idea is for two or three people to be appointed from and by the supervisor of each Magisterial District. Ee stated there could also be a non-voting member from the County Attorney's office and they would review alternative forms of government with the ultimate decision resting with the Hoard of Supervisors. Mr. Mayes stated he felt the charter would bring back power to the people and the concept o£ the charter is that the people collectively are smarter than the government. Ee stated every crisis in the State of Virginia was created by the government and not by the people. He stated the purpose of the charter is to allow the people to make decisions. Re stated a statement was made that the charter would not get around the Dillion Rule and he did not agree with that. He stated the charter will enable the government to dc what is expressed in the charter which is in the best interest of the people. He stated he is in wholehearted agreement with the charter concept as he felt it would be better than the traditional form of government. Mr. Dodd stated traditionally in the Commonwealth, between cities and counties, the weak siste~ is the counties. He stated it has been leaned on and abused and that was fine when it was rural but it has become more urban, educated and intelligent. He stated, in talking with other Supervisors in other states, the charter will galvanize the border somewhat. He stated regardless of what has been said, even if it is wrong, he would rather that Chesterfield go down to Richmond being the first County a~king for a charter 85-634 rather than the way we are now on roads. He stated we are last now because we did not ask twenty years ago, and if we had some courage to ask things may be different. He stated he felt the Board should have some courage and vision and ask for a charter and if the people disagree, he is willing and able to accept their decision. He ~tated to piece and shoot away at our present ~orm of government by allowing a change here and there is not th~ way he wants his County to be operated. He stated he wants a form of government that will serve us well for twenty years and the Board is expected to look to the future. He stated he would recommend e charter to the people and he hopes they will educate themselves to it. He stated an informed electorate is a good on~ and he trusts 15 months is necessary to educat~ them so they can make an educated decision. Mrs. Girone s~bmitted a copy of the "Urban County ~xeeutive Form" to be given to the committee. She stated everything in there is not what she intends but the thrust is an example cf what she is talking about. She stated she hoped the Board woul6 no~ get into work sessions but assign that task to the committee. She stated she hoped the Board could focus and educate the peopl~ on a bond referendum between now and the first of November. Mr. Daniel suggested various dates and timetables for certain accomplishment~ with regard to the overall process. A vote on the resolution was as follows: Vote: Unanimous 7.B.2. DATES INVOLVING COUNTY CHARTER On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~. Mayas, the Board adopted the following timetabls: No later than October 9, 1985 No later than March 1, 1986 The period of April - May, 1986 June 1, 1986 Appoint the citizens committee. The Citizens Committee complete their charge. Work Sessions and appropriate Public Hearings be held. The process will be finalized and that the question "Should Chesterfield Count Adopt a Charter Form of Government" be submitted to the Court at the first meeting in June, 1986. It is noted that the Board has not made a motion to put ~omethir before the courts, only that this is Our intent and these are timetables to get there. Mr. Applegate stated normally the Board is dealing with the budget and inquired if that would create a problem. Mr. Daniel stated he ~elt the charter was of the utmost impurtanc~ and unless a timetable is outlined, there will be excuses to keep postponing. Vote: Unanimou~ Mr. Applegate suggested that each supervisor appoint three members from their Magisterial District to serve on the citizen co~ittee. Mr. Mayas stated he felt the names should be submitted to the Board for appointment. He stated each member cf the Board should submit a slate of names for the committee with the ~oard making the appointment of three from each Magisterial District. Mr. Applegate stated that he felt a 85-635 non-voting member from the County Attorney's office should also be designated. On motion cf Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that each Supervisor submit a slate of nominees with the Board appointing three from each Magisterial District as well as a non-voting m~mber from the County Attorney's office. Mr. Dodd inquired if a non-voting Board member should be included. It was g~nerally agreed that this should not be done. Mrs. Girone inquired if Mr. Dick Howard from the University of Virginia or a constitutional lawyer could be designated as an advisor. Mr. Daniel stated this had been discussed in July and arrangements were being made to have Mr. Howard participate. Mrs. Girone stated she was unaware of this. Mr. Applegate stated that he understood that it was considered but did not know arrangements were made. Mr. Daniel stated that it was understood that after the Eoard took action, Mr. Howard would be contacted. Mr. Mica~ ~tafed Mrs. DeHart had contacted Mr. ~oward regarding hie possible participation and there has been no final answer. Mr. Mayes stated he felt the advisory resource should not be limited to one person. Mr. Applegats amended the motion, seconded by Mr. Dcdd, that each Supervisor submit a slate O£ nominees with the Board appointing three from each Magisterial District, as well as a non-voting member fram the County Attorney's office and Mr. Dick Howard and/or a constitutional expert. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate requested nominations for the citizens advisory committee in September with action no later than fhe October 9, 1985 ~eeting. 8. DEFERRED ITEMS 8.A. RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE ADVISABILITY FOR COUNTY TO CONTP~kCT DEBT AND ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BO~D$ TO FINANCE VARIOUS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND REQUEST CIACUIT COURT TO ORDER AN ELECTION Mr. Hedrick stated a resolution regarding the General Obligation Bonds was forwarded to the Board by mistake and a corrected version was then sent out. He stated the correct resolution addresses all th~ issues discussed by the Board at one time or another. Mr. Applegate stated at the Board's work session there were projects amounting to $122r000,000. He stated all Board members have worked on this issue long and hard and opened the issue for discussion. Mr. Dodd suggested reducing the Parks and Recreation projects to $3,000,000 which would allow $600,000 for each district, oontinue with the school ($27,000,000) and fire ($4,300,000) aS presented and Route 288 on the roads alone for $30,000,000. He s~ggested the deletion of the Johnston Creek drainage project as well as the library issues. He stated he understands that some might feel the entire slate is needed but the citizens in his district feel $122,000,000, whether it is needed or not, will be defeated. He stated he would prefer to be responsive to the things he has heard and propose what is really critical. Ee stated he really needs Route 10 in Chester, he needs the Johnson Creek drainage district, but Route 288 is critical to the County which was agreed to at Brandsrmill. He stated each Board member will have to give up something in this proposal. He ~tated that i~ we get a reading fro~ the people on Route 288, we will know how the people fe~l about roads and we can come with another referendum later ii there is a positive feeling about the need. 85-636 Mr. Mayes stated that we are not consistent with the philosophy each time we have a bond issue. 5e stated for the $22,000,000 for Powhite Parkway, it was the consensus that it was e critical need for the County even though it is in two districts. He stated Matoaca District voted 80% in favor because of the need even though they did not get a cent out of it. He stated new there is another critical need and having come to that critical need, the total road picture and other critfcal needs of the County cDme ~o $122,000,000. He stated the consensus then was to tell the people what the needs were to maintain the quality of life in the County and to keep up with the growth. He stated the people should be allowed to make the decision as to what they do not want to do at this time. He stated the Board's decision may not always be the right decision. Be stated the people should be told the truth and what the real requirement is and let them make the decision. ~e stated if this were to be restricted to Route 288 and fail to look at other road needs, the Board is in error. Mr. Applegate stated the Board spe~t time at Brandermill trying to address the road needs in the County and resolved that there would be a priority list of which Route 288 was first. Mr. Mayes stated that if that resolution mad~ at Brandermill is to be followed, that would be fine if the priorities are to be kept in line and not changed each time there is a crisis. F~. Applegate stated if all the road projects remained, the issue will be $112,000,000 which is not much different from $122,000,000. He stated Route 288 is a County-wide project which will begin to open up the southern area of the County for commercial development, provide jobs, will help the tax base ratio, etc. Mr. Daniel stated roads is one of the most critical physical needs in the County. He stated Route 255 is the first priority. He stated the Board agreed last year that road projects would be taken in the County beginning with Powhite, Route 288, the grade separation in Ettrick, and the widening of Route 10. He stated the Bond Referendum took care of Powhite, a large amount of money had been set aside for the Ettrick grade separation or a portion thereof and there is nothing there to satisfy the widening of Route 10 through Chester. He stated at Brandermill the Board agreed for the first time that it would present a proposition to the public for funding roads. He stated it was the first time the Board agreed to fund roads through bonds. Be stated they all agreed that we would love to have certain projects accomplished such as widening Route 60, widening Route 10 from Richmond to the Courthouse, Courthouse Road widening from Route 60 to 360 as well as other unidentified projects in Matoaca District. He stated all agreed that eaoh project would be handled individually and work its way down the priority list. He stated on July iQ, 1985 the Board held a work session and was ready to go with a $95,000,000 bond referendum. He stated then the public began talking about the amount of money being proposed as they were not going to vote for an amount as high as that. He stated the suggested amount by Mr. Dodd is a prudent approach and if the public supports the road situations, then the other projects can be addressed in order Of priority. He stated he felt the citizens of Dale would vote for the reduced version. He stated he could support Route 288 or the entire list. Mr. Mayes inquired if it would be Route 288, the widening of Route 10 through Chester and the grade separation on Route 36. Mr. Daniel stated the Board had already committed to the grade separation and widening of Route 10. Mr. Mayes stated there was not enough money to do both projects. Mr. Daniel stated the Route 10 project was on the expanded bond referendum and if we do not go with that on the referendum, Route 10 through Chester will have to work itself through the system. Mr. Mayes stated the $4,500,000 for the widening of Hoots 10 and the grade separation in Ettrick has dLminished to $3,600,000. ~e stated the grade separation is almost at that figure and there is nothing for Route 10. Mr. Daniel stated he understood that the widening of Route 60 is being taken care of through other funding mechanisms and if it is, it would be appropriate to substitute the widening of Route 10 through Chester in place of widening of Route 60. Mrs. Girone stated the developers have taken care Of some of 85-637 the project, so the scope of the project has been reduced but the balance of the funding has not been reduced. Mr. Daniel stated if the scope has been reduced, that priority should be dropped if it is to be completed through other mechanisms, but the remainder of the list remains the same. ~e stated he did not feel the priorities have changed. Mr. Mayas stated if the grade separa- tion, the development of Route 10 and Route 288 is a package he could support it otherwise he could not. Mr. Daniel inquired if the funds were there for the grade separation. Mr. Mayer etated there is $3,600,000 for both projects and the ~rade separation will take most of that. Mr. Daniel stated that Mr. D~dd offered only funding for Route 288 and the funding for Route 10 was part of capital plan that was presented on July 10, 1985. Hr. Hayes stated that the agreement was that part of that money would be used for Route 10 and M~. Dodd has not indicated the remainder of that money can'be used for the grade separation. Hr. Dodd stated that after Route 288 is before the public and assuming they approve the project, only after that would this discussion be relevant. He stated any issue that would come and addree$ other road needs, would take on the priority list in a fair and equitable manner b~t~een the five districts and he did not think there would be a problem with working out priorities in each area and he felt that could be handled then. Mr. Mayas stated the Board indicated they would complete the grade separation at Ettrick but the Board has not yet said bhat it would see to it that that project is completed. Mr. Applegate stated that the Board members gave the commitment that the grade separation will be completed. He stated if the funds are not in the bond referendum, we are obligated to see that it is completed. Mrs. Girone stated she felt the County does need the entire $122,000,000 but the public feels it excessive. She stated she would like to see the issue divided in half with half this year and the next half next year depending the outcome of this referendum. She stated she felt this year's hal£ should be Route 28B, the fire and school projects which total $61,300,000. she stated she is concerned about the parks but the public views the parks as a leisure time activity and something that can wait. She stated there is a lot of support for parks in the County as well as libraries. She stated by reducing the parks in half, parks people will ~e upset but the library people will be more upset than they already are. She stated that if we are going to dc some for parks, then perhaps we should put $2,000,000 in for libraries. -Mr. Daniel stated that there had been concern about the charter and a bond issue on the same electlen day ~his year. ~e stated November 4, 1986 has been set aside for the charter consideration and if another bond referendum for other capital improvements in the County is planned, that ahother date be considered. Hr. Applegate stated he studied the parks program and there are two projects consisting of approximately $800,000 for land acquisition. He stated we may ~uy the land but we are not in a position to provide facilities. ~e stated there are critical needs bo upgrade or expand existing parks on an on-going basis. He stated he tried to deal with improvements to existing parks by Magisterial Districts which runs about $400,000-$600,000 each. Ee stated he had a tax rate impact for all the projects. He stated the proposition for ~he libraries is less than a half cent On the tax rate. ~rs. Girone stated that to reduce this referendum in half would be an average of $.06 on the tax ~ate but she felt the $.06 could be worked into the tax structure and would not cause an increase. Mr. Mayas sta'~ed the $60,000,000 value will be ten times cheaper than when we get to it and that is important. He stated it is cheaper to face the problem with today's dollar then wait two to four years. 85-638 Mrs. Girone stated the reaction she received was enthusiastic fo~ the road section because o£ the problems and there was no centre. versy about schools and fire. She stated that the roads proposal would take eight years but if the general consensus is that the public will be furious about the high amount and vote n~ for everything there is no use going forward. She stated we nee~ to take a prudent approach with half and then take the second half next year. Mr. Mayes stated we are making a decision for the public. Mrs. Girone stated only at the risk of losing everything, Mr. Mayes stated he did not feel the people would d~ that to themselves as the roads are critical if the County is to continue its quality of life and deal with growth. He stated ne one will come to the County if the roads stay as they are and if it stays as it is, the taxpayer will bear the burden of the economy. Mr. Applegate stated that was why Route 288 was included as it was thought this would be a starting point. When asked, Mr. Wagenknecht stated that they anticipate building one new branch and 7-8 mini-libraries by the year 2000, they nee, 505,000 volumes by 1990 if it is to keep pace with the populatiol growth, with 650,000 volumes by 2000. He stated if the first step is not taken now to renovate the Central Library, the Ben Air Branch and Chester Branch, the collection will grow inadequately with complaints increasing. He stated technical processing would be improved, volume capacity would be increased and insufficient reader seats would be increased by 104 if these funds wer~ included in the bond re£erendum which he explained in detail. Me stated those were the major effects but there were such things as rearranging areas and making them more cost effeetive~ improving use of public meeting rooms, adding quiet study/computer reference areas in the Central Library, ete. Mr. Dodd stated he understood the needs of the library and he knows that the need exists but he needs the Johnston Creek drainage district and if everyone can address their concerns the ~igure will be as originally proposed. He stated he is not for including the libraries and that $64,500,000 is the largest bond issue ever taken to the public and if issues are added in, he would want tO add Johnson Creek, and although it is important, h~ has reco~nded it be deleted. Mr. Appleqate inquired when the two new fire station facilities would be constructed if they were approved, chief Eanes sta~ed construction should be underway within 8 months after approval b~ the public and operational in 1987. Mr. Daniel inquired if in the financial plans, the manning of th~ new fire stations of which there are no volunteers, no equipment otc, had been considered. Mr. Medrick stated it is included in the three year plan. Mrs. Girone stated the average house in the County is $731,000, and with her proposal, maximum worse case would add $50 a year ti their taxes. She stated th~ County may not have to increase taxes at all depending on income and the economy. She suggested $30,000,000 for Route 288, $4,300,000 for fire, $27,000,000 for SChools, $3,000,000 for parks and recreation and $2,000,000 for the libraries for a total of $66,300,000. Mr. Daniel stated he did not agree with adding libraries because everyone will want to add something else. Mrs. Girone suggested Route 28S, fire and schools which would be $61,300,000. ~he stated if parks are included she felt libraries should also b~ included. Mr. Hedrick stated that the Board is already two to three years behind on dealing with the capital improvements program that Started ~hree years ago. Me stated at that time there was a decision to maintain the level of ~ervice and with each passing year and the population continuing to grow, the lac] of dealing with the capital side of the budget has the effect of reducing servic~ levels in each of the areas not addressed. Me stated roads, fire and schools have been dealt with and the ~5-639 the Board is considering part of the parks issue. Be stated libraries have to be dealt with also. He stated the Board has indicated increased circulation was a goal of the budget. He stated the issues will be separate on the referendum and the public can pick and choose. He stated ~taff strongly encourages the libraries as well as parks as it, too, is critical. He stated the staff also recommends Johnson's Creek as it has an economical development be~e£it but it is not so~ething that puts US further and further behind as far as the provision of existin~ services. Mr. Daniel stated that he felt Johnson Creek, if anything, will provide revenue that will enhance service levels, it is a loan, and the County is enhanced and reaps the benefits from this project. Mr. Mayas stated that roads wore not included in Mr. Hedrick's statement with regard to critical needs and set backs. Mr. Hedrick stated that over thc past several years, the Board has established the objective of maintaining service levels. He stated in the case of fire, parks and recreation, schools and libraries thos~ issues enabled you to keep pace with service levels and are consistent with objectives over the past two years. He stated the Route 288 issue was dealt wi~h at Brandermill and is not a continuation of existing service levels but an expansion of services. HO stated this is, wit~ the exc0ptlon of Powhite, something that you have not got=an into before. He stated the rationale for doing this was to help broaden the tax base. Mr. Mayas stated the County is still approving subdivisions, putting more cars on the road and yet people cannot get to work and kids cannot get on the school buses. He stated he felt roads is the most critical need in the County and that we should deal with it.. He stated he felt all road issues should be kept on the referendum and let the public vote it up or down and not put the responsibility on the Board make the decision. Mr. Dodd stated he felt to take a half step forward is better than taking a step backward. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the following resolution was adopted: A RESOLUTION O~ THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIAt DETERMINING THE ADVISABILITY FOE SUCH COUNTY TO CON- TRACT DEBT AND TO ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF SUCH COUNTY TO EVIDENCE SUCH DEBT IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF THIRTY-SEVEN MILLION THf~EE HUNDi~ED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($37~300,000) FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COSTS OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS OF AND FOR SUCH COUNTY, SUCH BONDS TO BE ISSUED IN THE AMOUNT OF THIRTY MILLION ($30,000,000) FOR A HIGHWAY, ST~-EET AND ROAD I~RQVEMENT PROJECTS, IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF FOUR MILLION TERSE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARg ($4,300,000) FOR FIP~ STATION I~PROVE¥~NT PROJECTS AND THE ~AXIMUM ~MOUNT OF THREE MILLION DOLLARS ($3,000,000) FOR PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT PHOJECT~ BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OP C~STERF~ELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. It is hereby determined that it is advisable for the County to contract debt in the maximum amount of thirty-seven million three hundred thousand dollars ($37,300,000) and to issu~ general obligation bonds of the County ~nd~r the provisions of Chapter 5 of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amends{ (the same being the Public Rinance Act), for the purpose of £inancing the costs of public improvement projects of and for th~ County, such bonds to evidence such debt to be issued in the maximum amounts and for ~he purposes set forth below; (a) general obligation bonds in the maximum amount of thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) for a highway, street and road improvement project of and for the County to be applied to 85-640 the following project: Construction of Route 288 and related improvements. (b) general obligation bonds in the maximum amount of four million three hundred thousand dollars ($4,300,000) for fir( station improvement projects of and for the County; (c) general obligation bonds in the maximum amount of three million dollars (3,000,000) for parks and recreation improvements of and for the County. 2. The full faith and credit of the County shall be pledged to the payment o£ the principal of and interest on all O~ such bonds, and for se long as any of such bonds are Outstanding and unpaid there shall be annually assessed, levied and collecte( upon all property in the County subject to taxation by the County, an ad valorem tax without limitation of rate or amount sufficient to pay the principal of and the interest on such bond: as the same become due and payable. 3. The Circuit Court of the County, or any judge thereof, is hereby r~quested to order an election to be held in the Count on November 5, 1985, upon the questions of whether the County shall contract the debts and ismue general obligation bonds of the County in the maximum amounts and for the purposes set forth in paragraph 1. The Circuit Court of the County, or any judge thereof, is hereby further requested to enter ~uch order on or before S~ptember 6, 1985, to permit such election to be held on November 5, 1985, as provided in Section 24.1-165 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 4. The Clerk of this Board of Supervisors shall file a certified copy of this resolution with the Circuit Court of the County, or any judge thereof. 5, Ail resolutions and proceedings in conflict herewith are, to the e×tent of such conflict, hereby repealed. 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately. The Board being polled, the vote was as follows: Mr. Applegate - Aye Mr. Mayas - Aye Mr. Daniel - Aye Mr. Dodd - Aye Mrs. Girone - Abstention It was generally agreed the Board would recess for two minutes. Reconvenlng: PROHIBITION OF THROUGH TRUCK TRAFPIC ON SALISBURY ROAD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, th~ Board suspended its rules to handle, out of sequence, Item 10.H.i], Set Date for Public Hearing to Consider Restriction of Through Truck Traffic On Salisbury Road. Mrs. Girone introduced Ms. Joyce Mackett of Salisbury Road. Ms. Mackett presented four letters to Mrs. Girone requesting that truck trsffic be prohibited on Salisbury Road. She stated the road is heavily traveled by trucks in the area for construction as well az deliveries to the Salisbury Country Club. She stated the children use Salisbury Road as an access to all the recreational activities located on Salisbury Road and the school buses also load and unload children on the road. She stated the 85-641 trucks are u~ing Salisbury Road as a short cut to miss the lights at Robious and Midlothlan, they also exceed the speed limit, they drop debris and gravel along the road, all of which create a dangerou~ situation. On motion of Mrs, Gircne, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board set the date of October 9, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to consider the restriction of through truck traffic on Salisbury Road. 8.B. APPOINTMENTS 8.B.1. YOUTH SERVICES COMMISSION The Board nominated the following people to the Youth Services Commission for appointment at the September 11, 1985 meeting: Dale Midlothian Mr. Yogi Berger MS. Phillippa Bates Mr. Howard Warren Mrs. Charlotte Gibbs April Quarles Clever Hill Mr. Jack Lynch Kelly Robinson Mrs. Maureen Hagan Rob Wade Carol or Joe Boisineau Bermuda Ms. Melissa Ball Gibbons S1oane 8.B.2. CONTOUR On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~rs. Girone, the Board reappointed Ms. Marie Beach to Contour representing Chesterfield County at-large, whose term is effective immediately and will expire in June, 1987. Vote: Unanimous 8.C. STREET LIGMT REQUESTS On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the installation of four street lights in Penn Acres Subdivision which meet the criteria which are as follows with funds to be expended from the Clover Hill District Street Light Funds: 1. South Providence Road and Trout Lane 2. Trout Lane and Jade Read 3. Jade Road and Emerald Lane 4. Emerald Lane and Marble Road Vote: Unanimous 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.A. ORDINANCE RELATING TO CARRYING FI~AR/KS WITMIN 106 YARDS OF SCHOOL OR COUNTY PARE Mr. Bedrick stated this date and time and been advertised to eonsider an ordinance relating to the discharging of firearms within 100 yards of a school or County park. Mrs. Girone 85-642 introduced letters from three citizens in favor of this ordinance. There was no one present to discuss the matter. On motion of Mrs. Girone, secQndod by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted tho ~ollowing ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AM~END THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OP CHESTEP~IELD, 1978~ AS AMENDED, BY ADDING SECTION 15.1-22.4 RELATING TO HUNTING OR CARRYING A LOADED FIREARM NEAR PUBLIC SCHOOLS OR PARKS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chosteriield County: (1) That Chapter 15.1 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia is amended and reenacted by adding the following section: Sec. 15.1-22.4. Hunting or carryin~ a loaded firearm near public schools or parks. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to shootr bunt or attempt to hunt with a firearm within 100 yards of any property llne of any county public school or County perk. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to transport, possess or carry a loaded firearm within 100 yards 0£ any proper- ty line of any county public school or county park. (c) This section shall not apply %0 lands within a national or state park or forest, or wildlife management area. (d) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. 9.B. ORDINAi~CE RELATING TO RXEMPT~0N FOR MUSEUMS FROM WITH SOLICITATION ORDINANCE ~r. Eedrick stated thi~ date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to the exemption of museums from compliance with the solicitation ordinance. There was no one present to di~cu~ the matter. On motion of Mr. Daniel, ~econded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINA/~CE TO Ab~END THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OP C~RSTERFIELD, 1978, AS ~4ENDED, EX AMENDING AND ILEENACTING SECTION 16.1-7 tLELATIN~ TO SOLICITATIONS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section 16.1-7 o£ the Code of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows: Soo. 16.1-7 ~xemptions from provisions of charter. Tho provisions o~ this chapter shall not apply to: (a) Any person who visits any residence or apa:tment at tbs request or invitation of tho owner or occupant thereof. o o o 85-643 (k) A museum which has reqistered with the Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services as required by Section 57-49, Code of Vi~glnia, 1950, as amended and which has been granted tax-exempt status under Section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenu~ Code. 9.C. ORDINANCE ALLOWING ADOPTION OF BONUS OPPORTUNITY FOR COUNT~ EMPLOYEES Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had bean advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance allowing for adoption of an o:dinance allowing for a bonu~ opportunity for County employees. Mr. Nedrick explained that the ordinance is in compliance with the County's existing policy and was part of the Hay System. There was no one present to discuss the matter. On motion of Mr. Daniel, geconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO ~/4~ND TtE CODE OF TEE COUNTY OF CNESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING SECTION 16-8.1 RRI~TING TO BONUSES COUN~Y EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Chapter 16 of t-he Code of the County of Chester- flsld, Virginia is amended and reenacted by adding the followinq section: Sec. 16-8.1 Employee uniform pay plan - Bonuses. As part of the uniform pay plan adopted pursuant to Section 16-8 of this chapter, the county may pay a monetary bonus to county officers and employees for exceptional services rendered, under such criteria and procedures as provided in the uniform pay plan. Vote: Unanimous 10. NEW BUSINESS 10.A. PRESENTATION OF PROCeeDS OF SAL~ OF TIMBER AT POCANONTAS Mr. James Bowen, Superintendent of the State Forestry Division, introduced Mr. David Terwilliger, the new Ranger for Pocahontas, and briefly outlined his educational background. Mr. Bowen further presented a check in the amount of $55,958.01, representinq 25% of the proceeds from the sale of forest products on Pocahontas State Forest. He stated there are 5,800 aere~ Of land, it is ~anaged on a multi-use concept including water quality, air q~ality, wildlife, recreation, timber, etc. and it is totally self-supporting which is required by State law. Ne outlined other aspects of the Park and its operation. Ne invited the Board members to tour the facility at their convenience. The Board expressed appreciation for the funds.and welcomed Mr. Ter~illiger to his new position. 10.B. ISSUAECE OF SCHOOL BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES Mr. Ramsey stated the Board is requested to roll over the bond anticipation notes so that permanent financing can be arranqed when the next issue of general obligation bonds are sold. Ne stated the Treasurer has obtained 5.1% interest rate for nine months at United Virginia Bank. 85-644 On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following resolution: Be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield Count~ that pursuant to the authority set forth in the resolution · adopted by the Board of Supervisors On September 1, 1983, permitting the issuance of up to $4,950,000 in bond anticipation notes, this Board hereby determines that it is in the best interests of the County to issue a Note in the principal amount of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000), and to sell such note to United Virginia Bank for a price of par and accrued interest fro~ the date of such note to the date of delivery thereof, such note to be executed by the County Treasurer and the form and details of such note to be as hereinafter set forth in Appendix A to this Resolution. The proceeds from thi~ note shall be used to pay outstanding bond anticipation notes due on August 30, 1985 in the amount cf $3,000,000. The County Treasurer and other appropriats officers and employees of the County are authorized to take all action necessary in the issuance and delivery of s~eh note. Vote: Unanimous 10.D. MUTUAL AID SUPPORT AGP~EM~NT WITH JOHN TYLER On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute a mutual aid support agreement with John Tyler Community College, copy of which is filed with the papers of this Board. Vote: Unanimous 10.E. LANDFILL/COLLECTION STATION FEES Mr. Howell Stated there had been some confusion in the staff interpretation of the Board's intent as to the implementation of the $1.00 charge to private citizens who bring waste to the collection ~tation/landfill and that the purpose of this agenda item was to insure accurate staff interpretation. Mr. Hedriek stated he had included a memo recommending the deletion of the $1.00 charge for individual citizen disposal due to the difficulty in enforcement, especially at the collection station site. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the policy should be clear and crisp which is not what is recommended. Mrs. Girone moved, seconded by Mr. Mayes, that the $1.00 charge for individual citizen disposal be eliminated. ~Lr. Daniel stated two meetings ago there was a discussion regard- ing rates and one of the prevailing conditions establishing the rates to be charged commercial users was the fact that revenue generated by a $1.00 charge to private citizens would reduce the amount of an increase to be applied to commercial collectorS. ~e stated these fees would have to be reevaluated in light of the proposed resolution. Mrs. Girone stated that when the original motion was made, it was that a $1.00 charge would be for any individual ear/truck that crossed over the scales and it would work at the northern area. She stated, however, with the collection station system at the southern area, this will not work. She stated staff advises that one policy will not apply to both locations and if they cannot be treated equally, eliminatin( the $1.00 charge was the only fair solution.~ Mr. Applegate inquired what the projected income wa~ from this charge. Mr. Howell stated $72,000 for the two locations. Mr. Hed~ick stated people who dispose of their refuse at the landfill do ~0 because they do not want to pay a private collector or a dlsp~sal compan, is not readily available, they will not want to pay the fee and ' it may result with the debris in ditches, ravines, etc. and it may cost more for the follow up on complaints regarding the debris being dumped. Mr. Daniel stated if this resolution is adopted, an accompanying resolution appropriating the money from the General Fund will have to be made. He stated this will be subsidizing the landfill and he hoped all understood the impact 85-645 of the resolution. Mr. Dodd stated h~ felt it incredible that an attendant could not collect a $1.00 £ee, there are other fees that are collected that people are not happy with, there is a $5.00 collection fee for a resident with a truck, etc. He stated he agreed it should be done fairly and that the $1.00 could be justified. Mrs. Girone withdrew her motion. After further discussion, it was on motion cf Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, resolved that the Board defer this matter until September 11, 1985 and try to reach an accord as to how to deal with this matter fair and equitably. Vote: Unanimous It is noted that the $1.00 fee would not be implemented on Septe~foer 1, 1985. 10.F. APPOMATTOX BASIN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION APPOINTMENTS On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board nominated ~Lr. Cecil L. Williams, Mr. Michael Dubus, Dr. Fred W. Nicholas, Mr. Jesse J. ~ayes, Mr. C. P. Currin and Mr. Jeffrey Muzzy to the Appomattox Basin Industrial Development Corporation representing Chesterfield County at-large with formal appointment to be made at the September 11, 1985 meeting. Vote: Unanimous 10.G. CONSENT ITEMS 10.G.1. P~EQUEST FOR BINGO/RAFPLE PERMIT On motion o~ Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the request for a bingo/raffle permit for the Chesterfield Volunteers Association for calendar year 1985. Vote: Unanimous 10.G.2. SCHOOL GRANT FOE MATHEMATICS TRAINING PROJECT On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board increased the School Operation budget by $21,600 for receipts and expenditures which will cover a grant recently received from the State Department of Education to train teachers in mathematics. Vote: Unanimous STATE ROAD ACCEPT~C~ This day the County ~nvironmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Glamorgan Lane, Behetra Drive and Duoatus Drive in Glamorgan, Section TWO, Midlothian District. Upon consideration whereof, and On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Glamorgan Lane, Behetra Drive and Ducatus Drive in Glamorgan, Section Two, ~idlothian District, be and they hereby ar~ ~stablished as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Glamorgan Lane, beginning where State Maintenance ends, Glamorgan Lane, State Route 1341, and going 0.06 mile southerly to the intersection with Behetra Drive and then continuing 0.~5 mile to a temporary turnaround; Behetra Drive, beginning at intersection with Glamorgan Lane and going 0.24 mile easterly to the intersec=ioa with Dusatus Drive; and 85-646 Duoatus Drive, beginning at the intersection with Eehetra D~ive and going 0.06 mile northwesterly to a cul-de-sac. Again, Ducatus Drive, beginning at the intersection with Rehetra Drivs and goinq 0.05 mile southeasterly a temporary turnaround. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope and site distance easements. These roads serve 34 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50' right-of-way for all of these roads. This section of Glamergan is recorded as follows: Section Two. Plat Book 43, Pages 11 & 12, May 19, 1983. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordanc~ with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Sagewood Road in Sagewood, Section One, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration wheraof, and on motion of Mrs. Giroue, seconded by Mr. Daniel, it is resolved that Sagewood Road in Sagewood, Section One, Clover Hill District, be and it hereby is established as a public road. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is rsquested to take into the Secondary System, Sagewood Road, beginning where State Maintenance end~, Sagewood Road, State ROUte 2972, and g~ing 0.09 mile northeasterly to tie into proposed Sagewood Road. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope and site distance easements. This road serves 102 lots. And be it further re~olved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 80' right-of-way for this road. This section of Sagewood is recorded as follows: Section One. Plat Book 37, Pages 14 & 15, September 17, 1980 Vote: Unanimous STATE COMPERSATION BOARD'S REI~BURSEMENT On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel~ the Board. approved the request for salary allowances for the Treasurer's Office in order that certain employees reimbursement would be comparable with the grade of other employees recently reclassified under the County's pay plan, a copy of the list and allowances is filed with the papers of this Board. Vote: U~animous 10.H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS 10.~.2. REQUEST TO SURFACE BURGESS ROAD On motion of ~r. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board adopted the following resolution: 85-647 © © Whereas, the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County has received a request to upgrade a portion of Burgess Road. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board hereby requests tho Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to surface treat on an accounts receivable basis Burgess Road from the end of State maintenance to approximately 550 feet north of the end of State maintenance and that $3,000.00 from the Bermuda District 3¢ Road Funds be apprcpria=od for thi~ project. Vote: Unanimous 10.H.3. AGREEMENT WITK VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION FOR ALTEP~NATIVE DESIGN FOR ACCESS TO POWNITE PARKWAY On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute a standard contract with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for an alternative design for access to Powhite Par~ay by Crow-Eloin-MacFartane Partnership, a copy of the contract is filed with the papers of this Board. 10.I. UTILITIES ITEMS 10~I.1. REVENUE BOND SALE FOR SFW~R AND WATER SYSTEM Mr. Ramsey stated the County underwriters priced tho $61,000,000 sewer and water revenue bond issue recently and staff feels comfortable that the issue was priced competitively by comparing the rate tho County received to four comparable sales also in the market on Monday. He stated the County's bonds were priced about one-quarter percent below what the other issues wore priced. He stated the bonds are priced at a net interest cost of 9.13% and the closing would take place on September 24, 1985. Mr. Dodd stated this was a financial improvement and co,ended staff on their effort~ and for putting the utilities on solid footing. On motion of the Board, the following resolution wa~ adopted: COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA S~CO~D SUPPLEMENTAL BOND RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND P~0VIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF $61,160,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL A/~OUNT OP WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BUNDS, SERIES 1985B~ DATED AS OF SEPTENBER 1, 1985, OF TEE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS SECTION 1.1. Definitions. Unless the context shall clearly indicate some other meaning, all the words and terms used in this Second Supplemental Bond Resolution which are defined in Article I of the Bond Resolution shall, for' the p~rposes of this Second Supplemental Bond Resolution, have the respective meanings given to them in the Bond ReEolution. 85-648 Unless the context shall clearly indicate some other meaning, the following terms shall, for all purposes of the Bond Resolution and of any certificate, resolution or other instrumen~ amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto (including for all purposes of this Second Supplemental Bond Resolution) and for al~ purposes of any opinion or instrument or other document therein mentioned, have the following meanings, with the following definitions to be equally applicable to both the singular and plural forms of such terms and vice versa: "Bond Purchase Aqreement" shall mean the Bond Purchase Agreement dated August 28, 1985 by and between County and the Underwriters providing for the sale of the 1985B Bonds to the Underwriters. "Bend Resolution" shall mean the resolution adopted by the Board On July 24, 1985 entitled, "RESOLUTION OF TEE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS O~ TME COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, AUTBORI~ING TBS ISSUANCE OF WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS OF TB~ COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, AND PROVIDING FOB THE SECURITY OF TEE MOLDERS THEREOF". "1985B Bonds" shall mean the Bonds authorized in Section 2.1 cf this Second Supplemental Bond Resolution and issued under the Bond Resolution and this Second Supplemental Bond Resolution at any time Outstanding. "Official Statement" shall mean the Official statement of the County relating to the 1985B Bonds. '~Prelimfnary Official Statement" shall mean the Preliminary Official Statement of the County dated August 15, 1985 relating to the 1985B Bonds. "Second Supplemental Bond Resolution" shall mean thi~ Second Supplemental Bond Resolution. "Underwriters" shall mean E.F. Button & Company Inc., Wheat, First Securities, Inc. and the other firms listed as underwriters in the Bond Purchase Agreement. Unless the context shall clearly indicate otherwise or otherwise require (i) all references in this Second Supplemental Bond Resolution to the Bond Resolution (without specifying in such references any particular article or section of the Bond Resolution) shall b~ to the Bend Resolution as amended and supplemented; (ii) all references by number in this Second Supplemental Bond Resolution to a particular article or section of the Bond Resolution shall b~ to the article or sectior of that number of the Bond Resolution, and if such article or section shall have been amended or supplemented, to such article or section as so amended and supplemented; and (ifil all references by number in this Second Supplemental Bond Resolution to a particular article or section of the Second Supplemental Bond Resolution shall be only to the article or section of that number of this Second Supplemental Bond Resolution. Whenever used in this Second Supplemental Bond Resolution, the words "herein", "hereinbefore", "hereinafter", "hereof", "hereunder", and other words of similar import, re£er to this S~oond Supplemental Bond Resolution only and to this Second Supplemental Bend Resolution as a w~ole and not to any particular article, section or subdivision hereof; and the words "therein", "thereinbefore", "thereof", "thereunder", and other words of similar import, refer to the Bond Resolution as a whole and not to any particular article, section or subdivision thereof. ARTICLE II AUTKORIZATIO~ OF 1985B BONDS 85-649 SECTION 2.1. Authorization of 1985B Bonds. (a) For the purposes of providing funds Ii) for the deposit into the Debt Service Reserve Fund held by the Trustee of the amount of the Debt Service Reserve Requirement for the 1985B Bonds in accordance with the provisions of the Bond Resolution; and (ii) for deposit to the Construction Fund held by the Treasurer for credit to the Construction Account of a portion of the Costs of Construction of the 1985 Expansion, there are hereby authorized tO be issued, and shall be issued, under and secured by the Bond Resolution, including this Second Supplemental Bond Resolution, a Seri~s of Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of Sixty-One Million One Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars ($61,160,000) to be designated "County of Chesterfield, Virginia, Water and Sewer Revenue Ecnds, Series 1985B" (herein defined and referred to as the "1985B Bonds"). (b) The 1985B Bonds shall be dated as of september 1, 1985; shall be issued in fully registered form; shall be in the denomination of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof; and shall be numbered or lettered, er both~ as shall be determined by the Trustee, which number or letters to have the letter "R" prefixed thereto. The 1985B Bond~ shall be exchangeable for other 1985B Bonds in fully registered form, all as provided in Section 3.3 of the Bend Resolution. The 1985B Bonds may contain such variationsr omissions and insertions as are incidental to such differences in their numbers, denominations and forms. (c} The 1985B Bcnde shall bear interest from their date at the respective rates pe~ annum set forth in the schedule below, payable on November 1, 1985 and semiannually on each November 1 and May 1 thereafter. The 1985B Bonds shall mature and become due and payable On November 1 in each of the years and in the principal amounts, and shall bear interest at the rates per annum, as follows: Principal Interest Principal Interest ~ear Amount Rate Year Amount Rate 1989 $ 1,095,000 6.25% 1996 $ 1,785,000 @.25 % 1990 1,165~000 6.75 1997 1,935,000 8.50 1991 1,245,000 7.00 1998 2,100,000 8.70 1992 1,330,000 7.25 1999 2,280,000 8.80 1993 1,430,000 7.50 2000 2,480~000 8.90 1994 1,535,000 7.75 2001 2,705,000 9.00 1995 1,655,000 8.00 2005 13,470,000 9.00 2010 24,950,000 9.125 (d) The Trustee is hereby appointed as the Registrar and the Paying Agent for the 1985B Bonds. SECTION 2.2. Provisions for Redemption of 1985B Bend~. (a) The 1985B Bonds maturing on or before November 1, 19--~shall not be redeemable prior to their stated maturities. (b)' (1) The 1985B Bonds maturing on Novei~er 1, 2005 shall be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption from Sinking Fund Palm, cuts made in accordance with the provisions of the Bond Resolution and to payment at maturity on ~ovember 1 in each of the years and, in the principal amounts set forth below, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount redeemed, together with the interest accrued on such principal amount to the date fixed for redemption: Year Principal Amount 2002 $2,945,000 2003 3,210,000 2004 3,500,000 2005 3,815,000 (ii) The 1985B Bonds maturing on November 1, 2010 shall be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption from 85-650 ® Sinking Fu~d Payments made in accordance with the provisions of the Bond Resolution and to payment at maturity on November 1 in each of the years and, in the principal amounts set forth below, at a redemption price equal to the principal &mount redeemed, together with the interest accrued on such principal amount to the date fired for redemption: Year Principal A~ount 2006 $ 4,160,000 2007 4,540,000 2005 4,950,000 2009 5,405,000 2010 5,895,000 (c) The 1985B Bonds maturing on November 1, 1996 and thereafter (including 1985B Bonds maturing on November 1, 2005 and November 1, 2010), shall be subject to redemption prior to their stated maturities, at the option of the County, from moneys on deposit in the Redemption Fund created and established by the Bond Resolution or from other available moneys of the County, on and after November 1, 1995, az a whole at any time~ or in part from time to time On any interest payment date in such order as the County may determine, at the respective redemption prices (expressed as a percentage of the princimal amount to be redeemed) set forth below if such redemption is made from any imoneys other than moneys required by subsection (b) of this ISection 2.2, together with the interest accrued On such principal iamount to the date fixed for redemption: Period During Which Redeemed (Both Dates Inclusive) November 1, 1995 through October November 1, 1996 through October November 1, I997 through October November 1, 1998 through October November 1, 1999 and thereafter Redemption Price 3I, 1996 102 % 31, 1997 101 1/2 31, 1998 101 31, 1999 100 1/2 100 (d)(i) Notice of the redemption of any 1985B Bonds shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.5 of the Bond Resolution. ~ii) If less than all the 1985B Bonds of a maturity are to be redeemed, the Bonds of such maturity to be redeemed shall be selected es provided in Section 6.4 of the Bond Resolution. (iii) Any redemption of 1985B Bonds shall have the effect as is provided in Section 6.6 of the Bond Resolution. SECTION 2.3. Sale of 1985B Bonds. The sale of the 1985B Bonds to the Underwriters as provided in the Bond 2urchase Agreement for a purchase pxlcs of $59,777,710, plus accrued interest thereon from September 1, 1985 to the date of the delivery of and payment for the 1995B Bonds, is hereby approved. SECTION 2.4. Execution and Form of 1985B Bond~. (a) The 1985B Bonds shall be initially issued in printed iorm in the denomination of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof, as specified by the Underwriters. The 1999B Bonds shall be executed and authenticated in the manner and with the'effect set forth in Section 3.10 of the Bond Resolution. The 1985B Bonds ~hall be issuable in the form, denominations and maturities specified in Section 2.1 of this Second Supplemental Bond Resolution. (b) CUSIP identification numbers Shall be printed on the 1995R Bonds, but such numbers shall not be deemed to be a part of the 1985B Bonds or a part of the contract evidenced thereby and no liability shall hereafter attach to the County or any of the officers or agents thereof because of or on ascount of such CUSIP identification numbers. (c) The 1985B Bonds shall be in substantially thc form set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. SECTION 2.5. A~proval'of Form of Bond Purchase ~greement and Terms, Conditions an~ Provisions Thereof~ Executio~ and Delivery of Bond Purchase Agreement. The form of the Bond Purchase Agreement presented to the meeting of the Board at which this Second Supplemental Bond Resolution is being adopted, a copy of which is attached to this Second Supplemental Bond Re~olution as Exhibit B, and the terms, conditions and provisions thereof, are hereby approved, ratified and confirmed by the Board, and the Chairman of the Board is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver to the Underwriters the Bond Purchase Agreement in such form, together with such changes as shall be appr0v0d by the Chairman of the Board upon advice of counsel (including Bond Counsel), such approval to be conclusively evidenced by his execution thereof. SECTION 2.6. Approval of Preliminary official Statement and Official Statement; E~ecution and Delivery of Official Statement. The Preliminary Official Statement presented to the meeting Of the Board at which this Second Supplemental Bond Resolution is being adopted and filed with the minutes of such meeting is hereby approved, and the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator are hereby authorized to execute and deliver to the Underwriters the Official Statement substantially in the form of the Preliminary Official Statement presented to and filed with the minutes of such meeting, together with such changes as shall be necessary to reflect the final details of the 1985B Bonds as approved in this Second Supplemental Bond Resolution and the terms of the municipal bond insurance referred to in Section 2.9 and as shall be approved by the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator upon advice of counsel (including Bond Counsel), such approval to be conclusively evidenced by their execution thereof. SECTION 2.7. ~plication of Proceeds of 1985B Bonds. The proceeds of sale of the 1985B Bonds shall be applied as follows: (a) the amount of the accrued interest on the 1985B Bonds shall be deposited with the Trustee in the Debt Service Fund in accordance with the provisions of the Bond Resolution and applied on November 1, 1985 to the pslrment of the interest payable on the 19S5B Ben~s on such date; (b) the amount of t~e Debt Service Reserve Requirement with respect to the 19SSB Bonds shall be deposited with the Trustee in the Debt Service Reserve Fund in accordance with the provisions of the Bond Resolution; and (c) the balance of the proceeds shall be deposited into the Construction Fund held by the Treasurer for credit to the Construction Account therein. SECTION 2.S. Investment of Fends and Accounts U~der Send Resolution. In accordance with Section 5.11(e) (i) of the Bond Resolution, it is hereby provided that all income or interest earned and gains realized in excess of losses suffered by a Fund or Account held by the Trustee under the Bond Resolution due to the investment thereof (i) shall be deposited in the Construction Fund for credit to the Construction Account therein up to the date the Certificate referred to in Section 4.3(b) of the Bond Resolution with regard to the 1985 Expansion shall be delivered and (ii) thereafter shall be deposited in the Revenue Fund as Revenues of the System. S~C?ZON 2.9. ~atification of Execution of Municipal Bond ~nsurance Commitment with Financial Guarant~ ~nsurance Company; Authorization of Negotiation and Execution of Agreement ~ith Financial Guaranty Insurance Company with Respect to Terms 85-652 © ® of 1985B Bonds and Resolutions Relating Tharetn. The execution by the Director of Budget and Accounting of the County of the commitment for municipal bond insurance with Financial Guaranty Insurance Company (the "Bond Insurer") in the form presented to and filed with the minutes of the meeting of the Board at which this Second Supplemental Bond Resolution is being adopted and filed with the minutes of such meeting is hereby approved, ratified and confirmed. The Chairman of the Board and the Count~ Administrator, with the assistance of other appropriate official~ and employees of the County, are hereby authorized to negotiate an agreement by and among the County, the Bond Insurer and the Trustee with re~pect to the terms and conditions of such commitment and of the 19~5B Bonds and the resclution~ relating thereto, including the Bond Resolution and this Second Supplemental Bond Resolution, and ~Uoh Chairman and County Administrator are hereby authorized to executs such agreement an~ deliver the same to the Bond Insurer and the Trustee, provided, however, that in no event there be included in such agreement an5 provision which shall adversely affect the rights of the Holdsrs of the 1985A Bonds under the Bond Resolution and the First Supplemental Bond Resolution. ARTICLE III MISCELLANEOUS SECTION 3.1. Second Supplemental Bond Resolution is a "Supplemental Resolution" Under the Bond Resolution; 1985~ Bonds are "Bonds" Under the Bond Resolution. {a) This Second Supplemental Bond Resolution is entered into pursuant to Section 2.4 and Article VIII of the Bond Resolution. This Second Supplemental Bond Resolution (1) Supplements the Bond Resolution; (2) is hereby found, determined and declared to constitute and t¢ be a "Supplemental Resolution" within the meaning of the quoted words as defined and used in the Bond Resolution; and (3) is issued pursuant to and under the authority of the Bond Resolution. (b) The 1985B Bonds are hereby found, determined and declared to constitute and to be "Bonds" within the meaning of the quoted words as defined and used in the Bond Resolution. The I9@5B Bonds shall be entitled to the benefits, security and protection of the Bond Resolution, equally and proportionately with any other Bonds heretofore or hereafter issued thereunder; shall De payable from the Revenues on a parity with all Bonds heretofore or hereafter issued under the Bond Resolution; shall rank peri passu with all Bonds heretofore or hereafter issued under the Bond Resolution; and shall ~e equally and ratably secured with all Bonds heretofore or hereafter issued under the Bond Resolution by a prior and paramount lien and charge on the Revenues, without priority or distinction by reason of s~ries, number, date, date of sale, date of issuance, date of execution and authentication or date of delivery; all as is more fully set forth in the Bond Resolution. It is hereby further found, determined and declared that no default exists in the payment of the principal of or interest and premium, if any, on any Bond issued under the Bond Resolution and that all mandatory redemptions, if any, of Bonds required to have been made under the terms of the Bsnd Resolution of any Supplemental Resolution have been made. SECTION 3.2. Publication e£ Leigal Notice of AdoptioD of the Second Supplemental Bond Resolution. The County Attorney be and hereby is authorised and directed to file a copy of this Second Supplemental Bond Resolution, certified by the Clerk of the Board tO be a true and correct copy thereof, with the Circuit Court of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, and such Clerk of the Board be and hereby is authorized and directed to publish once within ten [10) days of the date of such filing a notice of adoption of this Second Supplemental Bond Resolution in the Richmond New,-Leader, a newspaper of general circulation in the 85-653 © © County, all in accordance with Section 15.1-199 of the Code of Virginia 1950, as a~ended. S%¢h notice shall be in substantiall the following £orm: "LEGAL NOTICE Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 15.1-199 of the Coda of Virginia 1950, aa a~ended, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, adopted an August 28, 1985 a Second Supplemental Bond Resolution authorizin the issuance of $61,160,000 principal amount of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1955B, of such County, for the p~rpo~e of providing funds to pay a portion of the costs of extensions, additions and canital improvements to, or the renewal and replacement of c~pital assets of, or installing new equipment for, the County's Water and Sewer System, such series 1985B Bonds, and all prior and subsequent series of bonds issued and t¢ be issued under such Bond Resolution, to be payable solely from, and secured equally and ratably by a lien and charge on, the Revenuee derived from the operation of such Water and Sewer system by the County, subject to he prior payment from such Revenues of the Operating Expenses of the Water and Sewer System. COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA By: Clerk o2 the Board of Supervisors" SRCTION 3.3. Effect of Article and Section ~eadings and Table of Contents. The headings or titles of articles and secti0hs hereof, and any table of conte~ts appended hereto or copies hereof, shall be for convenience of reference only and shall not affect the meaning or construction, interpretation or effect of this Second Supplemental Bond Resolution. SECTION 3.4. Effectiveness of this Second Supplemental Bond Resolution. This Second supplemental Bond Resolution shall be effective from and after the adoption hereof by the Board. EXHIBIT A TO SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL BOND RESOLUTION P~GISTERED NO. R- INTEREST RATE: UNITED STATES OF AM~R!CA COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD ~TATER AND SEWER REVENUE BOND, SERIES 1985B REGISTERED ~ATURITY ORIGINAL DATE: ISSUE DAT~: CUSIP: Pd~GISTERED BOLDER: September ~1, 1985 PRINCIPAL SUM: The County of Chesterfield (hereinafter referred to as the ~'County"), a political subdivision of the Conm~onwealth of Virginia, for value received, hereby acknowledge~ i~self indebted and hereby promises to pay to the Registered Holder (named above), or registered assigns, but solely from the Revenues and 85-654 © © moneys pledged to the payment hereof hereinafter specified and net otherwise, on the Maturity Date Ispecified above) unless this Bond shall have been called for previous redemption and payment of the redemption price shall have been duly made or provided for, the Principal Sum, but Solely from such Revenues and moneys pledged to the payment hereof hereinafter specified and not otherwise, on the first day of November, 1985 and semi-annually on the first day of May and the first day of November of each year thereafter (each such date is hereinafter referred to as an "interest payment date"), from the date hereof or from the interest payment date next preceding the date cf authentication hereof to which interest shall have been paid, unless such date of authentication is an interest payment date, in which case from such interest payment date, or unless such date ef authentication is within the period from the sixteenth (16th) day to the last day Of the calendar month next preceding the following interest paymsnt date, in which case from such following interest payment dated, such interest to be paid until the maturity or redemption hereof at the Interest Rate (specified above) per annum, by check er draft mailed by the Registrar hereinafter mentioned to the Registered Holder in who~e name this Bond is registered upon the books cf registry of the County kept by the Registrar as of the close of business on the fifteenth (15th] day (whether or not a business day) of the calendar month next preceding each interest payment date at the address of the Registered Holder hereof as it appears on such books of registry. The principal of and premium, ii any, on this Bond are payable on presentation and surrender hereof at the principal office o~ the Bank of Virginia Trust Company, as Registrar, in the City of Richmond, Virginia. Both principal of and premium, if any, and interest on this Bond are payable in such coin or currency of the United States of America as at the respective dates of payment thereof is legal tender for public and private debts. The Bends of the Series of which this Bond is one maturing un or before November 1, 1995 are net subject to redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Bonds of the Series of which this Bond is one (or portions thereof in installments of $5,000) maturing on November 1, 2005 are subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption from Sinking Fund Payments made in accordance with the provisions of the Bond Resolution (hereinafter mentioned) and to payment at maturity on November 1 in each of the years and in the principal amounts set forth below, a% a redemption price equal to the principal amount redeemed, together with the interest accrued on such principal amount to the date fixed for redemption: Year Principal Amount 2002 $2,945,000 2003 3,210,000 2004 3,500,000 2005 3,815,000 The Bonds of the S~ries of which this Bond i~ one (or portions thereof in installments of $5,000) maturing on November 1, 2010 are subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption from Sinking Fund Payments made in accordance with the provisions of the Bond Resolution and to payment at maturity on November 1 in each of the 'years and in the principal amounts set forth below, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount redeemed, together with the interest accrued on such principal amount to the date fixed for redemption: Year Principal Amount 2006 $ 4,160,000 2007 4,540,000 2008 4,950,000 85-655 © © 2009 5,405,000 2010 5,895,000 The Bonds of the Series of which this Bond is one (or portions thereof in installments of $5,000) maturing On November 1, 1996 and thereafter (including the Bonds of the Series of which this Bond is one maturing on November 1, 2005 and November 1, 2010), axe subject to redemption prior to their stated maturities, at the option of the County, from moneys on depotit in the Redemption Fund created and established by the Bond Resolution or from other available money~ of the County, on and after November 1, 1995, as a whole at any time, or in part from time to time on any interest payment date in such order as the County may determine, at the respective redemption prioue (expressed as a percentag~ of the principal amount to be redeemed) set forth below if such redemption is made from any moneys other than moneys required to be paid as Sinking Fund Payments, together with the interest accrued on such principal amount to the date fixed for redemption: Period During Which Redeemed Redemption (Both Dates Inclusive) Price November 1, 1995 through October 31, 1996 102 % November 1, 1996 through October 31, 1997 101 1/2 November 1., 1997 through October 31, 199S 101 November 1, 1998 through October 31, 1999 100 1/2 November 1, 1999 and thereafter 100 If this Bond is redeemable and shall be called for redemption, notice of the redemption hereof shall be mailed not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for redemption to the Registered Bolder of this Bond at such Registered Holder's address as shown on the book~ of registry'of the County kept by the Registrar. When notice of redemption of this Bond (or of the portions hereof in installments of $5,000 to be redeemed) shall have been given as hereinabove set forth, this Bond (or the portions hereof to be redeemed) shall become due end payable On the date SO specified for such redemption at a price equal to the principal amount hereof and the redemption premium, if any, hereon, together with the interest accrued hereon to such date, and whenever payment of such redemption price shall have been duly made or provided for, interest on this Bond (or on the portions hereof sc redeemed) shell cease to accrue from and after the date so specified for its redemption. THE TER/ZS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS ~OND AR~ CONTINUED ON THE R~V~RSE HEREOF AND SUCH CONTINUED TEPJ~S AND CONDITIONS SHALL, FOE ALL PURPOSES, HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS THOUGH FULLY SET FORT~ AT THIS PLACE. This Bond is one of a duly authorized Series of Bonds (herein referred to as the "Bonds~') of the aggregate principal amount of sixty-one million one hundred sixty thousand dollars ($61,160,000) of like date, denomination and tenor herewith except for number, interest ratet maturity and redemption provisions, and is issued under and pursuant tO and in full compliance with the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including Chapter 5 of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia 1950, as amended (the same being the Public Finance Act), a resolution duly adopted on July 24, 1985 by tho Board of Supervisors of the County, ~ntitled "RESOLUTION OF THE BOARU SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTEP~IBLD, VIRGINIA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF WATER AND SEWER REVENU~ BONDS OF T~E COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, AND PROVIDING FOR THE SECURITY CF THE BOLDERS THEREOF" and a resolution duly adopted by such Board on August 28, 1985, entitled "SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL BOND RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF $61,160,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT 0F WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1985B, DATED AS 0F SEPTEMBER 1, 1985, OF THE COUNTY 0F CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA" {such resolutions being herein referred to collectively as the "Bund Resolution"). 85-656 0 The Bonds are issued to finance the costs of extensions, additions and capital improvements to, or the renewal and replacement of capital assets of, or purchasing and installing new equipment for, the County's water and sewer system (hereinafter referred to as the "System"). The Bonds and the interest thereon are payable solely from, and secured equally and ratably with other bonds which have heretofore been issued or may hereafter be issued on a parity therewith under the Bond Resolution outstanding from time to time solely by a lien and charge on, the Revenues (as defined in the Bond R~solution) derived from the operation of the System, subject to the prior payment from such Revenues of the Operating Expenses of the System, and from moneys held in the funds and accounts created and established under the Bond Resolution pledged to the payment thereof. The Bond Resolution provides that the bonds issued thereunde~ shall not be deemed to constitute full faith and credit general obligations of the County for which there is a right to compel the exercise o£ the ad valorem taxing power Of the County. Reference is hereby made to the Bond Resolution, to all of the provisions of which any Registered ~older of this Bond by his acceptance hereof hereby assents, for definitions of terms; the description of and the nature and extent of the security for the bonds issued under the Bond Resolution, including this Bond; the dezcription of the System; the description of the Revenues and the moneys held in the funds and accounts created and established under the Bond Resolution pledged to the payment of the interest on and principal of the bonds issued under the Bond Resolution, including this Bond; the nature and extent and manner of enforcement of the pledge; the covenants of the County as to the fixing, establishing, maintaining and revising of rates and charges for the provision and sale of water and sewer services of the System; the covenants of the County as to the collection, deposit and application of the Revenues of the System; the conditions upon which other bonds may hereafter be issued under The Bond Resolution payable on a parity with this Bond from the Revenues of the System and equally and ratably secured herewith; the rights, duties and obligations of the County; the provisions discharging the Bond Resolution as to this Bond and the lien and pledge of this Bond on the Revenues of the System if there shall have been deposited in accordance with the provisions of the Bond Resolution on or b~fore the maturity or redemption hereof moneys su££icient to pay the principal hereof and the interest hereon to the maturity or redemption date hereof, or certain specified securities maturing at such times and in such amounts which, together with the earnings thereon, would be suiii¢ient for such payment, or a combination of both such moneys and securities; and fo~ the other terms and provisions of the Bond Resolution. Subject to the limitations and upon payment of the chargez, if any, provided in the proceedings authorizing the Bonds of the Series of which this Bond is one, this Bond may be exchanged at the principal office of the Registrar for a like aggregate principal amount of Bonds of other authorized principal amounts and of the Series of which this Bond is one. This Bond is transferable by the Registered Holder hereof, in person or by his attorney duly authorized in writing, at the principal office of the Registrar but only in the manner, subject to the limitations and upon payment cf the charges, if any, provided in the proceedings authorizing the Bonds of the Series Of which this Bond is one, and upon the surrsnder hereo~ for cancellation. Upon such transfer a new Bond or Bonds of authorized denominations and of the same aggregate principal amount of the ~eries of which this Bonds is one will be issued to the transferee in exchange herefor. This Bond shall not be valid or obligatory unless the certificate of authentication hereon shall have been manually signed by an authorized signator of the Registrar. 85-657 © It is hereby certified, recited and declared that all acts, conditions and things required to have happened, to exist and to have been performed precedent to and in the issuance of this ~ond and the Series of which it is one do exist, have happened and have bs~n performed in regular and due time, form and manner as required by law, and that the Bonds of the Series of which this Bond is one do not exceed any constitutional or StatutOry limitation of indebtedness. %N WITNESS WSEREOF, the County, by its Board of supervisors, has caused this Bend to be signed by the Chairman and the Clerk of such Board, by their manual or facsimile signatures, and the corporate seal of the County to be impressed or imprinted hereon, and this Bond to be date~ as of the first day of September, 1985. (seal) Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Chairman of the Board of Supervisors (FOR~ OF CERTIFICATE OF AU~H~NTICAT!ON) Certificate of Authentication This Send is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the within-mentioned proceedings. BANK OF VIRGINIA TRUST COMPANY, REGISTRAR By: Authorized Signature Dated: (FOR/~ OF ASSIGnMeNT) For value received assigns and transfers unto PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL S~CURITY OR OTHER TAX IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE: hereby sells, the within-mentioned Bond and hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints , agent, to transfer the same on the books of registry of the County kept at the principal office of the Registrar with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Registered Nolder Signature Guaranteed: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as written on the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration, enlargement or any change whatsoever. Vote: Unanimous 85-65B © © Mr. Hedrick expressed appreciation to Mr. Ramsey, Mr. Muzzy, Mr. Hodge and Mr. Welchons and their staffs who worked on this project. 1U.I.2. CONSENT ITEMS 10.I.2.a. WATER CONTRACT FOR WALTON PARK, SECTION N On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following water contract: Water Contract W85-139CD for Installation of Water Lines for Walton Park, Section N Developer: Walton Park Development Corporation Contractor: P~MC Contractors, Incorporated Total Contract Cost: Total Estimated County Cost: Estimated Developer Cost: Number of Connections: 50 Code: 5E-2511-997 Vote: Unanimou~ $76,722.50 19,026.00 (Refund through Connections) $57,696,50 10.I.2.b. WATER CONTRACT PeR HILLTOP EAR,CS, S~CTION B On motion of Mrs. Girono, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved and authorized.the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following water contract: Water Contract W85-140CD for Installation of Lines for Hilltop Parms, Section B Developer: W. Jay Rowe Cont~aotor: RMC Contractors, Incorporated Total Contract Cost: $18,947.50 Total Estimated County Cost: 1,711.80 (Refund through Connections) Estimated Developer Cost: $17,235.70 Number of Connections: 15 Code: 5E-2511-997 Vote: Unanimous 10.I.2.d. SEWER CONTRACT FOR WATCH RUN TRUNK THROUG~ MASON WOOD~ On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Boar~ approved and author±zed the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following water contract: Sewer Contract $79-43CD/7(7)9439 ior Watch Run Trunk Sewer through Mason Woods Subdivision to Existinq Watch Rut Pump Station Developer: George S. Sowers, Jr., & Associate~, Incorporated Contractor: Coastline Contractors, Incorporated Total Contract Cost: $191,069.50 Total Estimated County Cost: 70,960.50 (Cash Refund) .56,829.25.(Refund through Connections) Estimated Developer Cost: $63,279.75 Number of Connections: 12 Code: 5N-2511-997 - Refund through Connections 5E-5724-9439 - Cash Refund And further the ~oard transferred $23,310.00 from 5P~5724-8009 tc 5D-5724-9439 an~ $47,650.50 from 5P-5724-900R to 5P-5724-9439. Vote: Unanimous 85-659 © 10.I.2.e. SEWER CONTRACT FOR HOBINDALE SUBDIVISION On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded bM Mr. Applegate, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following sewe~ contract: Sewer Contract S85~14CD/7(8)514M, Robindale Subdivision, Onsite and Offsite Developer: A. L. Collier Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Incorporated Total Contract Cost: Total Estimated County Cost: Estimated Developer Cost: Number of Connections: 19 Code: 5N-2511-997 Vote: Unanimous $39,975.60 20,452.50 (Refund through Connections) $19,523.~0 10.I.2.f. S~WER CO~TRACT FOR EXBURY, SECTION 1 On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following sewer contract: Sewer Contract Number S85-107CD/7(8)5A7M~ Exbury, Section I, Onsite and Offsite Developer: Winston Development Company Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Incorporated Total Contract Cost: $95,922.00 Total Estimated County Cost: 4,840.00 (Refund through Connections) Estimated Developer Cost: $91,08~.00 Number of Connections: 56 Code: 5N-2511-997 Vote: Unanimous 10.I.2.g. S~W~R CONTRACT FOR BROOKFI~LD SOUTH, SECTION B On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Appleqate, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following sewer contract: Sewer Contract Number S84-134CD/7(~)4D4M, Brookfield South~ Ssctlcn ~, Onsite and Offsite Developer: Regency Home Builders Contractor: Piedmont Construction Company, Incorporated Total Contract Cost: Total Estimated County Cost: Estimated Developer Cost: Number of Connections: 16 Code: 5N-2511-997 Vote: Unanimous S29,026.80 18,245.06 $10,826.74 (Refund through Connections) 10.I.2.h. SEWER CONTRACT FOE TIMSBERRY TOWASgOUSES, P~ASE I On motion of }~s. Girone, seconded by Mr. ~p~legate, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following sewer contract: Sewer Contract S85-105CD/7(8)SA5M, Timsberry Townhouses, Phase I Developer: Timsberry Townhouses, Incorporated Contractor: J. H. Martin & Sons Contractors, Incorporated Sub Contractor: Castle ~quipment Corporation 85~660 Total Contract Cost: $56,467.30 Total Estimated County Cost: 3,420.00 Estimated Developer Cost: $53,047.30 Number of Connections: 78 Code: 5N-2511-997 (Refund through Connections) Vote: Unanimous 10.I.2.i. CONTRACT FOR FALLING CREEK SEWAGE PUMPING STATION On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for sewer contract number S84-38C/7(8)438E for the construction of the Falling Creek Sewage Pumping Station to Southwood Builders, Incorporated, in the amount of $3,801,200.00, and further authorized the County Administrator tc execute the necessary documents. It is noted that an appropriation of funds was approved in the 1985-86 Capital Improvement Program. Vote: Unanimous 10.I.2.j. AMENDMENT TO RESIDENT INSPECTION AGREEMENT On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved and authorised the County Administrator to execute Amendment 1 on behalf of the Board for the contract for resident inspection services at the Falling Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion between the County and R. Stuart Royer and Associates, Incorporated which extends the contract period ~rom June 30, 19~3, to March 30, 1984, and increases the contract amount from $103,310.00 to $126,174.14. This Amendment is required by EPA in order for the County to receive reimbursement for 75 percent of the additional costs for resident inspection. NO additional appropriation is required. Vote: Unanimous 10.I.2.k. DEED O~ D~DICATION ALONG SPRING RUN Re,kD On motion of Firs. Girone, aeconded by Mr. Appleqate, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents, accepting on behalf of the County, a conveyance of a 20' strip of land along Spring Run Road from Marl W. Saunders. 10.I.2.1. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG HENSLEY ROAD On motion of Mrs. Gircne, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents, accepting on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a 35' strip of land along Hensley Road from Donnie R. Hayes and Joy D. Hayes. Vote: Unanimous 10.I.2.m. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG WOODPECKER ROAD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved and authorised the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents, accepting on behalf of the County, the 85-661 © ® conveyance of a 45' strip of land along Woodpecker Road from Cen M. and Sarah K. Simmons. Vote: Unanimous 10.I.2.n. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG CATTAIL ROAD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved and authorised the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents, accepting on behalf cf the County, the conveyance of a 35' strip of land along Cattail Road from Timoth. L. and ~isa R. Brock. Vote: Un~imous 10.I.2.o. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG WOODS EDGE ROAD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Appleqate, the Board approved and authorized the County Aclministrator to execute any necessary documents, accepting on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a 35' strip of land along Woods Edge Road from William H. Wood. Vote: Unanimous 10.I.3. REPORTS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. 10.J. P~PORTS Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a report from the Industria Development Authority regarding the returning of the quarterly allocation which the Eoard accepted. Other reports presented by Mr. Hedrlck included the status of the General Fund Contingency and a VCU/VSU Support Activities Report. He stated further that the County had bean formally notified that the roads in the following subdivisions had been officially accepted into the State Secondary System, effective as indicated: Brandywine Forest,_~ectio~ B (Aug. 13, 1985) Saint Joan Avenue - From 0.05 mile east of Route 3312 to 0.03 mile east of Reuben Road. Reuben Road/Celia Crescent - From Saint Joan Avenue to 0.04 mile south of Lakent Lane. Lakent Lane - From Reuben Road to 0.17 mile west O~ ~euben Road. Lakewood Parms, Section F (Aug. 9, 1985) Teterling Road - From 0.11 mile south of Rout~ 1592 to 0.07 mile south of Teterling Court. Teterling Court - From Teterling Road to a'w~st cul-de-sac. Kingsla~d Acresa Section 4 (Aug. 12, 1985) Firethorne Lane - From 0.02 mile south of Rout~ 3038 to 0.01 mile south of Glisson Road. Shaun Court - From Firethor~e Lane to a east cul-de-sac, Glisson Road - From Firethorne Lane to 0.04 mile east of Firethorne Lane. 85-662 Length 0.09 mi. 0.11 mi. 0 17 mi 0.10 mi. 0.15 mi. 0.11 mi. 0.04 mi. 0.04 mi. ® 8.A. P~SOLUTION D~T~R~INING THE ADVISABILITY PCB COUNTY CONTRACT DEBT AND ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGAT~O~ BONDS TO FIN~/~CE VARIOUS PUBLIC IMPBOVE~BNTS AND P~EQUEST CIRCUIT COURT TO ORDER AN ELECTION Mrs. Girone stated that she would like to make a motion to rescind her previous vote on the bond referendum whereby ~he abstained to an affirmative vote. She stated she did support the bond referendum. Mr. Micas stated for purposes of the bond resolution that has to go to the bond attorney~ it will have to go based on the first vote. He stated that she could express hex intention to support the issue, by this statement. Mrs. Girone stated she did support the bond referendum. 10.L. DEMONSTRATION IN CIRCUIT COURT It was generally agreed the Board would have to resohedule the demonstration in the Circuit Court Clerk's Office of the computer assisted deed recording system to another date since the session is running longer than anticipated. 10.K. EXECUTIVE SESSION AND LUNCH On motion of Mr. Mayer, $econded by Mr. Daniel, the Board went into Executive Session in the Conference Room on the fifth floor to consider legal matters concerning Plantation Pipeline Company v. Chesterfield County, Virqinia and to discuss the condition, acquisition or use of real property for public purposes pursuant to Sections 2.1-344 (a) (6) and (2), respectively of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous Reconvening: ~r. Applegate called the meeting to order and passed the gavel t¢ Mr. Daniel who would be chairing the meeting pursuant to the rules and procedures of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Applegate stated the Board is waiting on a presentation by County staff on an item which will be con$idered as an addition to the agenda and the meeting will be interrupted to handle that matter. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board suspended the rules and procedures of the Board to permit the introduction of a single agenda item during the zoning session at the discretion of the presiding chairman. Vote: Unanimous 10.M. REQUEST FOR MOBILE NOME PERi, IT 85SR122 In Bermuda Maqisterial Distrlc~, Herbert aqd Doris Barton r~quested renewal of a Mobile Rome Permit to park a mobile home on property fronting the west line of Brightwood Avenue approximately 200 ~eet Eouth of Velds Road and better known as 10114 Rrightwood Avenue. Tax Map 97-4 (2) Central Park, Block 13, Lots 38 and 39 (sheet 32). 85-663 NLr. and M~S. Barton woro present. There was no opposition present. Mr. Dodd stated this request was a permit which the Board had some question on initially and there have been no problems. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request for a period Of five years subject to the following standard conditions: 1. The applicant ~hall be the owner and OCCupant of the mobile home. NO lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet tO any existing residence. 4. No additional permanent-type livinq apace may be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. 5. ~]ere publio (County) wate~ and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Rome Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation cr relocation of the mobile home. 7. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of th~ Mobile Rome Permit. Vote: Unanimous 10.N. REQUESTS FOR REZONING 85B009 (Amended) In Midlothian Magisterial District, SOUTBPORT DEVELOPM~ CORPORATION requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) cf 64.6 acres and to Residential (R-25) of 26.4 acres on a 91 acre paroel lying approximately 870 feet off the north line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 1,900 feet west of Otterdale Road. Tax Map 14 (1) Part of Parcel 50 (Sheets 1, 5 and 6). ~r. Pools stated the applicant had requested a 30 day deferral of this request. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board deferred consideration of this matter until September 25, 1985. Vote: Unanimous 85S042 (Amended) In Clover Hill Magisterial District, MIDLO~Hi~ COMPANY roquosted rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) plus 'Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use (multifamily) exception on a 13.3 acre parcel fronting approximately 560 feet on the west line of Old Courthouse Road, approximately 50 feet west of Courthouse Eoad. Tax Map 49-7 (1) Parcel 5 (Sheet 14). Mr. Pools stated the applicant had requested a 60 day deferral of this requost. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. 85-664 ® Appleqate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board ~eferred consideration of this matter until October 23, 1985. Vote: Unanimous 85S089 In ~idlothian Magisterial District, D&M PARTNERSHIP requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 12.36 acre parcel fronting approximately 330 feet on the north line of Old Buckingham Road, approximately 800 feet east of Unison Drive. Tax Map 16-6 (11 Parcel 2 (Sheet 7). Mr. Peele stated the applicant had requested a 30 day deferral of this request. Mrs. Girone inquired why a deferral was being requested. Mr. Peele indicated it may be that the applicant is considering proffered conditions with regard to lot sizes. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board deferred this request until September 25, 1985. Vote: Unanimous 85S075 In Clover ~ill Magisterial District, K~NN~T~ ~. TURNER, JR. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12) plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exceptions on a 20.45 acre parcel £ronting approximately 350 feet on the we~t line of Turner Road across from Dyer Lane. Tax Map 29-14 (1) Part of Parcel 3 (Sheet 9). Mr. Peele stated the applicant had requested a 30 day deferral of the request in an effort tO continue his dialogue with the neighborhood. Mr. Applegate stated there was a large contingency from Forest Dale present and d~e to the length of the meeting this morning, he was unable to talk with Mr. McCracken regarding highway noneerns in conjunction with the proposed subdivision. ~e stated consequently, it was agreed by all parties that this be deferred. On motion cf Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred consideration of this matter until September 25, t989. Vote: Unanimous 85S034 In Bermuda Magisterial District, TE~ CB~$TERFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATIO~ requested rezoning from Aesidential Townhouse For Sale (R-TH) to Residential (R-9) on 13.1 acre parcel fronting in two places on the south and east lines of Drewrys Bluff Road for e total of approximately feet, beginning at a point approximately 200 feet southwest of Swineford Road. Tax Map 67-3 (1) Parcel 60 (Sheet 23}. Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this reguest subject to a single condition. Mr. Phil Hester, Director of Parks and Recreation~ was present and stated the condition was acceptable. He stated he has been discussing the plan with the neighbors and they are agreeable to it. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request subject to the following condition: A twenty-five (25) foot buffer, exclusive of utility ease- ments, shall be maintained adjacent to the southeast and southwest property lines. A fifty (50) foot buffer, 85-665 © exclusive of utility easements, shall be maintained around all other property lines. These buffers shall remain in their natural state, with no clearing and/or construction permitted except that neseSsary ~or signaqe, utilities that are generally perpendicular to the buffer, and public access for parking areas. Additional planting/landscaping may be required at the tams of site plan review if e×isting vege- tation is insufficient to screen uses .from adjacent residents. Vote: Unanimous 85S077 In Midlothian }~agisterial District., B.C.C. ASSOCIATES requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15) on a 51.52 acre parcel fronting approximatsly 725 feet on the east line of Winterfield Road, approximately 930 feet south of Michael Ridge Road. Tax Map 1 (1) Parcel 18 (Sheet 2). Mr. Peele stated the Plantin9 Conunlssion had recommended approval of the request subject to acceptance of the proffered condition. Mr. Gary Clower, representinq the applicant, stated the condition was acceptable, M~. Cullen Lee, adjacent property owner, expressed concern regarding the stub road and/or cul-de-sac. Mr. Daniel stated that would be covered by the Planning Commission under subdivision review. Mr. Peele stated the applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision plat which is being reviewed and will be heard by the Planning Commission on September 17, 1985 at 3:00 p.m. On motion of M~e. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to acceptance of the following proffersd condition: Minimum lot size will be 25,000 squats feet. Vote: Unanimous 85S082 In Matoaca Magisterial District, S.L. ~USBAUM AND COMPANy, INC. requssted amendment to a previously qranted Conditional Use Planned Development (Cass $45052) to modify approved conditions. This request lies in a Convenience Business {B-l) District on a 15.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,200 feet on the east line of Iron Bridge Road, also fronting approximately 820 feet on Centralia Road and located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 96-9 (1) Parcel 5 and Pa~t of Parcel 6 (Sheet 31). Mr. Poole stated this case was deferred from the July 24, 1985 meeting %o permit staff to prepare a comparison among the various zoning requests at this location. Ee presented an addendum which was p~epared after a meetinq was held with the applicant. Be stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval subject to Several conditions. Mr. Willis Blackwood, representing the applicant, stated he had met with mem~er$ of the Board to alleviate ~any concerns they might have regarding this development and the outcome war addressed in the addendum. He stated they are in agreement with the amendments except Condition #5 relating to a menu board for a drive-in restaurant. He requested permission to install a 25 sq. ~t. menu board which is in keepinq with most in the County. He stated Condition 95 required a menu board identical to the requirement at the Burqer King restaurant in Courthouse Commons. Me noted that their existinq menu board at the Burger King did not comply with their condition but it wa~ consistent with this request. He stated he would agree with having the square footage limitation modified at the time of schematic site plan review by 85-666 © the Planning Commission provided the modified square footage shall not exceed 25 sq. ft. He stated this would m~an that if the situation were modified in the future at Courthouse Cocoons, they would be treated squally and would not have to come back to the Board. Mr. Mics~ Stated it was not a legal option to give the applicant something that may be based on action at some other parcel. ~e stated the Board could not make a legislative decision that is so vague that it might change with what is done on some ~ubsequent parcel down the road and a definite decision would have to be made. Mr. Daniel stated the people across the road are in violation and the only way they will be in compliance is to receive complete new zoning and if it is fair for them to do that, it would be appropriate for this applicant as well. Mr. Blackwood stated as long he was treated equally he could accept the conditions. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayas, s~conded by Mr. Dodd, the ~oard approved this request subject tO the £ollowing conditions: 1. The plan prepared by Clover Associates, Inc., dated April 8, 1985, shall be considered the Master Plan for Tract E. This plan shall be amended, as necessary, Dy the following conditions, plus all previous conditions of Conditional Use Planned Development $4S08~. (P) 2. The following conditions notwithstanding, the Textusl Statemmnt submitted with the application shall be considered an amendment to the imposed conditions and Textual Statement of Conditional Use Planned Development 84S082. (P) 3. If Tract E is subdivided and driveways and parking areas are to be used in common by those tenants located in Tract E, cross easement agreements shall be submitted ~o the Planning Department for approval. Upon approval, the~e cross easement agreements shall be recorded. (P) (Note: This condition is in addition to Textual Statement, Additional Conditions To The Approved Textual Statement, Tract E, 16.) 4. Those buildings located within 200 feet of Route 10, that have entrances which do not front onto Route 10 (i.e., entrance doors facing away from or perpendicular to Route 10), shall be allowed a second building~mounted sign not to exceed twenty (20) square feet in area. Howeve:, only one of the signs shall be legible from Route 10, (P) (Note: This condition supersedes TextBal Statement, Amend- ments to Condition Of The Approved Board Minutes 13. (f). The aggregate area of these signs will no~ be calculated as a part of the permitted 0.8 square foot of sign per foot of building frontage.) 5. A restaurant with a drive-in window shall be permitted a freestanding menu board, not to exceed 9.75 square fee~ and a height of six (~) feet, provided it is positioned so as not to be legible from public roads. (Note: This condition supersedes Textual Statement, Amend- ments To Conditions Of The Approved Board ~inutes 13(g).) 6. Those buildings located within 200 felt'of Route 10 shall have all facades treated as fronts and employ door and windows (i.e., these may be fake) on all sides. These buildings shall have no service deers visible to Route 10. This condition may be modified at the time of schematic plan review if plans document that the ~pirit and intent of the condition is met. In conjunction with schematic plan review, elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. 85-667 7. The sale of gasoline shall be prohibited. (P&CPC) 8. Tract E shall be limited to One (1) freestanding sign for the identification of %he shopping center and the t~nants therein. This sign shall be located at the intersection of ROUte 10 and Centralia Road. There shall be no outside display of merchandise within 200 feet of Route 10. (Note: Dumpsters/compactora must be screened in ascordance with the Zoning Ordinance.) vote: Unanimous 05S061 (A/aended) In Clover Hill Magisterial District, C&P TELEPHONE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA requested amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 825039) to permit use (private utility structure) and bulk (setbacks) exceptions in an Office Business (O} District on a 0.632 acre parcel lying approximately 138 feet off the south line cf ~idlcthian Turnpike, approximatel' 230 feet west of the western leg of Moorefield Park Drive. Tax Map 17-16 (1) Part of Parcel 7 (Sheet 8). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Co--lesion had recorm~ended approva of the request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Ratchet Johnson was present representing the applicant and stated the conditions were acceptable. There was no Opposition present. On motion of Mr. Appl~gate, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan submitted with the application shall be considered the plan of development. (P) 2. The proposed building shall be similar to the pictures submitted with the application. The facades shall be of brick with black metal trim. (P) 3. Access shall be via the existing gravel drive which serves the Chestsr£ield County water tower from Route 60. The area north and west o£ the building shall be graveled, as shown cn the plan of development, to ~cco~odate vehicular parking. (P) 4. In conjunction with building permit application, a detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted for the area south and east of the proposed structure. (p) 5. In conjunction with the approval of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the plan Of development. 6. A five (5) foot exception shall be granted to the twenty (20) foot required side yard setback along the west property llne. (~) Vote: Unanimous 85S090 In Midlothian MagiSterial District, UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND recpaested re~oning from Residential (R-7) to 0f~ice Business (0) with a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit bulk exceptions {setbacks) on a 10.07 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,300 feet on the weet line of Huguenot Reade approximately I45 feet north of 01de Coach Drive. Tax Map 16-4 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 7). 85-668 Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request subject to certain conditions and acceptance of proffers. There was no one present to discuas the matter. It was generally agreed thc Board would defer the matter until the end of the day to allow the applicant time to be present. $5S095 In b~toaca Magisterial District, D~ D. ~I~LETT requested a Conditional Use to permit a two-family dwelling in an Agricultural (A) District on a 0.97 acre parcel fronting approxi- mately 174 fset cn the west line of Courthouse Road, approxi- mately 1,890 feet south of Bull Street Road. Tax Map 49-12 (1) Parcel 22 (Sheet 14). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval Of the request subject to certain conditions. Ms. Suzanne Ellett was present representing the applicant and ~tated the conditions w~re acceptable. There was no opposition present. on motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The use shall be occupied strictly by family members of Della D. Ellett and shall not be used for rental purposes. {P) 2. This use shall be granted to Della D. Ellett, exclusively, and shall not be transferable nor run with the land. (P) 3. The house shall be connected to public sewer when it is extended to serve the adjacent property to the west. (U) Vote: Unanimous 85S096 In Midlcthian ~agisterial District, SALISBURY COUNTRY CLUB requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit bulk exceptions (parking) in Residential (R-15) and Residential (R-40) Districts on a 1.0 acre parcel fronting the east line of Kantfo~d Road (recorded as Donnington Road) also fronting the north line of West Salisbury Road, and located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 7-11 (1) Part of Pares1 2 (Sheet 2). Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Ed Garthright was present representing the applicant and stated the conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. Mr. Applegate stated he is a stockholder in Salisbury Country Club but because he realizes less than $10,000 in dividends and he owns less than 3% in stock, he understands this is not a conflict purSuan~ to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act. Mr. M~cas stated that was correct. On motion of Mrs. Cirone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. In conjunction with the granting of this request, a fifty-five (55) parkin9 space exception shall be granted to allow construction o~ an indoor recreational facility including seven (7) indoor courts. 2. If men~ership exceeds 700, the Planning Department shall be notified and a determination shall be made as to whether additional parking spaces are required. (P) 3. In conjunction with the granting of this request, the Planning co~ission shall grant schematic plan approval 85-669 the plan prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated 2/7/85. (P) Vote: Unanimous 85S097 In Matoaca Magisterial Districtr NOP~k~N D. COOLEY, SR. requested a Conditional Use to permit four (4) two-family dwellings in a Residential (R-7) District On a 0.518 acre parcel fronting approximately 150 feet on the east line of Pannil Street also fronting approximately 140 feet on the north line of Light Street, and located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 182-13 (1) Parcels 69, 70, 71, and 72 (Sheets 53 and 54). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the request. Mr. Cooley stated the Planning Commission did not consider the future development of the southern per,ion of Chesterfield County, they did not consider the proposal by the staff, etc. and were only concerned with the change in the community. ~e stated he was not aware when he bought the proper~y of controversy regarding the students from the University nor the change in the community. He stated he would like the Board's consideration of staff's recommendation which was for approval with conditions. He stated the Planning Commission and Board did approve a similar type of project on another corner in the area and he would tike to be treated fairly as they are th~ same type of developments. He requested the same guidelines and criteria be used in this request. ~r. E. B. Hawkins, came representing his. mother who is an adjacent property owner. ~e stated she has lived in the area for 60 years and lives there alone. Ee stated they are concerned with the activities carried on where another house is rented to students, the parking is limited and inadequate, it is an old established area which should not be changed, th~ limited access for emergency vehicles, etc. Me requested =hat the Soard deny th~ request as did the Planning Commission. Mrs. Eloise Pulley, a property owner across the street, was present in opposition. She stated four generations of her family have lived here, she is a widow, the neighborhood is a lovely quiet neighborhood, they are concerned with the eight families going in the small area, access for emergency vehicles, parking, etc. Mrs. Janie Pond, owner of property which fronts this area, stated the streets are too narrow to have eight f~mily units on the corner, the two story building presents a visibility problem. She requested denial of this request as it would be a detriment to the area. Mr. Cooley stated that he would accept two units rather than the four originally applied for. Mrs. Girone stated the other case which was approved on another corner had a condition which indicated there would be no one living in the dwelling who was under 50 years of age because there was concern in the community for the students and their actions. Mr. Pools stated this request is ~pproximately one and a half blocks west of the ease approved for Mr. Spain. Mr. Mayas stated there is a land nee plan being completed for the Matcaca District and he will net approve any rental elements until the plan has been completed. Mr. Mayas moved, seconded by Mr. Dodd, that this request be denied. Mr. Applegate inquired when the plan would be completed. Mr. Zook stated the Matoaca District plan would not usually address where rental units, etc. 85~670 © © should be placed in the com3nunity but they will address it now. He stated usually this is done at the community plan level. He stated the plan should be completed about the end of November. A£fer further dis~u~ien, Mr. Mayas withdrew his motion for denial. On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred this matter until February 26, 1986. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Zook stated it is rare that the Planning staff changes its reuor~mendation but it did in this instance and looked at where duplexes ~hould be and it is included in the recommendation. He stated there is a distinct difference between this case aad Mr. Spain'~ case as this site is closer to the interior cf the community while Mr. Spain's site is immediately adjacent to B-2 sorted property and in and of itself represented a transition into the single family area. Mr. Mayas stated the other request also had certain safeguards for the community which this one does not. 85S098 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, FRALIN AND WALDRON, INC. requested amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 83S187} to modify the approved Master Plan and architectural style plus an exception to the required number cf parking spaces in a Convenience Dusiness (B-I) District on a 5.27 acre parcel lying approximately 400 feet off the east line of Old Hundred Road, approximately 800 feet north of Millridge Parkway. Tax Map 62-6 (1) Part of Parcel 13 (Sheet 2O). Mr. Applegate stated when this case originally came before the Board it was proposed for 74 multi-family residential units to be occupied by those persons who were 62 years cf age or older or by handicapped. Ke st&ted the new proposal is a convalescent/ retiree complex, ge disclosed to the Board that he does have an inter,st in a similar development in the area, declared a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. M~. Larry Herren, representing the applicant, was present and stated the conditions were acceptable except for Condition 84. ge stated that he had submitted the plan for schematic approval, and agreed to reserve the area facing the building to the left for additional parking. He stated now he would like to place his passive a~enities there although it is r~served for parking, and if it were necessary later, he would move the ~enities. ~e stated this would distribute the amenities around the complex and not have them all located in the rear. When asked, Mr. Peele stated that the original plan had four two story buildings and this is for a mingle three story building with the density remaining the same. He stated there is a request for an excep=ien to the number of parking spaces frem'133 to 100. He stated condition %4 could remain the same and the applicant could do as he requested concerning the initial location of recreational facilities. ~e stated another difference is that they will provide a community dining room, kitchen and other common areas to be shared by all the residents which was not anticipated in the original pr6ject. Mr. Daniel stated the original application was to be very high quality housing for people who were over 62 years of age, each unit was self-sufficient and ~here were no common areas. Ther~ was no opposition present. Mr. Dodd stated he voted for the original application because it was a high quality project and could not hurt the neighborhood. He stated he felt this was a change from a nice compatible plan to something like a hospital which he felt was foreign to the area and he could not support it. 85-671 © M=. Daniel and Mrs. Ginone stated they agreed with Mr. Dodd's cerements as the concept, land use and compatibility as requested now would not be acceptable. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board denied this requeet and e×pressed desire for the original plan to be completed. Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone. Abstention: Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Applegate. Mr, Applegate returned to the meeting. 85S090 In Midlothian Magisterial District, UNIVERSITY 0F RICHMOND requested rezoning from Residential (R-7) to Office Business {O) with a Conditional Use Planned Developmen= to permit bulk exceptions (setbaoks) on a 10.07 sore parcel fronting approximately 1,300 feet on the west line of Huguenot Road, approximately 145 feet north of Olde Coach Drive. Tax Map 16-4 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 7). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commi~eion had recommended approval subject to certain conditions. Neither the applicant nor his representative was present. Mrs. Linde Welch, an adjacent property owner was present. She stated she understood everythin§ was acceptable. Mr. Daniel stated he felt uncomfortable voting on a Case when the applicant was not present. It was generally agreed this would be deferred until after the following issue discussed. 10.R.4. FIORUCCI FOODS, USA Mr. Balderson stated this spring the County was contacted by Fiorucoi Foods, USA, who is located in Italy, manufactures processed meats, and was interested in expanding/relocating in Chesterfield County off of Ruffin Mill Road. He stated the Company felt there were some issues which needed to be resolved before they could commit to the site. He stated one point was rezoning the property to accommodate the use, the Second was the provision of utilities and the third was sufficient road accsss. He stated the company is pursuing its zoning request at this rims for M-2 with a Conditional Use Planned Development and they have a site plan for the ~outheastern quadrant of the parcel. He stated the access road issue involves improvement of Ruffin Mill Road from the interchange at Walthall eastwardly. He stated the County has proposed that Industrial Access Funds be used for this purpose. He stated the utility question would be the extension o~ public sewer from the pump station across the property and the extension of public water would necessitate the boring of 1-95 and tbs extension down Ruffin Mill Road. ~e stated there would be a total cost to the County of $327,000, $194,000 of which could be future revenue sharing monies the County would ~eoeive. ~e recommended the Board endorse this project because it is consistent with County objectives to broaden the tax base through industrial development assisting with a 70% residential and 30% commercial/industrial balance, the project will open up areas adjacent to'~althall interchange for other ~usiness and industrial development, this industry is setting a positive development tone for the area and the investment will provide a positive three year payback through tax revenues. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Dcdd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, resolved that the Board: 85-672 1. Transfer the $80,000 balance from East Avenue Road project to this project. 2. Increase the Water Capital Improvement Budget for Woodsedge Road project by $20,000 from water bond funds. 3. Authorize staff to request $133,000 additional revenue sharing match from VDH&T using the ~ttrick project allocation. This frees up $133,000 to be r~turned to the general fund to this project. 4. Appropriate $194,000 from the Reserve for Capital projects in the General Fund to this project. 5. Authorize staff to request Industrial Access Funds for this project. 6. Authorize the County Administrator to e×ecute all necessary And further the Board adopted the following resolutien: WHEREAS, Fiorucci FOOds (U.S.A.}, Inc. will complete and occupy a new 83,000 square foot plant on Ruffin Mill Road (Route 746) by February, 1987; and %~RREAS, the plant will generate approximately 453 vehicles per day in the initial phase with an expected increase to 1,272 vehicles per dey by 1989; and WHEP~AS, the capital outlay for the plant is approximately $10 million: and WHEREAS, the Board o~ Supervisor~ has previously designated $98,500 of Revenue Sharing Funds for the preliminary engineerinq, right-of-way acquisition and utility adjustments for the reconstruction of Ruffin will Road. NOW TEEREFOR~ ~ IT RESOLVED, that the Board requests the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to improve with industrial access funds Ruffin Mill Road (~oute 746) from 1-95 to the proposed Fiorucci Plant entrance. And further that the following resolution also be adopted: WMEREAS, Section 33~1-75.1 of the Code of Virginia permits thc State Highway and Trensportation Commission to make an equivalent matching allocation to any County for designations by the governing body of up to 25 percent or $500,000.00 whichever is greater, of funds received by it during the current fiscal year pursuant to the "State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act o~ 1972" for use by the State Highway and Transportation Commission to construct, maintain or improve primary and secondary highway systems within such County; and WM~R~AS, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has 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 Hoard of Supervisors has ~revlously designated $98,500 to be matched by the State for the preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition and utility adjustments for the reconstruction of Ruffin Mill Road. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Hoard designates $133,000 from the general fund designated for the Route 36 Grade Separation project in Ettriek to be matched by the State for the construction of the Route 36 Grade Separation project ~n Ettrick, Project NO. 0036-020-102, PE102. 85~673 © Mr. Applegate stated he felt this action was consistent with County objectives; however, he hoped that there could be a work session scheduled to broaden our base on policy, qoals and strategy and make it part of the objectives as we go forward. Mrs. Girone stated this action is being taken during the second month of a budget; this expenditure is not budgeted; it is a major chanqe in our economic development philosophy; we have been trying to encourage business and industry to the County but we have not at this point set aside money to do what this does; and we will be building for this project out of County funds, a road as well aS providing water and Sewes service. She stated the developer will be using only 50 acres out of 190 so he will have a balance of land which he can use although soma of it is in the flood plain. She stated she felt the Board should have a written policy and guidelines as to when this is done and when it is not and to have a budget to allow for these things as well as a policy statement. She stated by doing this the Board will be establishing policy and whatever this represents will be that policy a~d than we are open to any development or business to come and ask the Board tO provide water~ sewer and a road. She stated this may be what the Board wants to do and what the citizens want to happen; however, we never have had a public hearing or public discussion and that is her concern. She stated this oould entail millions and millions of dollars every year if we are to entertain this kind of proposal for a company who want~ to locate in the County. She stated if that is the case, the taxpayers and the development eoramunity should be made aware of it. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the County was fortunate Fiorucci was considerinq the County for its first manufacturing operation Outside of EurOpe. He stated e year ago he appointed a oommittec for the sole purpose of looking at economic development now and for the tong term. Be stated the first issue was that unless we did something positive to improve the interest structure of utilities and roads and were in a position to attract good quality economic development~ we would always finish second and third to other business opportunities. He stated many potential business opportunities disappeared from us this year because the interest structure was not available. He stated he aqreed the statement needs to be fine-tuned to the development of objectives. He stated the time ~or development of Bermuda i~ now because there is already a land use plan in hand that sets the tone of what the development will be in that area. ~e stated only thing that is missing is the dollars to implement that plan and he felt a work session to identify these areas of the County and to sat up plans to bring ~urther good quality development such as this to the County is also needed. Mr. Mayas ~tated the utility system is setf-supporting~ this is addinq additional lines and increasing the plan which is revenue producing and h~ did not see any better investment than doing that. Ayes: ~r. Applegate, Mr, Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Dodd. Mays: Mrs. ~irene because there is no palicy and no budget for such actions. 85S090 In Midlothian Magisterial District, UNIV~Ri~TY OF RICHMOND requested resening from Residential (R-7) to Office Business (O) with a Conditional Uss Planned Development to permit bulk exceptions (setbacks) on a 10.07 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,300 feet en the west line of Huguenot Road, approximately 145 feet north of Olde Coach Drive. Tax Map 16-4 (1) Parcel I (Sheet 7). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval subject to certain conditions. He stated he had called the 85-674 © office of J. K. ~immons and Associates who was representing the applicant and they apologized for not being present. He Mr. Roop indicated the conditions were acceptable and he was under the opinion that the conditions addressed all the neighborhood concerns. Mr. Peele noted that Mr. Reop requested that the request be approved today if at all possible. Ms. Linde Welch was present from the neighborhood. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the ~oard approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by J.K. Tim~ons and Associates, dated April 11, 1985, shall be considered the Master Plan. (p) 2. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the western and southern boundaries of this development. The width of the buffer may bs r~duced to no less than twenty-five (25) feet by the Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan review if documentation 'is submitted which proves that adequate screening can be accomplished in a lesser width. The width of these buffers shall be exclusive of any utility or drainage easements. Storm sewer may be in~talled perpendicular through the buffer to drain the property to the drainage channel to the west and south. These buffers shall be landscaped, bermed and/or fenced, a combination of the three (3) to screen this development from the adjacent single family residential development to the west. A conceptual landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. AS much existing vegetation as possible shall be maintained within these buffers. Prior to any clearing or grading, the buffers shall be flagged and the Planning Department contacted to inspect these areas. Within thirty (30) days of rough clearing and grading, detailed landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Plan- ning Department for approval. These buffers may be installed in conjunction with the phasing of the development. 3. All parking and buildings shall be located a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from the right of way of Huguenot Read. The view of parking areas from Huguenot Road shall be minimized by maintaining existing vegetation which shall be supplemented with evergreen planting and/or berming. The interior of the parking area shall be landscaped so as to break-up the expanse of pavement. A conceptual landscaping plan, depicting these requirements shall be submitted to the Planning Co~mission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. Within thirty (30) days of rough clearing and grading, detailed landscaping plans shall be Submitted to the Planning Department for approval. 4. The str~ctures to be erected on this parcel shall have a Colonial Williamsburg design. Buildings A, D, and F shall not exceed a height of one (1) story. No other building shall exceed a height of two (2) stories. In conjunction with schematic plan review, architectural renderings shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. (P) 5. Right of way and easements shall be dedicated along ~ug~enot Road according to the most current VDH&T plan for improvements or in accordance with the' General Plan 2000, whichever is greater. This right cf way shall be dedicated prior to the releas~ of a building permit. (T) 6. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be constructed along Huguenot Road in accordance with the plane for the Huguenot Road widening project. These improvements may be constructed in conjunction with the phasing of the development. In conjunction with the first schematic plan 85-675 © re~iew, a phasing plan for these improvements shall be submitted to the Transportation Department and VDH&T for approval. (T) 7. This development shall be limited to two (2) access points to Huguenot Road. One access shall align with the access tc the Huguenot Commons development to the east, and the other access shall be located midway between the aforementioned access and the intersection of Green Spring and ~uguenot Roads. 8. Lighting shall be low level and shall be positioned so as not to project into adjacent rssidential properties. A lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. 9. Two (2) freestanding ~igns, visible to Huguenot Road, shall be permitted. These Signs shall not exceed an aggregate area of fifty (50) square feet each and a height of ten feet. These signs may be externally illuminated, but may only be internally illuminated if the sign field is opaque with translucent letters or symbols. The architectural style of these signs shall blend with that of the structure~ to be erected on the parcel. Prior to erection of the signs, a sign package shall be submitted to the Planning D~partment for approval. Other freestanding signs, for directional and identification purposes, may be permitted within the development, provided that their location does not permit visibility from Huguenot Road or Olde Coach Village Subdivision. All other signs shall be as regulated in the office Business (0) District with the exception that signs may be externally illuminated, but may only be in- ternally illuminated if the sign field is opaque with translucent letters Or symbols. (P) 10. Prior to any schematic plan approval, a detailed hydraulic analysis to determine capacity of existing sewer lines shall be submitted to the Utilities Department for approval. (U) 11. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. 12. The proposed driveway shall cross the thirty (30) foot drainage easement via a bridge. (EE) 13. In conjunction with construction of the first building, the existing drainage ditch shall be paved for its entire length. This condition may be modified by the Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan review ii it is determinsd that erosion or drainage problems will not be created if the ditch is paved in phases. 14. Uses permitted shall be limited exclusively to professional general, and medical offices. NO other uses in the office Business (O) District shall be permitted. (CPC) And further the Board accepted the following proffered condition Ths developer shall notify adjacent property owners in writing of the time and date of any schematic plan consid- eration by the Planning Cor[~ission fo~ the property under consideration for zoning. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Sr. Mayes, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone. Abstention: Mr. Daniel because the applicant is not present an~ he has not voted on cases when the applicant or his representative was not present. 11. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Appleqate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adjourned at 3:45 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. on September 11, 1985. Vote: Unanimous Richard ~.~ ~qe~rick County Administrator Chairman 85-677