Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
02-14-90 Minutes
BOAP,.D OF ,~UP~R"JISO~S. M~NUT~S FEBRUARY 14t 1990 Mr. C. F. Currin, Jr, Chairman Mr. M. B. Sullivan, Vice Chairman County Administrator Ass%. to Co. Admin. M~. Joan Dolezal, Clerk to the Board Chief Robsrt ~anes, Fire Department Mr. Bradford S. ~a~m~er, Deputy Ce. Admin., Management S~rvice~ Mr. William H. Howell, Mr. Thoma~ E, Jacob~on, Dir. of Planning Ms. Mary Leu Lyl~, Dir. of Accounting Mr. Robert Masden, Deputy Ce. hd~tn., Human Services Mr. R. J. McCracken, Tran~p. Dir~ctOT Mr. Richard McElfish, Dir. of Env. Eng. Mr. Steve Micas, Co. Attorney Mrs. ~auline Mitchell, Dir. of News/Info. services Col, Joseph Pittman, Chief of Police Mr. Richard Sale, Deputy Co. Admin.~ Development Mr. Jay Steg~aier, Dir. of Budget Mr. M. D. stith~ Jr.~ Dir. of ~arks & Roe. Mr. David WelchOnS~ Dir. of utilities Mr. Frederick Willis, Dir. of Human 1 · C2%LL TO OF~EI{ AND ~UN~H Mr, Currin called the meeting to order at 12{00 ~oon {~$T) in ~he Administration suilding Conference Room (Room 502), at which time lunch was served. ~r. Ramsay stated the purpose of the Work session was to provide information ~o ~he Boa~d on the issues of recycling snd solid waste~ a preliminary analysi~ for the FY91 General Fund revenues and the Y¥91-95 Capital Improvements Progra~ ~ummary~ on which no £efmal action wa~ b~ing requested. He further noted, however, Board action would be necessary ~or adoption of a resolution accepting the low bid for thc purchase of $25,225,00~ General Obligation Bonds. 90-146 2/14/90 by a slide and overhead presentation. Mr. Kevin Byrnes with solid waste generated in the County; methods by which the County could meet recycling goals through the use of landfill r~eycling n~Wsp~per and its marketability; ~urrcnt landfill various landfill~; ~t~. relative to the leaf collection service should be ~hanged tc "no charge"; that recycling is a small portion of the overall solid waste disposal pzoblsm; that he could support the recycling preqram if the Midlothian District were to be the tes~-district for at least one year. Mr~ $~Iliven ~teted he fel~ the County should .Iimina~ ~hs collection program to initiate ~he recycling program and establish the criteria by longer be delayed considering the growth rahs of the service demands. Mr, Daniel stated thi~ pr0bl~m did not transpire overnight and he f~lt action wag needed; ~hat he would like to allow the private ~ctor hc provide the services needed to get the Connty out of the waste collection Dusiness completely. requirement is to provide some mechanism for ~isposal cf solid wa~e, n~h collection. MZ. Carrin slated a Recycling Committee Board ~e~ber race.end two nominees ~y March 14, 1990 for would be ~iscussinq goals and objectives of said committee with to fines; that a phasing of recycling nead~ be reviewed Plan as to what i~ expected to be accomplish~ with recy¢lin~ and/cz wests management be prevlded, with data relative to the closure of existin~ landfills; and an ovaratl ~ccpe of recycling/solid wast~ management need~ and major expenditures be developed. ~r. kams=y ~ndicat~d in~nx~ation relative to the adoption of the resolution for the $~5,2~5,000 General Obligation ~ond would be forthcoming shortly. It was generally agreed to 2.C. PRBLIMINARY ANALYSIS FOR FYgl GENERAL FUND REVENUES Mr. Stegmaier presented a summary of the preliminary analysis of the FY91 General Fund r=venuas; an analysis of the Jun~ 30, 90-147 2/14/90 I959 Fund Balance~ an analysis of the projecte0 June 30~ 1990 Fund Balnnc~; preliminary estimates of increases in assessments for January t~ 1990~ the total assessed value of real estate by category for 1908-90; estimated sourc~ of new fund~; projected significant uses cf new FY91 revennes for the schools and general county government; etc. Discussion, questions and COml~en%s ensued relative changing she terminology of the "pay as yon go" reserve fund category; increa~e~ in the commercial versus industria~ assessments; the formula that prOdUCed the $2.4 million excess revenu=s going in~o the June 30, 1990 Fund Balance; the total amount of the budget for this year; whether or not staff developed a 4-cent tax rate reduction budget; what portion of monies fund the debt; acne,ended programs; data relative to sho~tfall~ in State mandated programs that localities hays to fun~; etc. Mr. Mayas sx~ressed concern relative bo the data that indicated there is a $2.4 million in excess revenues going into the June 30, 1990 Fund Balance and his not bsin~ previded wi~h a copy of the letter from the Assessor's Office containing thee information as he Celt it was necessary for him to have accesm to th~ same data as other members of th~ Board in order to participate in the discnseion. Mr. Daniel asked if it were decided that any of the property taxes could be used to pay debt Or generate credits, would there be a statement of policy that, in all ~he analy~ of cash proff~r~ henceforth, property taxe~ would be the revenue of preference for both me~suzing and crediting against debt. Me s~eted he had no p~oblem with that if it is going to be the poli~y, provided it does not change until a new policy group does so. After further discussion, the Board asked that staff change the terminology oi the "pay us you go" funding; and provide infor- mation regarding a breakdown on the percentage of gains in con~ercial versus industrial assessments; that a 4-cent tax reductio~ budget be devel0p~d; %bat a meeting with Er. Diggs be arranqed for Mr. Mayas to review/discuss the date/formula that produced $~.6 million in excess revenues; provide a li~t of non-funded programs in areas of the FY90 budget thai wer~ discussed but not presented in the material provided~ that information regarding weed ~ontrot through the ordinance be examined; that data relative to f~nding shortfalls far State mandated programs be provided indicating the cost to the County throughout the entire budget; and the development of an "addbaek" li~t for operating e×pennes per department. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE LOW BID FOR PURCHASE M~. Bammer stated th~ County received and opened sealed bios for th~ purchas~ of $25,225,000 General Obligation Bonds previously authorized by the Board on January 24, I990. He stated upon review and verification of the bids received for the band issue, the proposal of the low bidder, BT Securities 6.649432369%. HE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF TEE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA! SECTION 1. Pindi~$s and Determinations. Pursuant to resolutions adopted by this Board on October ~1, 1989, entitled "A RES0LUT~0N AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR TEE ISSUANCEf SALE AND DELIVERY 0P FORTY-ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED TEN DOLLARS ($41,210,00B) PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTerFIELD, VIRGINIA, AND PROVIDING WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A LIKE AMOUNT OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BOND ANTIOIPAYIQN NOTES IN ANTICI- PATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF SUCH BUNDB", an~ On January 24, 1990, entitled "A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND PROUIDINC FOR THE ISSUANCe, BALE AND DELIVERY OF NINE MI~LION FORTY THOUSAND DOBDAR~ ($9,0~0,000) ~RINCIBAL A~4OUNT OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF THE COUNTY OF C~ESTFRFIELD, VIRGINIA, AND PROVIDING WITS RR$~ECT TO THE ISBUANCE AND SALE OF A LIKE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BOND ANTICIPATION NOTE~ IN ANTICIPATION OF T~E ISSUANCE A~D SALE OF SUCH BONDS" [the "A~thoriz~nq Re~olutiou~"), a $~ary Notice of Sal~ "B%nmua~y ~o:iom Of Sale"} of Twenty-~ive Million Two Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars {$25,225,000) principal amount of Public -Improvement Bonds, Series of I990A (the "Bondm"), was duly ~ublished on January 3~, ~990, in Th~ Ro~_~uyer, a financial journal published in the City of New York, New York, and a Dstailed Notice of Sale of thm ~on~$, dated January 2~, 1990 {~ke "~etai~ed Notice of Sale"), wa~ prepared and distributed to prospective purchasers of the Bonds. The Summary Notice of ~ale an~ tho Detailed No,ice of provided that seale~ proposals for the purcha~ of the Bonds would be received by or on behalf of tho County, at the offio~s of CentraI F£dmllty Hank, Corporate Executive Board Room, 1021 East Cary Street, 2nd Floor, Richmond, Virginia, 23219, until ll~0O A.M., Eastern standard Time, on Wmdnesday, February 14~ 19~0, at which time and place all prgposals would bo opened. Pursuant to the D~teiled Notice of Sal~, nine proposals for th~ purcha$~ of the Bonds wore received, accompanied by a certified oM bank treasurer's or cashimr'g good faith check pay~bls to the order of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, in the amount of $252,250. The names of the biddsrs submitting each such ~reDoeal, the .pur~hae~ price for the Bonds specified in each such proposal and the true interest cost to ~hs County resulting from sash such proposal are as iollows: N~me of Bidder J. B. Morgan Smith Barney Dean witter Bear Stearns Merrill Lynch Citicorp First Chicago Blunt ~llis Burchase Price Specified $25,225,I55.60 25,226~531.~0 ~5,~25,447.55 25,225,225.10 25,225,000.00 ~5,225,000.00 25,239,23~.30 25,225~7~4.40 Cost ~.649432969% 8.736299283% ~.707354575% 5.7~6032022% ~.?13144317% 6.699558616% ~.710627504% ~.680914~99% 6.703946938% After due ConsideEation of ~11 such propo~al~ this ~oard finds that (al BT Securities Corporation (the "Purchaser") is a responsible bidder, (b) of the proposal~ reoeiv~d, the proposal of the Purchaser (the "Proposal") is the proposal to purchase the Bonds et the lowest true int~t cost to ~he County, determined by doubling the ssmlannual interest rate (COmpounded 90-I49 2Ii4/90 semiannually) necessary to discount the debt service payments from the payment dates to the date of the Bonds (February I, 1990) and to the price bid, excluding interes= accrued to the data o~ delivery, and (c) the Proposal is the best proposal received, i~ in accordance with the provisions of the Detailed Notic~ of Sal~, and should be accepted. S~CTION 2. ~e~tance of Bro~osal. The Proposalr being a proposal to p~rchase the Bonds at the price of Twenty-Five Million T~o Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand One Hundred Fifty-Five and 66/100 Dollars ($25,225,t55.60), plus accrued interest from the date of the Bonds to the da~e of delivery =hereof by the County and payment therefor by the Purohsser~ with the Bonds to bear interest at the rates per annum specified in Section 4 hereof~ is hereby accepted and the Bonds are hereby awarded to the Purchaser. SECTIOM 3. Goo~ Faith Ch=ck~. The good faith checks uf the unsuccessful kidders ~hall be returned forthwith. The good falth chock of the Purchaser will he deco,ired by tbs Coun=y and tko proceeds thereof credited against the purchase price due for the Bonds upon their delivery or retained as and for liquidated damages in the cas~ the Purchaser foils to accupt delivery o~ and pay Zor ~he Bonds iu accordance with the Proposal. $~CTTO~ 4. ~proval of the Details of the Bonds. · The details of the Bonds set forth i~ the Detailed Notice of Sale are hereby ratified, approved an~ confirmed. In accordance with the provisions o~ the Authorizing ~esolutions, the Detailed No~ic~ of ~ale and %he ~repcsa~, ~h~ ~onds ~hall be designated and known as "Public Improvement Bonds, Series of 1990A". The ~onds shall be dated February t, 1990~ shall be n%u~bsred from NO. R-1 upwards in order of ispuance; 9hall be issued in fully registered form in the denomination of $~,¢00 each or any integral multiple thereof: and shall mature serially on January 15 in each of the years and in the amounts set forth below, with the Bonds maturing in each of the years ~pacifi~d below bearing inter,at payable on July I5, 1990 and semiannually on each January 15 and July 15 thereafter at the rate per annam ~ot forth opposite such year, as follows: Prinsipal Interest Principal In=crest Year ~moDnt Rat% Year Amount Rate ~991 $1,265,000 0.00% 2000 $1,26S,000 6.40% 1992 1,265,000 8.00 200] 1,265,000 6.50 1993 1,~65,000 ~.00 208l 1,265,000 6.60 1994 le265t000 7.10 2003 1,265t00Q 6.68 19~5 1~65,060 6.00 2004 1,26~,000 6,70 1996 1,265,000 6.10 2005 1,265~00Q 6.75 1997 lr265,000 ~.20 2006 1,26~,000 6,?S 1998 1,265,000 6.30 2010 4,9~5~000 6.75 19~9 1,265,000 ~.40 The Bonds shall be issued only in fully reqistered form without coupons. Ohs Bond representing each maturity will be issued to and registered in the name of Cede & Co., a~ nominee of The Depository Trust Company, N~w York, New York ("DTC"), as registered owner of the Bonds and each such Bond shall be immobilized in the custody of DTC. DTC will act as securities depository for the Ponds. Individual p~r=ha~e~ w£11 be made in book-entry form Only~ in the principal amount of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof. Purchasers will net receive physical delivery of certificates representing their interest in th~ Bonds pu~ohaged. 9rlneipal, premium, if any, and intereet payments on the Bon~s will h~ made by the County by wire transfer to DTC or its nominee, Cede & Co., as registered owner of the ~ond$, which will in turn remit suck p~yments %o the DTC participants subsequent disbursal tQ ~he beneficial owners of the Bonds. Transfer of principal, premium, if any, and ±at,rest payments to D?C participants will be the ~esponsibility of DTC. Transfers of such payments to beneficial owner~ of the Bonds by DTC participants will be the responsibility of ~uch participants and other nominees of such beneficial owners. Transfers cf ownership interests in the Bonde will be accomplished by book entries made by DTC and, in turn, by the DTC participants who act on behalf of the indirect participants of BTC and the beneficial owners of the The County will no~ be responsible o~ liable for sending t~aneastie~ ~tatemants or for malntaining~ eupervising c~ reviewiDg records maintained by DTC, its participants or persons acting through such participant~ Or for transmitting payment~ to, ~O~uaic~ting with, notifying, or otherwise dealing with any beneficial owner of the Bonds. So long as the Bond~ ar~ in book-entry only Iorm, the .Cn~nty Treasure~ will serve as Registrar and Paying Agent for Ch~ Bon~$. The County Paying Agent for th~ Bonds if the Bonds at any time cease ao be in book-entry only form. The Bonds maturing on and before January 15, 2000 ~hall not be subject to r~demption prior to their stated maturities. The Bonds maturing on and after January 15, 200I (or portions thereof in ins~allment~ of $5,000) shall be subject to redemption a~ the option of the County prior to their stated ~aturitiee on or after January 15, 2000, in whole at any time ur in part on any interest payment ~ate, in SUch order as may bs determined by th~ County (except tha~ if at any time lees than all of the Bonds of a given ~aturity are called ~or redemption, th~ partlcalar Bond or portions thereof ~haI1 be selected, by lot), upon payment of the following redemption prices (~xpressed as a percentage of principal~ amount of Bond~ to be redeemed), together with the principal amount to be r~deemed to redemption thereof: Redemption Dates January 15, 2D00 to January 14, 2001 January 15, 2~01 te January 14, 2002 January 15, 2002 and thereafter interest acc¢ue~ on the the date fixed for the 102% 101 The Bond~ maturing on January 15, 2010 ~hall be subject to mandatory sinking fund r~demp=ion on January 1St 2007 and on January 15 of each year thereafter to maturity,in the principal amounts in each year set for~h below, with the particular Bond or Bend~ er portions thereof to b~ selected by 1~, upon payment of the principal amount of the Bonds to ba redeemed, together with ~he interest accrued on the principal amount to IJanuary 15) ~rincipal ~.moun.t 2~07 $1,265,000 2~08 1,265,000 2009 1,2~5,000 2010' 1,190,000 *Maturity The Comnty, at its option, may credit agalnat such mandatory sinking £und redemption requirement, the principal amOUnt of any Bonds maturing on January 15, 20~0 which have been purchased and cancelled by the County or which have been 90-151 2/14/9~. redeemed and not theretoPore applied as a credit against euch mandatory sinking fund redemption r~quire~nen~. If any Send (or any portion cf the principal ~mount thereof in installment~ of $5,00O) shall bo called for redemption, notice of the redemption thereof, specifying date, number and maturity of such Bond, the date and place places fixed for its redemption, ~he premium, if any, payable upon such redemption, and if less than the entire principal surrendered in exchange for the principal amount thereof to be redeemed and a new Bond or Bonds issued equalling in principal amount that portion of the principal amount th~of not to be redeemed, shall be mailed not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for rmdmmption by first clans mail, po~tage prepaid, to the registered owner of such Bond et his address a~ it appears on the books of registry kept by the Registrar for transfer any Bond later than the close of business on the forty-fifth (45th) day preceding ~h~ dat~ fixed for redemption of such Rend or any portion thereof. If notice of the redemptien of any Bond shell have been given ae aforesaid, and payment cf the principal amount of such Bond (ns ~he pus%ion of the principal ~ount thereof to be redee~d} and of the accrued interest and premium, if any, payable upon such redemption shall have been duly made or provided for, interest on such Bond shall uease to accrue from and niter the date so specified for redemption thereof. So long as the Bonds are in book-entry only form, any notice O~ redemption will he give~ only to DTC or it~ nominee. The County ~hall not b~ respon~ibl~ for p~uviding any beneficial o~ner of the goads with notice of redemption. ~ECTION 5. Execution and Delivery of the Bonds. The Chairman and Clerk of this Board, the County Administrator, the County Tr~amurmr and other appropriate officers, employ~ and agents of the County are authorized and directed to take all by them to be nec~zary Or appropriate to effect the printing, execution and issuance of the Bonds and the delivery of the Bonds to the Purchaser in accordance with the terms of the Proposal, the Detailed Notice of Sale, and this resolution, upon receipt of th~ pnrehaee price therefor as eat forth in Section 2 hereof, and for thc proper application and use of the preceeds of ~uch sale. EECTION 6. Preliminary Official ~tatement; Official Statement~ Certification Concerning Official Statement. The Chairman of this Board and the County A~mlnlstrator ar, h~r~by authorize~ and directed to execut~ and deliver to the Purchaser copies of an Official Statement of th~ County relating to Bonds, in ~ubstantially th~ form o~ ~he Preliminary Official Statement of the County relating to ~he Bonds, dated January 26~ 1990 (the "Preliminary Official Stat~man%'), after the same ha~ b~en complet~ by th~ insertion of the interest r~e$ to borne by %he Bonds and by making such other insertions, or corrections as the County A~inistratoz, based on the necessary or appropriate; and this Board hereby authorizes such Official Statement and bh~ information c0ntain~d therein to be u~ed by the PurchaEer in connect/on with the ~ale of ~he The County Adminimtrator and the Director o~ Accounting ~ereby authorized and directed to execut= on behalf of the in the Official Statement under the caption "Certi~icat= CQnc~nlng Official Statement". SECTION 7. Ratification. The action of the County Administrator in causing the S~ary Notice of Sale to published ~ described iD Section 1 hereof, ~Dd in causing the Detailed Notice of Sale~ a P~oposal for P~rchame of Twenty-Five Million TWO Hundred ~en~y-Five Thousand Dollars i i i Genera% otliga~ion Public Z~proveme~t BOnds, Serie~ of t990A, end the Preliminary Official Statement to b~ distributed, and the form and con%eats of the Summary Notice of Sale, the Detailed Notice of Sale such ~oposal and the Preliminary Official Statement, and all sctioe~ and proceeding~ heretofore taken by this Board, hh~ CoUnty Adminis~ratc~ and the ether officers, employees, agentm and atterney~ of the County in connection with tbs issuance and sale of the Bonds, are hereby ratified and confirmed. SBCTION ~ Filing of Thi~ Resolution. Th~ County Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to file a cody of this resolution, certified ~y the Cl~rk of this BoaE~ to be a true and nerreet copy h~zeof, with th~ Circuit Court of the County of Chesterfield. SECTION 9. Invalidit~ of B~c~io,s~._Paragraphs, Clauses or ~rovisio~s. If any section, paragraph, clause or provision Of this resolution shall be hmld invalid Or ~nenforceable for any resson, the invalidity or unen~erceability of such section~ paragraph, clause or provision ~hall not affect any of tkm remainin~ p0~tions of this resolution. SECTION t0. ~eadiuqs of Section~. The heading~ of ~h~ s~ctions of this resolution shall b~ solely for convenience cf reference and zhalI not affect the ~eaning, construction, interpretation or effect of such emotions o~ of this resolution. SECTION 11. Effective Date. Thi~ r~olution shall take ~ffec~ upon its adoption. The BO~r~ being polled, the vote was as fellows: Nr. Daniel: Aye. Mr. Hayes: Aye. Mr. Applegate: Ay~ Mr. Sullivan: Aye. Nr. Currin~ Aye. 2.D. BREAK It was generally agreed ho recess for five (5) minutes. Reconvening: specific legislation the General Assembly i~ dealing with regarding zoning practices and vested rights and pe~tinent data was availabl~ ~hat he felt should be pre~ented to the Board at There was discussion regarding th~ information previde~ by Mr. Micas relative to House Bills 721 and 1122, respectively, and the ramifications of their impact upon Conditional U~e zoning The Board generally agreed that it would not be appropriate to take ~ position st this time on the~e bills and that they preferred ~o discuss the issue with the Legislative Delegation during their February 21, 1990 meeting. 2,E, FY91-95 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRM~ ~UM~L%Ry Mr. Ste~aier pre,ended information regarding financing and debt aff0~dability, debt capacity, debt ratios; available 90-153 2114/90 funding, which funds would be allocated te projects depending upon th~ rate of growth and wken the funds are available and which included eat/mates from cash proffer revenues; debt to a~es~ad value; net general debt per capita; debt serviue to expenditures; and reviewed the County's Debt Related Financial Policies. Dissension, questions and COme,tS ensued relative to i~fIa- tionary Lmpacts upon debt ratios, the County's target and ceilings fox debt ratios; ~actors that limit tho County's ability to i~ue debt; the implementation of cash proffers and the actual timeframe in which tho~e funds ~ay be received; debt related financial policy indicating that by 1994 10% of school projects will be ~Rid for from current revenues; eta. ~r. Daniel stated he d~d net recall voting for a debt related financial policy that indicated the 10% school projects would be paid for f~um c~rrent revenues by 1994 and requested that staff provide the appropriat~ inforr~atiun in,footing had participated in that action. Mr. Lewis Wendell presented information relative to the summary cf projects recommended by the County Capital Improvements Program Review Ccr~itt~e and the School Board in with the County's budget and debt management policies; revlew~d i~dividuaI f~etiouaI areas~ funding sources; th~ SchOOls C.I.P. projects by fiscal years~ projects requiring further study and projects eliminated from C.I.P. consideration. Discussion, questions and conument~ ~nsucd relativ~ to funding sources (excluding the current bund issues already approved); funding for the Chester library, tbs ~ake Chesdin Park; the use for a library until 1994; prcposalg for implementing ~pecial Assessment Districts; the District Allocation Summary Report; expansion of the Northern Area Landfill and acquisition of property for said expansion, if possible~ etc. After further discussion~ the Board requested that staff provide information relative to the ~tilization of the vacant Bradlees building in ~eadowdale Shopping Center for a branch library until 1994; participation of ~enriee COunty and the City of Richmond in the funding of Eenricus Park; alternative funding suurcee for Eppinqton o~her ~han %he ~eneral addition of the ~en~ley Fire station to the li~t cf Projects Requiring Further Study in the CIP; study the ramifications/feasibility of acquiring options on prO~erty for the anticipated future expansion of the Northern Area Landfill; and a revised g¥91-95 CtP District Allocation Su~%mary Rupert. It was generally agreed to recess for two (2) minutes. Mr. Welchons presented a summary of the Department of Utilities purchase of capaeity~ increased ap~ropriatiun for upgrade of line, Buford Road water line and Engineering and R~ght cf Way assist recipients that are below poverty level incume w~th paymen~ of connection ieee and~ct short extensions; the transfer of funds for payment for GIS from the operating budget 90-154 2/14/90 to the CIP; reductions in prior appropriations, which he 0~tlined. Hs further noted major ehang~ in the wa~t~wa~er are the Fallinq Creek WWTB Treatment Upgrade increase in appropxiatlons due to shanqes in State Water Control Board requirements; the addition ef the Pal~ing Creek WWTP Toxicity Reduction; the transfer of payment for GIS from the operatlnq budget to the CIP; additional funds to reline sewers from force main discharqes to p~Otect the pipe from attack by hydrogen sulfide; an added lean ~rogram to assist residents that are below the poverty level income with payment of the I991; ets. After diss~usien, th~ Board requested that staf~ review and evaluate the methodology regardinq the wa~tewater charge for individuals who utilize ta~ge consumptions of water; provide the Board with cop/es of a comparative analysis of Chesterfield County's ~prinkler systems with ~enrico County and the impact if Chesterfield were to adopt a similar policy an~ to re~pond to a letter referenced by ~r. Daniel re~ardin~ same; requested information on alternative~ for financing the ~teDsion of sewer and/Or water to exi~tlng subdivisions in the Chester area; scheduling of a meeting with Mr. ~ulllvan to discuss a public hearing on th~ losation Of the James River Trunk line. 3. EX~C~?T? SESSION On motion of Mr. Daniel, ~eConded by ~r. App!sgate, the Board w~nt into ~xeoutive Session for consultation with legal ~elating to the use of real p~op~rty for publio Durposes pursuant to Section 2.1-344(a)(3) of the Cede efVirginia~ 195Q, as amended~ probable litigation involving Fur-Con Con~trucei~n Company pursuant to Section 2.1-344(a) (7) of the Code of Virq~ia, 195D~ au amenders and for ~ersonnel matters relating to th~ annual evaluation of the County Administrator 9urs~ant to Sections 2.1-344(a) (I) of th~ Code ef Virginia, 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous On metlen of Mr. Applegate~ seconded by ~r. Mayas, the Boa~d adopted the following resolution: WEEREAS, th~ Board of Super¥1sers has this day adjourned into ~xeon~iv~ Session in accordance with a formal vote of =he Board, and in accordanG~ with ~he provisions of the Virginia ~reedom of I~ormation Act; and WaER~A~, the Virginia F~eedom of Information Ack elf%clive July 1, 1989~ provi~$ for ce/tt£1cation that ~uch Executive Session was con~uoted in conformity with law. NOW, THERBFOR~ ~E IT R~OLVED that the ~oard of Connty Supervisors do~$ hereby certify that tc the best ef each member~ knowledge, i) only public bu~ine~ matters lawfully aX~pted from op~n meeting requirements under t~e Freedom of ~nfo~matien Act were discussed in the Executive Session to which thi~ c~rtifioation applies,, and ii) only such public business matter~ as were identified in the ~otion by which the Executiv~ ~eesion was usnr%ned were heard, discussed or uonsidered by the Beard. Nc member dissents from this certifi- cation, The ~oard being polled, the VOte was es follows: 90-I55 Mr. Daniel~ Aye. Mr. Mayas: Aye. Mr. Applegate~ Aye. Mr. Sullivan: Aye. Mr. Coffin: Aye. 4. DINNER The Board recessed &t 5:20 Bowlett's Tavern for dinne~. p.m. (EST) to travel to John Reconvening: 5. INVOCATION Mr. Currin introduced Mr. J. Ruffin Apperson, former member from the Dale District, who gave the inv00ation. Board 6. PL~I)G~ OF AT~TANC~ TO ~ FLAG O~ TB~ IINIT~ STATES OF A~IEI~CA Members of Boy Sco~t Troop 891~ Ben Air Methodist Church, ~c¢omp~nie~ by Assistant ~ceut Mas~er ~ob Lawrence, led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. ?. APPROWAL OF Mi~uT~B 7.A. JANUARY 24, 1990 On motion of Mr. Sullivan, ~ecnnded by ~r. Applsgat~, th~ Boa~d approved ~he minutes of January 24, 1990, as amended. Vote: Unanimous 7.B, JANUARY 2~-~6, 1990 On motion of Mr. Appleqat~ ~eeond~d by M~. ~nl]ivan~ the Board approved the minutes of January 25-26, t990, as submitted. Vote: Unanimous 8. C0U[~P~YADMINESTi~ATO~'$ C(I~H~TS ~r. Steqmaier stated the Government Finance O~icers Association of the United ~tates and Canada (~FOA) presented a Distinquishe~ Budget Presentation Award to chesterfiel~ County for it~ annual bridget for the fiscal y~ar b~ginning July 1, 1989. He stated this is the sixth (6th) consecutive year that for the Board'~ ~uppc~t. Mr. Ramsay atated Chesterfield Count~ country to receive this awar~ as well as the a~ard accompanying the annual report and co~ended staff for its diligent efforts. Mr. Currin stated he ~lt the c~tizen~ eT Chesterfield County are v~ry fortunate %o hav~ ~h~ q~allty of ~taff that it has and congratulated s~aff upon receipt of %hi~ award. 9. BOARD COI~II~£~ P~EPORTS Mr. Daniel re~orted tha~ he a=tended the Richmond ~egienal ~lennlng District Co~ission's National Associatlcn of Regional Councii meeting in Washington, D.C,, at which it was conv~y~d that there will continue to be more r~duetlons in government sponsored programs %hat have been mandated which will affect direct funding to both States and localities; stated an event of major ¢0ncern is the upcoming census for which ~very effort will be made to ensure that each individual is counted and that the census is the most complete, cnncise cen~u~es taken; and that he attended the Virginia Association of Counties (VACO1 ~xesutive Board meeting, at which thexe Were discussions relative to issues oi interest to all local q0verr~ent being considered by the General Assembly. Mr. Mayas stated he made an earlier comment regarding his nat re~eiving a letter from the Real Estate Assessor'~ office regarding aesessments, which i~sue was discussed during the Board'~ work session. ~e stated he had located the letter and wished to apologize for his to~meut. Mr. Sullivan reported he and Mr. Mayas, as members of the Budget/Audit Committee, met with auditors employed to survey County ~ecerds/recordkeeping and was plea~d to announce that there were no major recon~mendations of any consequence that the auditors felt important enough to be included in the audit be reviewed hy the Administration; however, overall he ~elt the audit was most successful. He al~o noted t/nat the n~wly established Recycling Committee has had one meeting at which ~r. ~am~er presented a briefing and major exigting problemg were reviewed and anticipate~ getting underway with the charge of its duties in the near fntur~ One being the nomination of committee. ~r. Currln stated he attended his first Richmond Regional Planning District Commieeion meeting and looked forward to participating in =he future. 10. RF~Q~ESTS TO i~OSTPON~ ACTI0~, ~.M~G~NCYADDIT~ONS OR C~aWGES /R ~ ORDER OF PRES]~NTATION On motion of Mr. Daniel~ seconded by Mr. Mayas, %he Hoard deleted Item l~.C.9.a., Authorize ~he Community Services Board to Accept and/or Apply for a ~rant for a Respite Progra~ for Emotionally and Severe ~ehavforall~ Disturbed Children; received revised information r~lative to Item 12.A., Hearings of Citisen~ on Un~che~ule~ Matters or Ctaim~ - Street Light at Intersection of Salem Church and King~land Roads - Mr. or Mrs. Jim Oliver, Mr, Baird ~rub~ and MS. Peggy Baumqsrdner, Which i~ amended to stat~ Traffic Light at Intersection of Salem Church and Kingsla~d Roads; and Item 15.C.I.~ State Road Acceptance to include Powderh~m, Sections A, F, G ~nd a' portion of Section B; received an attachment of the proposed l@a~e Zelative to Item I5.C.3.c., Set a Dat~ ior a ~ublic Rearing to Consider a ~ro~osed Lease by the U. S. Government on a Parcel of La~ at the Chesterfield County Airport for the Construction Of an Automated Weather Observation System (AWES); and adap%ed the agenda, as amended. Vote: Unanimous ll. ~SOLUTIONS AND SPECIAL I1.A. CHEGTERPIELD COUNTY FIRE D~PARTMENTS FLYING RM~RICA~ FLAG 24-HOURS -THE AMERICAN LRG%ON, POST 137 Mr. J. Ruffin Apperson, American Legion Po~t 137, expressed appreciation for the opportunity to present Certificates of Recognition to representatives from each of the County's Fire Stations who fly the American fl~g twenty-four hour~ a day. Cou~and~r Carrington Goods, American Legion Post 137, pr~sente~ 90-157 2/14/90 the certificates as each representative Robert Eanes, ag fotlows~ 2. Assistant Chisf William G. Marsiglio, Jr. 4. Assistant Chief M.D. Jones 5. District Chief William W. Dlliott, Jr. 6. District Chief Will E. Anderson was introduced by Chief Chester Volunteer Tire Department, Company ~1 Bensley Volunteer Fire D~partgent, Company ~3 Son Air volunteer Fire Department, Co~pany ~4 Enon Volunteer Fi~e Department, Company ~6 Cluver ~ill Volunteer Department, Company %? Wagstaff Circle Volunteer Fi~e Depart- {Chief Dan~s noted that Dis~rict Chief And~on ig the longest serving~ aetive~ vnluntser fire chief in the Chesterfield Couuty Fir~ Department,) Lieutenant Perry Hernbarger Dale Fire Department, District Chief George Pond Lieutenant Perry Hurnbarger (accepting on h~half of maid alarm call) company ~11 Ettrick Volunteer Fi~e Department, Company $12 Courthouse/Airport Firs Deparhmen~, Company #I5 Mr. Currln and Chief Eanes expressed appreciation, on behalf of the Ch~storffel~ County F~rs Department and c~t~zen~, for the recognition b~tow~d upon th~ fir~ m%ation~ and Mr. Currin colnmende~ them for the ~lylng of the American flag tweney-fe~r hours a day. ll.B. T~D DOWNING RURITAN CLUB FOR SMOKE DETECTOR DONATIONS on motion of the Beard, the following re~olution was adopted~ WHEREAS~ A smoke detector provides the early warnin~ ~igeal of a home fire~ and WHEREAS, The chesterfield Fire Department's goal is that e~ch residence in our County hav~ at least one smoke detector; and WHet=AS, Since 1983, ~he Downing Ruritan Club has donated one hundred and eighty smoke detectors to be installed in homes of County resiOents who cannot provide this protect/on for themselves; and W~ER~A$, The smoke ~tectcr donations will hav~ a direct impact On the life safety and property protection of the recipient; and WHEREAS, The Downin~ Ruffian Club also makes a significant contribution to the bstte~ent of the ce~tmuni%y in other ways by supporting many worthwhile community activltias. NOW, THEREFORE ~ IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors would lika to express its sincere thanks and appreuiation to the Downing Auritan club for its faithful ~uppert of the ~moke detector program. 90-158 2/14/90 m AND~ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Hoard of ~uparvlsors reoognizas and commands the bowning Ruritan Club for its contribution to making homes safer for the citizens of Cheeterfield County as well as their support of other community projeot~. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Currin presented the executed resolution to Mr. Charle~ Sawtelle, and recognized Mr. Cha~l~S Grafton, President of the Downing Ruritan Club and Mr. R~ber~ Anderson, Other membere of the Club, who were preeent end commended the organization for its contributions to making homes safer for citizen~ of the County. He also recognized Chief Dennis Turlingten, Fire ll.C. MR. ROBERT W. ALLHN~ PER$0NI~EL APPEALS BOAP~3 ~q{EREA8, Chesterfield county is committed to maintaining a positive employee relations environment which includes a fair an~ timely resolution of employee ~rievance~; and WI~EREAS, The County has adopted a formal grievance procedure in complianc~ with ~tate law and provides for an impartial panel to hear ~rievan~e~ at the final step in the Board; and WHEI~EAS, Mr. Robert W. Allen ha~ ~ndered dedicated and effective p~blic service as a me.er of %he Personnel ApDeals Board since Jan~ar~t 1982, having served one unexpired term and hi~ last ~e~ of office and provided conscientious leaflsrship in ~he r~sol~tion of grievances at ~he ~anel ~t~p. Connty Bo~rd of Supervisors publicly recognizes Mr. Robert W. A~, BE IT FURTHER ~SOL~D, that a copy Of this ~eso!uticn be presented to Mr. Allen and that thi~ resolution supervisors of Chesterflsld County~ Virginia. Vote: Unanimous ~2. H~NGS OF CITIZENS ON LAND ROADS - MR. OR MRS. JIM OLIVER, MR. BAIRD GRUBB AND ~$~ PEGGY ~AUMGARDNER Mr. Daniel staled that Ms. Peggy Baumgardner had called 'him regarding the installation of a traffic light at the intersection of Salem Church and KingSland Roads and he had suggested that they petition ~he Board to present their request. 90-159 2114190 Ms. ~aumgardner presented petitions, on b~half of the citi=ens that live in and froquent!y use the highways in the Kinqsland zoad and Salem Church Road area, requesting tho installation of an automatic traffic control signal at the intersection of these roads. She stated she did not have a daily traffic count for this intersection; however, ~J%e intersection at any hour of the day has heavy traffic especially during the merniDg and afternoon rush hour6; reminded the ~oard that a n~her of public ~chool buses use this inter~ection; that a nI%r~ber of serious traffic accidents have 0cc~rred ever the ysar~ and there appears te be little relief even though the traffic pattern has b~on a!tered~ large step signs have been installed and approash warnings ha~e be~n plaeed~ one of which includes flashing amber lights. After further distasting new traffic patterne, the incidence of rear end collisions versus side impact collisions, etc., she urged the Board to support this reqaest in fulfilling the responsibility charged to th~m to protect the health, safet~ and welfare e~ the citizsns. Mrs. Carol oliver conveyed to the Board details of as automobile accident whist occurred in August of 19~$ at %his infersectien in which she and hsr daughter were involved. She stated h~r nine year eld d~ughter was killed as a re~ult of an approaching driver fa~ling to stop at a ateD sign which she did not see because it was improperly place~ several feet away from the interse~tion. $h~ stated that, b~cause of the accident 6~veral p~ople passed around a pstition and, as a result of the petition, the stop sign was moved to Kingsland Road instead cf being left on Salem Church Roa~, which she felt has not helped the situation at ail because there are still accidents occurring there. She stated she did not k~ow how many people would die at that intersection in order to warrant the installation of a step light but urged the Board ~O take action regarding this request to h~lp pre~ent future accidents. Mr. Baird Grubb conveyed details to th~ Board of an accident whluh occurred twenty-three {23) years ago, re,siting in the death of his father, becan~ there was no traffic light et an ~ntersection and tho rescue squad coming to transport his father, who had suffered a heart attack, was prevented from reaching him because someone ran a stop sign at that particular intersection. He stated when his mother called the gta~e three weeks later to inq~ir~ a~ to what i~ would take to get e traffic light ias~all~d at that intersection she was informed it took five (5} fatalities to ge~ a traffi~ signal. He a~k~d that this intersection not be made a five IS) fatality intersection and urged the BOard to take action b%fore those numberm are reached. ~r. Daniel expressed appreciation ~or the efforts of the many people who have worked to try to improve the health, safety an~ welfare situaflon at that intersection. H~ requested the Board allow a motion to amend ~he agenda in order that the Board could consider a resolution to be foz~arded to the Hiqh~-ay Department requesting the traffic ligkt. Nr. Daniel made a motion, seconded by Mr. Mayas, to suepon~ the rules to allow the introduction of a resolution requesting the installation cf a traffic signal at the intersection of Salem Church and Kingsland Roads. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Daniel, ~conded by Mr. Mayas, the ~oard added to Item 12.k., Hearings of Ci~izsns on Unscheduled Matters er Claims Traffic Light at Intersection of Salem Church and Kingsland Roads - Mr. or Mrs. Jim Oliver, Mr. Baird Grubb and M~ Peggy Baumgardner, a resolution regarding the installation of a traffic light at said interseotion. Vote: Unanimous 90-160 2t14/9~ ~nd stuff was in~trncted to forward a copy of the petitions and a transcri~t of the meeting to the Virginia Department of Road intersectien safer~ and WHEREAS, The Board previously requested the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to improve the sight distance, install flashing warning lights and warning signs at Supervisors oX Chesterfield County hereby requests VDOT to install a traffic signal at the intersection, have to conduct in terms of placing the truffle light. He expressed his appreciation to those individnai~ who came to the When a~k~d, Mr. MeCracken Stated the signal itself would probably cost $70~000 and usually turn lanes would be aeseclate~ with that, se the average signal would cos~ between $300,000 and $500~000. Mr. Currin a~k~d what h~d been the response of th~ Virginia Department af Transportation relative had asked about this matter previously, the Virginia Department Mr. Applegate stated, when he asked the question of seat, he had thought a sonMce of revenue could be located to fund the installation of ~he traffic signal; however~ he had not individuals ha~ carrie~ their petition to the seneral Assembly after denial by the Virginia Depar~nent of Transportation and with more situations of this type across the County a~ 12.~. CLAI~ OF ~R. LIVINGSTON MURRAy JOHN$OH~ JR. ~ COMPENSA- TION FOR COMPFWSATORX LEAVE Mr. Mica~ pre~nted a ntunmary o5 ~ claim by Mr. Livingston Murray Johnson, Jr. requesting that the Board comp%nsat~ him for 5~600 hour~ of compensatory time, at time and one-half rat~ that he had accumulated S~nce 1962. He stated staff ha~ investigated Mr. Johnson's claim and determined that 1) no County employee has ever been paid for accumulated compensatory time upo~ leaving County employment, 2) Connty policy does not permit employees to accumulate compensatory tim~ for moro tha~ one month, 3) any payment to ~r. Johnson we~td be contrary to COunty policy, 4} the County.has no contemporaneous r~oQr~ indicating that Mr, Johnson worked 3,600 hours of overtime, 5) payment of Mr. Johnson'~ claim would gen~ra~ Similar claims from other County employees, both former and current, seeking payment for compensatory time alleged to have b~6n accumulated, 6) Mr. Johnson was treated no differently from other County 90-16I 2/14/90 smployees and, based on these facts, staff recont~ondn denial of the claim. Mr. Denis Englisby, attorney far ~he claimant, stated his client, a former County employee who retired from his po~itiQn as Chief Utilities Inspection Supervisor in 19~9, has indicated that he was informed by the County that he would be compensated, hour ~or hour, for every hour overtime hE wcrk~. HE noted that Mr. Johnson's claim was the subject of a previous grievance which was dismissed By the Circuit Cour~ of again contacted the Connty ~eking compensation. Ee referenced an affidavit from Mr. Robert Gatusha, former Personnel Director, which he read to the Board and Su~c~itted for the retard; referenced and presented the County Attorney with copy of an article regarding a case of similar nature in Alexandria, Virginia in which a Fe~erai ¢our~ Judg~ awarded individuals compensation for overtime. He stated Mr. Johnson class action suit and asked the Board to render a decision in this matter. Sr. Daniel stated ~hat he was the unly member of the current Board who ~ms servinq that would rem~mbe~ th~ ei~cun~tancez surrounding the issue of the County's compensatory procedures in 1980, Which at that time was in disarray; indicate~ that, at tha~ ti~e, ~he County records were ol~arsd of uny compensatory leave and a ~nifcrm policy was established; qu~stiunad how un individual could have accumulated 3,60O hours of compensable overtime without adequate documentation and how did =his situation relate to the one cited in Alexandria; e=c. Ee stated he had understood that the action taken in 1980 would not permit ~uch a ~it~ation to again occ~ and that appropriate procedures were in place for honoring the compensatory policy. There being no furuher Board discussion, it was on me,ion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applega~e, resolved to deny claim of Mr. Livingston Murray JOhnsOn; Jr. requesting ~hat the Board compensate him fez 3,600 hours of compensatory time. 13.A. APPOINTMENTS - CENTRAL VIRGINIA WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS On motion OS Mr. Sullivan, aeoond~d ~y Mr. AppleseEd, the Board appointed Mr. William ~. ~owell to serve on the Centrai Virginia Waste Management Authority (CVWMA) Board cf Directors, for a term to con~eno~ on th~ da~ of issuance of the Certificate o~ Incorporation by the State Corporation Commingled for a ~erm of four (4) years. 13.B. APPOINTMENTS - APPOMATTOX RIVER WATER AUTHORITY On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegat~, the Board reappointed ~r. Lane B. R~sey (County Representative) and Mr. David Welchon~ (Alternate) to ~rve on tho Appomattox River Water Authority (ARWA), whose terms ars effective immediately and will expire Deoe~ber 31, 1993. Vote: Unanimous 90~162 2/14/90 14.A. ~0 CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A POLICY CONCERNING ~HE ACCEPT- APPLICANTS FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS Mr. Micas stated that th~ Boar~, at its Williamsburg r~treat, considered a preposed staff policy on a schedule for recommended cash proffers for future zoning requests, which proposal recor~ends a methodology that includes a $4,0~0 cap per residential unit. Hr. Currin stated ~hat in Julys 1989, the Board was with ~ke ability ~o implement cash proffers and, ~ubeequently public hearing was conducted wherein the board adopted s~me as a mechanism to assist with ~ervice depend costs precipitated by growth. Ne noted th~ Board recently travsl~d to Williams~urq for a retreat to ~izcuss the methodoloqy of the pr0pcsal and the financial cap for said proffers. Ne s~te~ the purpose of this public hearing is to provide the Homebmilders Association comments re~a~ding t~eir findings and posit~on in this matter. Ms. JoAnn Cash, President-elect of ~he Richmond ASsociation of b~tieve economic growth is b~in~ w~ongly bl~ed a~ the ~or smld revenue needs and ~ha~ ~ho9~ nO,ds must be meat by treader revenue base~; ~tae~d the study conducte~ by the Homebuiid~rs Association of Ric~ond and ~heir a~o~iation has demonstxated that growth pays for ieself Dot only through increase property tax r~v~u~s but ~rough other increased tax revenues as well; and requested that other mo~ equitable ~oure~ b~ 5o~ght to meet the revenue need~. provided ~o the citizens of the County to indicate what impact of a single f~ily residence is on the economic development of the County; asked that the implementation cash proffers not be use~ to turn Chesterfield into "bidding-for-zoning-rights" County; and urged ~he Board impact of single f~ily residences are on ' th~ economic ~evelo~men~ of the County. Mr. Paul Elsworth, President of the M~tropolitan Richmond stability, the ability of all of th% jurisdictions in the Metropolitan Ri~hmoD~ ~rea, to continue :o be viabl~ and asked that there be ~o~er~tion by all concern%d. H~ stated there i$ risk aud/or opportunity involved for ail c0nc~rned; however, that economic stability b~ preserved as bes~ as possible. information reqarding th~ consulting firm, displayed slides of debt service for schooi~; 3) extension Of =he length uf credit payment to twenty (20) years, no= fifteen {15}; 4) that the in a reasonable geoqraphlc proximity in their neighborhood/ and 90-1~3 2/14/90 indicated once all these factors are in place the a~e~nf cf cash proffers required would be significantly xeduced for single family and/or multifaraily residential uniYs. There was a brief discussion relative co %he redefinition Qf the practical textbook definition of credits; the 20 year credit formula versns the 15 year credit formula; the applicability Of cash proffers towards these improvements for which the fees are collected; deb% service for new/existing population; etc. The Board generally agreed to recess for twu (2) minutes. Mr. Barry Crawford, Fidelity Federal Savings Bank: Mr. Detent, Walton, a build,r; Mr. Georg~ Ha~field, resident; Mr. Barney Greet, insurance agent; Mr. Tom'Kinq, CPA; Mr. Ralph Spencer, Russell, Senior Loan Officer of ~eritage Savings Be~k; ~r. Jim Toomes, Senior Visa President of Investors Savings Bank; Mr. Bill Per,her, Chesterfield Roofing; Mr. Chuck Kelly, pain~ MS. Cheryl House, ~i~lo~hian resident; Mr. Bill ~rmine, Mr. Phillip Halsey, ~eveleper~ Mr. A1 Waiters, pro~erty owner affect the afferdability of new hom~s in Chesterfield County; the financial impact would be substantially high; that the is being asked to charge citizens and industry the amount~ e~ money that were agreed upon to pay for growth in th~ rec~nt i~ conducts its business to collect the revenues it anticipated collecting; that it is the responsibility of staff to collect those =axes and the Board's responsibility to ensure that it is would adversely impact the direct an~/or indirect beneficiaries raising prices of new houses, the assessed value of all houses for development wilI decline in value aa ~he absorption rate down-zoning will cripple the industry which is providing insome real estate industry for its fiscal problems when its own be directly ties to the services rendered; questioned whether planning or mere efficiently operafed the government to provide and residential devetepment in ~he CounP~y; and requested that overall impact cf this issue en its citizens; %hat they felt such fe~s wculd jeopardize the ~eonomy of the County's businesses and eraployman% force; slow down the grewth in the discussed; expressed concern that only a m±nority of people will be paying for problems created by a majority; that such 90-164 2114/90 fees will eliminate the market for affordable homes; that the loss of existing and/or potential busines~ wJlI impact the quality of life in %he County; that the implementation of such fees will not aid the problemn of existing residents; that the government should review internal spending to determine if it is being spent wisely and if it is then raise taxes; expressed concern that the true growth problem is the growth of governs]eat expense; that the implementation of such fees will impact an already delicate balance in the econom~. Mr. Jim Lewis, a resident and Mr. Leo Myers, resident and former Board member, voiced support for the implementation of cash proffers as they felt such fees would be beneficial to the County revenue sources. Mr. Myers endorsed the enactment of cash proffers, if necessary, provided there was a $2,500 cap and that it be oonditiensd $0 the cap could be increased only every ten years. He requested staff iorward a ~opy of the COunty's Financial Plan Co Mr. %rvin Morner, also a past Board me~C0er~ as he was unable to attend the meeting. There being ne One els~ to address the issue, the public hearing was closed. It was generally agreed to recess for two (2) minuees. ~sconven~ng: Mr. Daniel stated, for c]arification~ this preeesm im not an effort by the County governi~lent to ask the new homebuyer to pay for any past debt, band referendums, etc.~ %hat ih is apparent to him that many people are concerned with 1) possible failures of the County government to recognize the fact that growth was outstripping its ability to provid~ th~ resources ~o support that growth, 2) fear that the implementation of such fees may result in the loss of business, e~ployment, etc., and fairness. Ee stated earlier during its Work session the Board wa~ provided with a review of the future o~ capital expenditures and ~t would be I993 before another referendum could occur; even if the voters supported the maximum debt bond referendum possible. Be stated he felt there was no easy answer to the situation; thah he has queetione regarding etaff'e proposal and would lik~ to spend more time with staff discussing those concerns; Chat he di~ not ~eel he could make a rational decision at this time and suggested th~ matter be deferred for thirty days. Mr. Mayes stated ~he cash proffer originated at the amount of $8~000 aa~ has been subsequently reduce4 to th~ proposed cap of $4,000; that he had not heard anyone argue against the concept of cash proffers, just the ratol s~ated the residents of hhe ~a~eaca District have supported referendume for funding projects in ocher areas of the County bu= have received very little in a diTect return for their support; that the majority of residents in his Dimtrict support proffers amd impao= fees; and, althouqh he is not sure that the .amount of $4,00~ is approprlate~ he would support cash proffers. Mr. Applegate stated he agreed with ~ome of the comments and ~isagread with others~ felt that the Board mn~t deal with the issue as soon as it mould; ~xpre$$e~ concern that these As bill in the General Assembly regarding impact fees thah has a cap of $2,500 but if the Board were to approve cash proffers with a cap of $4,~00 he felt it would conv~y misinformation to the General Assembly and confuse the issue even more; that.he did not believe a cap should be set and that each i~sue be handled on a case by ease basis; and uoncurred that the matter should b% deferred until a~ter the ~enmraI Assembly has had an opp0rtuui~y to take action on its pending legislation. 90-165 2/14/90 Mr. Sullivan stated he had opposed impact fees an%il he worked with the Growth Committee and saw the needs of the County and the resource a~enues available; expressed concern regarding many of the comments expressed during public hearing; that with the issues raised, he needed more information on the p~nding impact fee legislation; and that, although he did wish to defer the matter any longer, he felt, at this ti~e, a deferral would be appropriate to resolve concerns that were rai~ed and possibly a decision could be rendered at the March 14 me,ting. Mr. Currin stated he concurred with many of the Board members' r~marks; that it is the respo~eibility of the Board to be conscious of how County funds are spent; that he felt he needed to study the matter more to be comfortable with hi~ decision; and that because o~ the pending legislation in the General Assembly and the difference in the amounts of the proposed rates, he would prefer to ~efer action until after the General Assembly renders its decision. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Applega[e, the Board deferred until March 14, I990, the p~b]ic hearing =o consider adopticu o~ a policy r~lating to cash proffers. Vote; Unanimous The Board requested that st~f provide ~he Board with data relative to the rationale nexus in relationship to th~ school districts/traffic sheds, Mr. sullivan ~tated that several citizens had been patiently awaiting a decision on another item un the agenda and, due to the lateness o~ the hour, he re,seated the rules be ~spended to take that item out of sequence to be heard at thi~ time. 15.B. REQUEST FOR BINGO/RAFFL~ PER~IT FROM T~ RICHMOND AREA On motion Of ~r. ~ullivan, ~cond~d by Mr. Applegate~ the Board suspended its rules to take out of sequence Item 15.B., for Bingo/Raffle Permit from the Richmond Area Mental Health Association (RAM~. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, aeconded by Mr. Applegate, the Beard moved out of sequence Item 15.B., Request for Bingo/Raffl~ T~rmit from the Richmond Area Mental Health Association Mr. Micas stated the Richmond Ar~a Mental Health Assosiation (RAM~) has had a bingo permit in th~ city of Richmond for several year$~ however, the building in which their the organization is applying for a permit in the County. He presented a brief summary of recent financial problems 1990 permit was revoke~ for failure to file f~nanc~al reports to grant approval, based on data provided subsequent to this agenda item, staff could support a conditional six (6) month bingo permit so long as the organization agreed to comply with the conditions as sst forth by the Internal Auditor. 90-166 2/14/90 There was brief discussion relative %o cl~zXfic~tien e£ the last motion of the Board and it was determined ~he issue had not been decided. On motion of Mr. Sullivan~ seconded by Mr. Appl~ga%e, the Soard approved a request for a hinqo perr~it for th~ Richmond Area Mental Nealth Association (RAM~) for a conditional six (6~ month period so long as the organization complies with th~ conditions set forth by the Internal Auditor. Vote: Unanimous I4.B. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEMD TM~ COQ~ OF ~H~ COUNTY OF CME$TEKFIELD~ 197~,_~.$.AF~D~D, BY AMENDING AND ENACTING SECTIONS 21-39~ 21-40 AND 21.1-212 RELATING TO public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the Cods the County o~ Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, rela~ing to No on~ came forward to ~p~ak in favor of or against the proposed ordinance. adopted the following ordinance: C~un~ (l] Smctions 21-~9, 21-40 an4 21.1-21~ of th~ code of ~he C~unt~ of Chesterfield, 1978, as ~ended, are ~ended and Sec. 21-39. flues, flagpoles, radio or t~l~vi~ion antennas, or similar structures, having an aggregate area le~ than twenty-five (25) percent of th~ ground floor building ~rea, nor to parap~= walls or bulkheads extendinq not more ~han four (4) fe~t above the limiting h~ight u~ th~ building, nor to radio, =elsv~mion, shall exceed a height in any R Dis=riot of fifty (50) feet, by the board of zoning appaals a~ a variance. Sec. 21-40. Near The helqht~ of all buildings and structures including heights of a~l structures enumerated in Section 21-39, shall be provided for in Pederal Aviation Re~lation Part 77.and Rule For th~ purpose of this ~ection, "structure" shall mean any objeo=, including a mobile object, contracted or by man, including but not limited tu buildings, ~owe=~, 90-167 2/14190 flag pol~, and ~hip ma~%$. See. 21.1-212. Height Zxemptions a%~. ~.m~%ations. (a) Exc~pt aG Set forth in sub-section {b) of this section, height limitations shall not apply to church spires, belfries, cupolas, domes, heat transfer units, tanks, television antennas, er similar structures, having an aggregate area less than twenty-five (25} p~rc~nt of the ground floor building area, nor the parapet walls ur b~lkheads sxtendlng not more than four (4} feet above ~he limiting height of the building, nor to grain elevators, ~erricks or other necessary industrial, utility or public service structures; provided, =hat no such structure shall exceed a height in any ~", "R-TH", I~R-SLF", "O-1'~ or "c-l" District of fifty (50) feet, nor in any other district of one hundred fifty (158) feet, (b) The permitted heights of all b~ildings and structures ties (a) of thi~ ~eotion, ~hall he limited to p~event the penetration of zones and surfaces provided for in Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 and Rule 19 of The Virginia Department of Aviation and to prevent interference with the County's Emergency Communication System. For the purpose of this section, "structure" shall mcan any object, inc!udiDg a mobile object, constructed or created by man, inel~dis~ but nO~ limited to buildings, towe~S, efane~, ~mokestaek~, earth formation, overhead transmission lines, flagpol~ and ~hipmast~. Vote: Unanimous 14.C. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEN~ CKARTER 15.1 OF TBE COD~ O~ TN~ COUNTY OF C~TERFIELD, 197~ AS ~2~ENDED, BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 15.1-32 RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION OF ~0LICITAT!O~ F~R PRORTITUTIO~ ~r. Micas stated thle date and time had been advertised consider adoption of an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by a~g a new Section 15,1-32, relating to the prohibition of ~elicitation fox prostitution. NO One Cam~ forward to speak in Savor of er against the proposed ordinance, On motion of Mr. ~ullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the adopted the following ordinance on a permanent AN ORDINANC~ ~ ~4E~D ~ 15.1 OF ~ CODE O~ ~ C~ OP C~IE~, 197~, AS ~ BX ~DING A ~ SE~ION 15.1-32 BE IT ORDAINED by the Bo=rd cf Bupurvi~oru of Chesterfield C0un~y ~hat th~ Code 0f %h~ County 0f Chesterfield, 197~, am~ndad~ i~ amended by adding a n~w ~ction 15.1-32 as follows: Sec. 15.1-32. Solicitation for Prostitutiou, etc. It shall be unlawful for any person, within the li~it~ the County, to Eolicit another by word, sign or gesture, co~it any act which is lewd, lascivious, or indec=nt~ or to conviction ~hereof, shall be guilty Of a class one misdemeanor. 9~-168 FOr slate law ru£urence, ~ee Code of Uirqinia ~ection 18.2-346. I4.D. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TEE COb~ OF TH~ ~OUNT¥ OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS ~4~ND~D, BY A~NDING SECTIONS 50-39.3 AND 20-71.3 RELATING TO THE E~F~CTIVE DATE OF ELIGIBILITY FOR REFUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SEWER AND WATER FACILITIES UNDER TR~ COUNT~ OR~INAi~CE Mr. Sale stated this date and tim= had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the Cods of th~ Cuuut¥ of Ches=erfield, 1978, as amended, relating to the effective date of elfglbility for refund~ for construction of sewer an~ water facilities under the County ordinance. stated currently, ther~ are fiv~ (5) County/Devalop~r contract~ which are not 100% complete and i~¢i~de~ County'participation through refunds based on the policy in effect prior to 1, 1988 provided construction i$ completed by December 31, 19S9. ~e stated staff has received r~qu~$t$ from two of the developers to amend the contract to in~u~e'they ~ecelve refunds based on the old policy in effect at the time ~he contract was execute~. He stated, since there We~ mitigating circumstances, ~taff ha~ ~valuate~ the requests and discussed the matter thoroughly with the County Attorney'~ Office and determined th~ projects w~re O~lay~ by inclement weather and unforeseen quantitie~ of rock. ~e stated, if th~ Bea~d w~r~ to approv~ said r~qu~t, the proposed smendmen~ provide8 for refunds under the old ordinance for that portion Of the project completed by December 31, 1959 with the remainder of the project refund under the provi~ions of the ordinance in at the ~ime of completion. NO on~ ¢~m~ forward ~e speak in favor ~ or aqainet the proposed o~dinance. When asked~ Mr. Welchons stated o~her previous extension hhis one. On motion of Mr. Appleegte, seconde~ by Mr. D~nlel, th~ Board adopted the following ordinance: ~ECTIONS 2~-39.3 ~ 28-71.] ~TING ~ ~ CONST~CTION OF ~ ~ Water 20~39.3 ~ffective Dat~..e~ ~ligibilit¥ for Refunds. Development which has received tentativ~ approYal or site plan approval by October 1, 1988~ shall be eligible for refunds under the terms and conditions Qf ~he existing ordinance provided · contract for the extension is executed by April 1989, and construction iS ¢o~pl~ted by December 31, 1989. Where the project under contract is not 100~ ccmplete by December 31, I959, the portion of the projec~ that is complete will be ~efuuded in accordance with the policy in effect prior to October 1, 195~ and %h~ uncompleted work will be refunded based On thc policy in ~ffect at the tim~ ~he Work completed. 90-169 2/14/90 20-71.3 Effestlve Date of Eligibility_ for Refunds. Development which has received tentative approval er mite plan approval by October I, 19~8, shall be eligible for refunds nnder the terms and conditions of the existing ordinance provided a con%reef for ~he extension is executed by April 1989, and construction is completed by Decen~er 31, 1989, ~here the project under contract is not 108~ complete December 3], 1989, the portion of th~ project that is ~omplete will bs refunded in accordance with the policy in effect prior to October 1, 1988 and the uncompleted work will be refunded based ob the policy in effect at the t~me the work is completed. Vote: Unanimous 15.~. USE/RENTAL OF SCHOOL FACILITIES ~r. Stegmei~r ~tated the School Board, at its J~nuary 23, 1990 meeting, approved a revision to School Board Policy ~617 which eddres~es the use and rental of school labilities and he presented a brief summary of same. ~e state~ the policy had teen reviewed by the school Board/Board of Supervisors Liaimon Corm~itt~ and the revised policy includes the committees' s~g~e~ions. He stated the r~ised policy includes the following: * Non-school use of school facilities applies to those individuals and groups who are not employees of the school eymtsm who are psrIormlng respunslbilities as employees of the school systeml Non-school use of school facilities shall not include activities that are perceived to be in direct aeC/or inappropriate competition with fr~ No non-~chool us~ or category of Don-school uses wilt be permitted %e occur On school property unleSS it has been recommended by the School Board and approved by the Board of Supervisors: and * Non-school use oateqorie~ will be reviewed by the School soard in April of each year and a review ~epert and recommendations will be submitted for review and approval to th~ Boa~d of Supervisors by May 1 of each year. Mr. Ramsay fnrkhe~ noted th,t in the listing of non-school use categories~ under the section Continuity or Service Cluhs~ the latch-key program item had b~n amended to eliminate the phrase, "if not otherwise available in the irm~ediate comr~unity"~ based on the minutes of the School Board meeting. %B was noted the Liaison commi%tee concurred with the amendment. When asked, Nr. Sullivan stated the subject revision to the School Board Policy ~617 establishes a procedure and timeframe by which ~he School Board will provide the Board with a review of the proposed ac~ivitie~ as well as the opportunity to either approve and/or reject them and provides for a more orderly On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the approved a revision to School Board Policy 9617 addressing usc and rental of ~hool facilities, which revised policy included an amended list c~ nee-school use categories that were approve~ by the ~choo1 Board on January 2~, 1990, at its 90-170 2/14/80 regular meeting, and which policy has been reviewed by the ~ekool Boar~/Bo~r4 of Supervisors Liaison Commlttae. (It is noted e copy of %he applicable r~vis~d policy, including rules/regulations and amended li~t of non-school use categories, is filed with the papers of this Board.) 15.C. CQ~S~NT 15.G.1. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Doard, made report in writing upon hfs examination of Koyoto Court in Game~on Bills, Section Bermuda District. established as a public road. Tr~nspQr~tion~ be and it hereby is requested to take into with Koyote Drive, State Route 2300, and go~ng easterly 0.21 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distanes An~ be it further received, that the Be~rd of Supervisors Section C. Plat Book 59~ Page~ ~2 & 83, December 15, '1957. Thi~ day %he County Envi~on~entaI Engineer, in accordance with dir~¢tious from this ~oard, made report in writing upon his examination of Clear Springs Lane and Clear Springs Plao~ in Walthall Crs~k, SectioA 5, Bermuda Dis:ri~t. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion Of Mr. Daniel, ~econde~ by ~r. Mayes, it is re~ol~ed that Clear Springs Ean~ and Clear Springs Place in Walthall Creek~ Section 5, Bermuda Distriet~ be and they hereby are established a~ public roads. And b~ it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby i~ requested to take into th= Secondary System~ Clea~ Springs Lane~ beginning at the intersection wi=h Wood Duck Lane, Sta~e Route 4062~ and going southwesterly 0.06 mile to the intersection with clear sp~inge Place, then continuing scnthwesterly 0.19 miI=, thun turning and going southerly 0.03 mile to tie into proposed Clear Sprinq~ Lane, Walthall Creek, Section 6; and Clear Springs Place, beginning at the intersection with Clear SDrln~s Lan~ and going westerly O.06 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent ~lop~, ~ight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage These roads serve 27 lots. 90-171 2/14/90 And be it further reeolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for all of these roads, Thio section eS Walthall Creek is recorded es follow~: Sectien 5. Plat Book 61, Page~ 51 & 52, May 12, 1988. This day ths County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board~ made report in wfitinq upon his examination of Quail Croesing in Walthall Mill, Section Bermuda District. Upon consideration whereof, ~nd on mo%ion o~ Mr. Daniel, seconde~ by Sr. Mayas, it is read!red that Quail Crossing in Walthall Mill, ~ec{ton ~, Bermuda District, be and i{ hereby established as a public road. And be it further remolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to hake into the Ses0ndary System, Quail Crossing, beginning at the intersection with WalthaI1 Road, State Route 1090, and going westerly mile to end in a esi-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Depart~nent of Transportation drainag~ easement~. This road serves 9 lots. And be it further re~olved, that the Board of guarantees to ~he Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for this road. This s~ction of Wulthull Mill is recorded as follows: Section 3. Plat Book 43, 9ages 26 & 25, June 3, 19~3. Vote: Uu~nimeu~ This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this 5card, mad~ report in writing upon his ~xeminetion of Dove Path Lane and Crosshaven Court in Waltheli Mill, Section ~, ~ermuda Diztrict. Upon aoasideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Mayes~ it i~ ~esolved that D~ve Path Lane and Crosahaven Court in Walthall Mill, Section 6, ~ermuda District, be and they hereby are ~stahlisbed as public roads. An~ be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary Sy~t~ Dove Path Lane, beginning a% the intersection with Watthall Road, State Route 1090, and goinq westerly 0.07 mi~e to th~ int~r~etion with Crop,haven Court, then turninq and qoinq southerly 0.11 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Cresehaven Court, beginning at th~ int~r~e~tion with Dove ~ath Lane and q0ing northerly 0.07 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight ~iseance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage The~e roads serve ~0 lots. An~ be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors 90-172 2/14/90 guarantees to the Virgiuia Department o~ Transportation right-of-way for all of these roads. This seotio~ of Walthall Mill is recorded as followsx Section 6. Plat Book 45, Pages 72 & 73, April 27, 1984. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Enginaer~ in acccrdano% with directions from this Board, mad~ report in writing upon his examination of Stable Gate Road in Branch's Trace, Phase I, Dale District, Upon consideration whersof~ a~d on Motion of Mr. Daniel, ~econded by Mr. Mayas, it is resolved that Stable ~ate Road in Branch'~ Traced Phan~ T, D~le Dis~rict, be and it hereby is established a~ a public road. And be it further reselve~ that the Virginia Department Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Stable Gat~ Road, beginning at tbs northern end of existing Stable Gate Road, State Route 940, and g~ing northerly 0.Q~ mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is intlnsive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainag~ easements. This road s~rves as access to multl-family property. And be it further r~olveO, that th~ Board of Su~aruisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 60' right-of-way for this road. Branch's Trace is recorded as follows: Phase I. Plat Book 47, Pages 7] ~ 73, October 2~, 1984. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Bngineer, in accordance with direetion~ from this ~o~rd, made repu~% in Writing upon h~s examination of Gordon School Road and Ferrylanding Drive in Smokotrec Wood~ and a portion of Smoketree, Section D, Midlothian District. Upon consideration whereo~ and on ~otion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. ~ayes, i% is r~$elved that Gordon Sshool Road and Perryl~nding Drive in Smoketree Wo~ds and a portion Qi Smoketree, se=rich D, Midluthian Midlothian District, be and they hereby ere e~tablishe~ as public roads. And be it further resotYed~ that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it h=reby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Gordon School Road, b~ginning at ~ke ia~er- ~ec~ion with Mountain Laurel Drive, Stats Route 3103, and going westerly Q.0~ mil~ to end at the inter~tion with ~errylanding D~ive; and F~rrylandlng Drive, beginning at th~ intersection with Gordon School Road and going north~rl~ 0.07 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Again Fsrrylandlng Urlve~ b~ginning at ~]~ intersection with Gordon School Road and going southerly 0.O6 mii~ to end in a cut-de-sac. Thio rs~uest is inclusive 'of the adjacent ~lope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. This road serves 18 lots. 90-173 And be it further resolved, that the Beard ef Supervisors guarantees to the Virqinia Department of Transportation a 5D~ right-of-way for alt of hheae reads. Smoker,es Wood~ ia recorded as follows: Plat Book 62, Page 38, August 1, 1988. This section of Smoker,es is recorded as follow~: Section D. Plat Book 34, Pages 4~ & 50, August 31, 197~_ Vote: Unanimous This day the Ceunty Environmental Engineer, in accordance with dlreotlo~s from this ~eard, made report in writing open his examination ef Caw0od Drive, Drakewood Read, Drak~wood Terrace, Drakewood Court, ~llesmere Drive, Drakewood Circle, Bosham A, F, G end a portion of Section s, ~idlo=hian District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion o~ ~r. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, it ia resolved that Caweod Drive~ brakewood Road, Drakewood Terrace, Drakswood Court, S!lesmere Glendower Court in Powderham, Sections A, F, G and a portion of Section B, Midlothian Distsict, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that th~ Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the with Roblous Read~ State Route 711~ and going ~outherly mile te end at the intersection with Drakewood Road~ Drakewood Road, beginning at the inter~ctien ~i~h Cawoo~ Driv~ and weeterty 0.03 mile te end et existing Drakewoed Drive, State Reute 4166. Agei~ D~akewood Road, beginning at the intersec- tion with Cawood Drive and going ea~terty 0.07 mile to the intersection with Drakewood Terrace, then continuing easterly the intersection with Drakewood Court, then continuing south- easterly 0.t2 mile te the int~r~etion with Ellesmare Drive, then continuing southeasterly 0.11 mile %0 the intersection ~ith Drakewood Circle, then continuing southeasterly ~.10 ~ile to end at the intersection with Bos~am Court and Bosham Lane~ Drakswood T~rrac~, b~ginninq ~[ ~h~ int~r~ction with Drakewood Read and going southerly 0.13 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Drakewood Court, begi~nlmg at the intersection with Read and going southwesterly 0.09 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Ellesm~re Drive, beginning at the intersection with Drakewood Read and going northcasterl~ ~,13 mile to end at the tion with Robious Road, State Route 711. Again Ellesmere Drive, b~ginning at the inte~ection with Drakewoed ~oad and going southwesterly 0.24 mile to end at e~isting D~ive~ State ReuSe 1069; Drakewoed Circle, beginninq at the in%ersmctien with Drakewood Road and going southwesterly 0.06 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Bosham Court, beginning at the intersection with ~rakewoo~ Road and soeham ~ane and going easterly 0.85 mil~ to end in a cul-de-sac; BOsham La~e, ginning at the fnterseGt~on with DraPeweed Road and sosham Court and going nouthwe~terly 0.13 m~le to end at existing Boaham Lan~, State Rout~ 1OS5; and Glendower Court, beginning geing northeasterly 0.15 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive ~f th~ adjacent slope~ ~ight distance and designated Virginia Dmpartment of Transpoztati©n drainage And be it further resolved, ~ha~ the Boar~ of S~perviaors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-el-way iox all of these roads ~xcept Drakewoed Road and EIlcsmere Drive which have a variable width 50' to 60' right-of-way, These sections of Powderham are recorded as follower section A. Plat Book 25, Pages 6B-69~ January 28, 1976. Section B. Plat Book 28, Page 63, April 20, 1977. Section F. Plat Beok 50t Page~ 48, 49 and 50, A~gu~t 19, 1985. Section G. Plat Book 53, ~ages 55 & 56, July !4, 1996, Vote: Unanimous Mr. Sullivan commended ~taff for their diligent ~fforts in pursuing ~h~ inclu$iuA of 9owderham subdivision in the state Secondary System. 15.C.2. A~4ENDMSNT TO A~ERICAN LEGION ~OST 186 BINGO On motion of Mr. Daniel~ seconded by Mr. Naye$, the ~eard amended-thc American Lsginn Post 196~s e~istlng bingo permit to allow bingo play on Tuesday night rather than ~onday night, which change is effect/va for calendar year 1990. 15.C.3.a. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 1~ OF THE COD~ OF TM~ COUNTY OF CHEMTEP~T~tD, 1978, AS AMENDED~ BY ADDING A NEW '~f~TION 10-19.2 RELATING TO DEBRIS ON CONSTRUCTION SITES There wam brief discussion relative to enforcement of the Drn~osed ordinance relating to debris ~n c~nstruction sites; if there wou~d be suffici~nt ~ontai~ers available for said purpose; the co,ts for purehame of the containers; On motion of Mr. Danielt seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board set the date of Narch 14, 1990, at 7:00 p.m., ~or a public hearing to conside~ an ordinance to amend Chapter 18 of thm Code of Count~ of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, relating to debrim on 15.C.3.b. TO CONSIDER A~ ~%~]SNDM~NT TO T~E ~ROTECTXV~ COv=NANTS, CONDITIONS AMD RESTRICTIONS FOR THE CHESTERFIELD AIR-- PORT INDUSTRIAL PARK On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board set the date nf ~arch 28, 1990, at 9:00 a.~.~ loc a ~ublic hearing to consider an amendment %0 ~he Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Ch=~t~rfield County Airport Industrial Park r~la~ive to the standards for parking let pavement. 90-175 2/14/90 ]5.C.3.e, TO CONSIDER A PEDPOSED LEASE BY THE UNITED STATES GOVEP~5~NT OF A ~ARCEL OF LAND AT TEE CEESTBRF~ELb COUNTY AIRPORT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN AUTOMATED WEATEER OBSERVATION SYSTEM On motion of Mr. Danle~ seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board the date of March 14, 1990, at 7:00 p.m.; for a public hearing (Federal Aviation Association) of a parcel of land at the Chesterfield County Airpor~ for the construction of an Automat=d Weather Observation System Vote: Unanimous 15.C.3.d. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTSRFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING ARTICLE III ELATING TO STREET NAMES AND BUILDING On motion o~ ~r. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes~ the Board set the date cf March 14~ 1990, at 7:90 p.m., for a public hearinq to consider an ordinance to amend th~ Coda uf the C0unt7 of Chesterfield 1978, as amended, rslatinq to ~treet names and building number$~ 15.C.4. C~ANGES IN THE STATE SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM ~OR CERTAIN On mo=ion of ~r. Daniel, seoonded by Mr. Mayas, the Board adopted the following resolution: W~EREAS, Con~truct~on of Route 625, Project Number 0625-020-5~04, later designated ag ~rojeo~ 0625-0~Q-R~l,MS01, has been ccn~tructed and approved by the State 5ighwey Commissioner, has changes in ~he Secondary System as the roa~s ~c altered. NOW, THEREFOr, BE IT RESOLVED, that portion of the old location of Route 625, i.e., Section i shown in blu~ on the sketch titled, "Changes in the Secondary Sy~te~ Due to R~looatio~ ~n4 Construction on Route 625, Project N~mb~r 0625-020-500~", dated at Richm©nd~ Virginia, January 12, t990~ a to,al distance of 0.I2 mile, does not ser~e a public need and is to be abandoned from the Secondary System of State Highway pursuant to Section 33.1-155 u~ the Code o~ Virginia of 1950, a~nded; AND FURTHER, that portion of Secondary Route 6~, i.e., Section 2 as shown in red on the sketch ti,lsd, "Changes in =he Secondary System Due to Relocation and Construction on Route 625, Project 0625-020-50~4~', dated at Richmond, Virginia, i~ added to the Secondary Sy~te~ of SSafie Eiqhwa~ pursuant to Section ~.1-299 cf the Code of Virginia cf 1950, amended. gore: 0nanimous 15.C.5. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR REPAIR~ TO SENATE STREET On mokicn of Mr. Dmniml~ meconded by Mr~ Mayem, the Board appropriated $~00 from ~ho Bermuda District Three Cen~ Road potholes. (It i~ noted the~e repairz will not bring this street up to State standards.) 15.C.6. AgPROPRiATION OF FUNDS POk ~AIRS TO OMAEA STREET On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board appropriated $4DD from the Bermuda Dis%riot Tkree Cent Road Fund te repair existing potholes in a section of Omaha Street. (It is noted these repairs will not bring =his street up te State standards.) 15.c.7. STOR~ WATDR MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AGREEMENT FOR SPRUANCE C~cEDIT UNION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Beard approved and aatho/ized the County Administrator to execute a Sto~m Water Management System Agreement with the owners of the Spruanee Credit Union. (It is noted the County's only inv01ve~ent is the assurance that the maintenance agreement is being followed by the owners.) 15.C.8. PYg~ SCHOOL BOARD GRANT k~9~0PRIATIONS On ~etien of Mr. Daniel, ~econd~d by Mx. Mayea, =he Board accepted the following School Grant~ and increased ~eVenues and expenditures to th~ appropriete categories, as indicated, by the amounts specified, which total $291,584: GRANT F¥90 Preschool Incentive FYgQ S~ecial Ed Inservice Equipment FYg0 ~andicapped StudenSs PYg0 Drug-From 8chool~ JTPA/CATC Titl~ II-~ Su~er School JTPA/CATC Titl~ II-A Phase I Vocational Assessment Project for ~an~ceDDed Students B~slness Internshipe for Vocational ~duca- tio~ Teachers, Administrators and Guidance Counselors Gifted in Technical Arts DESCBX~T~O~ Increase estimated Federal revenue and apprepriation~ Increase estima=ed Federal revenue and appropriation~ Increase estimated Federal revenue en~ appropriatien~ Increase sstlmated Federal revenue and appropriations Increase ~$tlmated Federal revenue and apprepriation~ Increase e~%Lmated Federal Incxease estimated Federal revenu~ and appropriations Increase estimated Fedezel revsnus and appropriations AMOUNT 1~,000 7,143 6,800 5~230 1~.6,737 8,000 16,1~ 41~031 5,000 5,000 5,000 ~0-177 SLIAG Inereas~ estimated ~ederal revenue and appropriations 17,50O Total: 291r584 (It is noted that no local funds are involved with any of these Vote: Unanimous 15 .C.9. AUTHORIZE COMmUnITY SERVICES BOARD TO ACCRPT AND/OR APPLY FOR GRANTS 15..C.9.b. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GRANT TO FUND REPLACEMENT OF THREE VE~ICL~ On motion of Mr. Daniel~ m~con~e~ Dy M:. ~ayem~ the ~oar~ authorized t~e Cor~nunity Servi~e~ ~oar~ te apply f~ a virginia D~partment of ~eespo~t~%en Gran~ I~he d~adlina ~or ~ran~ replace three {~) high milage (100,000 mile~+) vehicle~ (two 15-passenger vans and one 9~passenger bus equipped with a wheelchair ~ift and tiedown devices) c~rrently b~ing used to transport citizens with mental disabilitie~ to and from vehicles is approximately $?5,000; and further authorized the acceptance and appropriation of saia ~nnds, if awaraed. (It is noted the grant will finant~ 80% ($60,000} of the cost, with a 1coal match required u~ 20% [$15,00~}; and further, it is noted that, in accordance with ~he terms of the grant, th~ Department of Mental ~ealth/~en~al Retardation/$uh~tance Abume advertised ~ public notice of intent to apply for these funds in or,er to notify the public that may hays an interes~ in the application and allow for public coi~nent). 15.C_9.c~ APPROPRIATION 0P STATB 6RANT TO R~DUCE USE OF CENTRAL : STATE HOSPITAL On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. mayer, the Board accepted and appropriated in the amount of $17,500 to the Community Services ~oard from the Virginia Department of Mental Eealth/Mental Retardation/Sub~tan~e Abuse for the purchase of inpatient psychla~ric hospitalization services, the inten~ in awardin~ such fund being to provide an incentiv~ to reduce the utilization of Stat~ hospital inpatient services at Central State ~ospital to comply with ta~gst hospital population reduction levels ~t by the virginia D~ar~ment of Mental Eealth/Mental Retardation/~ubstancu Abuse that must bu met for three calendar period~ in FY90. (It i~ noted that, ab this time, no fun~s have been allocated for this project for FY91 and that %he Co~%%~nity Servi~e~ Board and Central StaLe Nespi~al have agreed to negotiate renewal and/er sxpansion of thi~ agreement by April 3~, 1990.). AN ORDINANCE CR/~ATING TEE CENTRAL VIRGINIA WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the ~oar~ re~che4uled th~ public he~ring ~o consider an ordinance creating ~he Central Virginia Waste ~anagement Authority from February 28, 1990, at 9~00 a.m. to March 18, 1990, at 9~00 a.m. i i i !5.C.11. REQUEST FOR BINGO/RAFFL~ On motion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the approved a request from the Brand~mill Women's Club bingo permit for calendar year 1990. Vote: Unanimous 15.C.12. AUT~0~IZATION FOE PARKS AND ~CK~ATZON DEPARTMENT TO APPLY ~OR HISTORIC PRESERVATION GRANT FUNDS FOR Board for a 0n motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Mayee~ the Board authorized the Parks and Recreation Department to apply to the virginia Department of ~istcrlc Re~ource$ for am Historic Preservation Grant Fund, in the amount of $~4,696, for ~ppington, which funds will be used 9or masonry repairs, archeology, master planning, security measures and to prepare the facility for public enjoyment. (It is noted ~atohing funds, totalling $44~696, will come from the followi~g soBrcee; $10,000 - Matoaca District Three Cent Road Fund; $20,196 - the t985 Matoaca Park Bond Fund (F¥19~0 Parks ~nd ~ecreatio~ 0pe/a~ing Pond); and $14,~00 - La~e Chesdin Project.)~ Vote: Unanimous 15.D. APPOINTMENTS - SOCIAL $~RVIC~$ DOARD On motion of Mr. Apple§at~, ~eeunded b~ Mr. Sullivan, the Roard suspended its rulee to allow simultaneou~ nomination/appoint- ment of a nominee to serve on the Social Services Board to fulfil the unexpired term of Mrs. Elsie S. Blmore. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the ~oard ~imultaneou~ly nominate~/appointed Mrs. Lynn Cooper %o carve on the Social 9ervlcee Board, whose ~er~ is effective March 1, 1990, through JUDe 30, 1990~ to fulfill the unexpired term of Mrs. Elsie S. Elmo~e. Vote: Unanimous The Board requested %hat a resolution commanding Mrs. ~lsie S. ~lmore's service during her ~enure with the Cheeterfield County Social Services Board be prepared for presentation at a future date. 15.E. C0~MUNITY DEVELOPmenT ITEMS 15.E.1. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS On motion of Mr. Currln, ~eonded by ~r. Sullivan, ~he ~oard approved the cost for street light installations for the following locations, with funds to be expended in the amount of $ 3,710.56 from the Bermuda District Streetlight Fund and the balance of f~nd~ in ~e amount of $59.44 to be expended from the Bermuda Dis%riot Three Cent Road Fund: 2, Intersection of Old Central Road and ~illtop Parms Drive, 3. Intersection of Riggers Station Drive and Trailtop Terrace, $1,277.0~; 90-I79 2/14/90 14500 Jefferson Davis $1,383. Highway (Mack'~ Iron Co., approved obtaining cos% a$timates for the installation of Magiege~ial Districtt 4. Intersection of Rerrybreok Drive an4 Little Creek La~, 15.E.]. S~EET NAM~ CHA~G~$ l~.~.3.a.,b.,c. ~A~E ~EL~ONT ~QAD~ FROM COUBTHUUSB THE NBW INDUSTRIAL PARK ENTRANCE, TO W~ITEPINH ROAD; HeAD TQ RENAME NEWBYS BRIDGE ROAD, BETWEEN COURTHOU$~ ROAD AND QUALLA CLAYPOINT ROAD; AND RENAME NORTH BAII~Y BRIDGE ROAD, FRO~ U.S. ROUTE 360 TO BAILEY BRIDGE ROAD, TO CLAYPOINT ROAD On motion of Mr. ~ayee, seconded by ~r. Applegata, the Board approved the renaming of the following streets due to road realignment~ in oonjunction with Ro~te 28§= 1. Belmont Road to Whitepine Road from its c~rrent fnt~rgection with Courthons~ Read to th~ planned intersection of the proposed exteneion of Whitepine Koad: 2. North Bailey Bridge Road~ from U.S. Re~te 360 to Bailey ~rldge Road, to Claypeint Road; and 3. Nawbys Bridge Road, between Courthouse Road and Qualla Road, to claypoint Road. When asked~ M~. McElfish indicated staff had not contacted any of thoee homeowners along the a£feeced roads as the inten~ of this item was only to bring to the Board's attention the existing ~ituatien for t~e purpose of ~tablishing consistency in stree~ names, maintaining ground ront~ continuity and assisting public safety. He further explained the procedure by which staff notifies residents when street nam~ are changed. ~r. Naye~ withdrew his motion; Mr. Applegate withdrew his On motion of Mr. Mayes~ seconded by Mr, Applegate~ the Board deferred until March 14, 1990, consideration of the renaming o~ the following streets so that the appropriate citizens residing along %h~ affected stree~s may be notified of the following proposed chanqe~: I. Belmont Road to Whitepin~ Road from ire current intersection with Courthouse Road to the planned intersection of the proposed extension of Whitcpiue Road; 2. North Bailey Bridge Road, fre~ U.S. Ro~te 36Q to Bailey Bridge Road, to Claypo/nt Road; and 90-1~0 2/14/90 3. Newbys Bridge Road, between Co~rtheuse Road and Quells Road, to claypoint Road. Vote: Unanimous 1S.F. UTILITIES DEPARTMEWT ITEM8 1§.F.1. PUBLIC HEARINGS 15.F.l.a. TO CONSIDEK A/q QNQIWANCE TO VACATB A PORTION OF A PERMANENT BUFFER STRIP IN BRIGHTON G~ SUBDIVISION, SECTION 14, AT THE REQUEST OF MR. GEORGE B. SOWERS, SR. Mr. Sale ~kat~d this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing tc consider the vacation of a pe~q~an¢nt buffur strip within Brighton Green S~bdivision, Section 14, whic~ is tions of zoning. ~r. Sullivan ~tated that hQ had discussed this matter with the applicant and residents in Brighton Green Subdivision an~ it ha~ come to the attention of those involved that they would be better ~erved by a thirty (30) day deferral_ On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegate, th~ Board deferred until ~arsh 14, 1990, at 7:00 D.m., the public hearing buffer strip in Brighton Green subdivision, Section 14~ at she reques~ of Mr. George B. Sowe~s, Br. l$.F.l.b. TO CONSIDER AM ORDINANCN TO VACATE WESTRORD ROAD~ ~NCLUDING lQ FOOT'CON,TRaCTION EASEMBNTS, IN QUE~S- PARK AT THE REQUEST OF MR. DONALD L. AND MS. KEARIN M. KASPNR Mr. Sale sEa%ed this date and time had been adverti$~ Sot a public hearing to consider an ordinance to vacate a fifty foot stub road known as Westford Read, including 10~ cons%ruc- tion easements, in Queenspark Subdivision, Section ~, Blocks A and C. No one came forward kc speak in favor of or against th~ proposed ordinance. On motion of Mr, Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegatm, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN 0RDINANC= to vacate a 50' S~ub Road tien easements, in Queenspsrk Subdivision, Section B, Midlothian District, Chester- field, Virginia, as shown on a pla~ thereof dul~ recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court u~ Chesterfield in Plat Book 53~ Pages 20 end 21. WHEREAS, Donald L. Keeper and Kearin M. Ka~per, petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia vacate a Stub Road known as Westford ROad and 10' construc~isn ea~amen=s in Queenspark subdivision, Section B, Midlothian District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat cf record in the Clerk's Office of th~ Circuit Court of said County in Plat Rook 83, Pages 20 and 2%, ~ad~ by J. K. Timmons & Associates, Inc.~ ~ated April 11, 1986. Th~ gfnb 90-181 2/14/90 road petitioned to be vacated is more fully dezcrihod foltows~ A ~O' Stub Road known as Wee:ford Road and 10' cons:ruction easements adjacent to Lot 1, Block C, a~d Lot 10, Block A, in Queenspark subdivision, Section B, tho lOCation of which is more fully shown, on a plat by J. E. Ti~ons & Associates, which iz attached. WBEI~EAS, notice has been given pursuant to 15.1-431 of the Cede of Virginia, 1950, az amended, by advertizing; and WEB,AS, no public necessity exists for th~ ~ontinuanc~ of the stub road sought to be vacated. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF C~EET~R~IELD COUNTY, That purguant ~o Section 1~.1-4~2(b) of the Code of Vfr~inia~ 1950~ as amended, the aforesaid stub road be and is hereby vacated. The Grantees hereby convey on:o the County and the County hereby rsserve~ an 8' utility easement and a 25' waterline easement as ~hown on the attached plat. Thi~ Ordinance in no way effects :he private $0' road recorded in Plat Book 4, Tage 29. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect accordance with section 1~.1-482(b) Of the ~o__de of Virginia, 19~0, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance, togothzr with the Dian attached hereto shall be recorded no sooner than thirty day~ h~r~after in th~ Cl~rk's Offic~ of the Circuit Court of Chez:erfieid County, Virginia pursuant Sec:ion 15.I-4~5 of the Code cf Viri~_~, 19~0, ~s amended. The effect of this Ordinance purzuant to Section 15.1-453 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion of the plat vacated. This Ordinance shall vest fee in the ~wnerz of the abutting lots within the Queenspark Subdivision, Section B, free and clear of any rights of publi0 Acec~ding/y, this o~dinan~e shall be indexed in the names of the County of Ches:~rfield, as ~rantor, and Richard L. Hcdrick and ~ary T. Hedrick, {huzbend and wi~e), end ~ichael A. Blaustein and Rlizabeth G. A. Btausteln, (husband and wife), or their successors in tinier as grantee. Vot~: UnaDimoue 15.F.2. ~WABD OF ~GI~I~G ¢©~T~J~CT FOR SUP~AVISQ~¥ CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION On mo:ion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board awarded a contract ~or anglnearinq services for a ~upervieory Control and Data Acquisition S~stem {SCADA) which computer driven and employs the mo~t surrent technology for water system control, to Camp, Dresser and McKee at a c~$t of $114,734; th~ total cost of th~ project, including engineering and con,traction, estimated to be approximately $760,000; and further~ the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for said contract. (It is noted $760~0~0 was previously appropriated for this project.) 90-182 2/14/90 15.E.3. CONSENT ITEMS 15.E.3.a. AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR ROUTE 60 AND ELK~ARDT ROAD WATER TA~KS On motion of Mr. Sullivan, secondsd by Mr. Currin, the Board swarded Contract Number $7-6190 for the construction of a five (5) million gallon water tank on Route 60 tocat~d j~t west of Huq~enot Springs Road and Contract Number 8~-0651 for the construction of a three (~) million gallon tank on Elkhardt Road (Additional Elkhardt Wste~ Tank) located just off Elkhardt Road, to the lowest bi~d~r~ Advance Tank and Construction Company, in the amount of $1,884,~19.00; and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary document~ for said contracts. (It is noted funding for this projset has bsen previously appropriated.) Vo~e: Unanin~ous 15.F.3.b. REQUEST TO QUITCLAIM A PORTION OF A 16 FOOT DRAINAGE BASEMENT ACROSS PROPERTY OWNED BY INVESTORS WOODLA~ D~VELOEMENT CORPOP~TION. ON T~E EAST L~NE OF TIMBER BLUFF PARKWAY On motion Of Mr. Sullivan, ~econded by Mr. C~rrln~ tko Board authorized the Chairman of the Board and County Administrator to ex,cute a .c~itclaim d~d to vaca~ a portion of a 1~' drainage easement asros~ property owned by Inve~tcrs Woodlake Development Corporation~ known as Tax Parcel 60-4(1)8, subject to r~cordation of replacement easement. (A copy o~ said plat i~ filed wi~h the paper~ of this Board.) REQUEST TO QUITCLAIM A PORTION OF A 16 FOOT SE~R EASEMENT ACROSS ~ROPERTY OWNED BY IN~sTQ~S WOODLAKE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ON THE EAST LINE OF TIMBER BLUFF PARKWAY On motion o~ Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board authorized the Chairman of the Board and County Administrator to &x~cute a quitclaim deed to vacate a porEioo of a 16' ~ewer easement and a 20' eonstr~otion e&~ement across p~operty owned by Investors Woodlake Development Corporation, known as Tax Pa~esl 50-4(1)8, sub~ect to recordation of replacement easennent~ (A ~opy of said plat is filed with the pa.per~ Of this ~oard.) Vote: Unanimous l~.P.2.d. A¢CEPTAE¢~ OF DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG ADKZNS ROAD FROM JAMES L. AND BARBAR~ N. HEDGES On motion of Mr~ Sullivan, s~conded by Mr. C~zrln, the Board accepted, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a 20' strip of land along Adkins Road fro~ Mr. J~es L. He,Sss and MS. Barbara N. Hedges, and authorized th~ Count~ Administrator to ~x~ute the n~cessary deed of d~dlcatien. (A ccpy of eaid pla~ is filed with the papers of th~ Board.) Vote: Unanimou~ tS.F_~_ REPORTS ~r. Sale pre~ented the Doard with a r~port on the developer 90-183 2/14/90 water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrato~. 15.G. R~PORTS Mr. Ramsay presented the Board with a status report on the General Fund Contingency Aououn%, General Fund Balance, Reserve for Future Capital Prujectu, District Road and Street Light formally notified the County of the ace~ptanc~ of the following roads into the Stats Secondary Syetem: ADDITION~ LENGTH CRDAR CROSSING ~E2~ective 2/2/90) Route 375~-('w~Gh Bl~f~ Parkway} - Fro~ O.IO mile ~orthwest Route 376~ to 0.02 mils ~erth Route ~765. Route 3768 (Lady Ashlsy Road) - From Route 3750 0.09 mile Northwest ~oute 3769. 0.15 Mi. Ro~te 3769 (Lady Ashley Gourt) - From Route 3768 to ~or=h c~l-~e-sao. OLD CREEK W~$T - SECTION 9 (~fec~ive 1/16/90) Route 837 (West Road) - From Route ~292 to 0.01 mile Southwest Route 4044. Route 4042 (West Terrace) - From 0.05 mile NortS- west Route ~7 to 0.10 mil~ ~outheast Rout~ ~7. Ro~te 4043 IWest Court) - From Ro~te 837 to South- east cul-de-sac. Ro~te 40A4 {We~t Circle} - F~Om ROute 837 tO NO,th- west cul-de-sac. 0.18 Mi. 0.15 ~i~ 0.05 Mi. 0.05 Mi. CASTL~ GL~ (~ffective 1/16/901 Route 4220 (Cu~tle Glen T~rrace) - From Route 672 to Southwest out-de-saC. Route 4221 (Castle Glen Circle) - From Route ~220 to Northwest cul-de-sac. Route 4222 (Castle Glen Drive) - From Route 4220 to 0.08 mile NoTthwe~t ~ou~e 4220. Route 4223 (Castle Glen Court) - From Route 4220 to ~orthw~st cul-de-sac. 0.2~ Mi. 0.05 Mi. 0.08 ~i. 0.08 Mi. Effectiv~ 1/22/90 Route 2152 (~andle COurt) - From 0.07 mile We~t RO~te 651 to 0.22 mil~ We~t Route 6~1. Mi. WILLIAM GWYN ESTATES - SEC~tO~ F (Effective 2/5/90) Route 3036 (Speaks Drive) - Prom 0.05 m~le North Route 26~6 to Northwest o~l-de-sac. 0.22 ~4i. 90-194 2/14/90 16. ADJOUP~NT On motion of Mr. Applegate, secon~ hy ~r. ~u!!ivan, the Board adjourned at 1=15 a.m. on February 1S~ 1990, until 7:30 a.m. o~ February 21, 1990, at ~h~ Co~onwealth Park HutsI for a breakfast meeting with the .Chesterfield County Legislative Delega%ion. Vote: Unanimous County A~ministrator 90-185 Chairman 2/14/90