03-12-1975 PacketMCCAU1, GRIGSBY AND PeARSall
ATTORNEYS AT Law
EUGENE W. McCAUL
JOHN T. GRIGSBY
JOHN W. P£ARSALL
BLACKWELL N, SHELLEY
FRANCIS C. LEE
/~ICHARD H. C. TAYLOR
MELVIN R. MANNING
JOHN W. PEARSALL~ T~t
JAMES D. DAVIS
March 6, 1975
1005 UNITED ViRGINiA BANK BUILDING
9TH AND MAIN STREETS
RICHMOND~VIRGINIA 23~J9
Mr. M. W. Burnett
Executive Secretary
County of Chesterfield
Courthouse Road
Chesterfield, Virginia
23832
Re:
Irbane H. Ingram
Vacation of 16-foot alley easement
Lot 8, Block C, Section A, Stonehenge
Dear Mel:
Your office advised me that the Board of Supervisors had
approved the Ordinance vacating the aforesaid easement at its last
meeting. The requirements of Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia,
unfortunately, had not been complied with at the time of the resolution
since the last advertising took place on February 27. I had requested
your office to put this matter on the agenda for March 12 at 9:00 a.m.
If you would be good enough to reschedule it for that time, anyone
complying with the notice will then have an opportunity to be heard,
and unless the Board reverses its decision, it could be again passed
at that time.
For your records, I enclose the certification of the Richmond
Times-Dispatch and our check made payable to Lewis H. Vaden, Clerk, in
the amount of $8.00 for the cost of recording the resolution. Please
delay the recording, however, until after the March 12 hearing date.
It will be my intention to be present at that time.
Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.
Yours truiyr
Enclosures
II C 1.40
Blackwell N. Shelley
PETITION
TO: THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Chesterfield County, Virginia
Re: Vacation of an unopened 16 foot wide alley easement
in Stonehenge Subdivision, Section A.
Your petitioners, Irbane H. Ingram and Frances W. Ingram, his
wife, respectfully represent unto the Board as follows:
1. That they are the record owners of those certain pieces or
parcels of land designated and identified as Lot 8, and the "reserved
lot" adjoining, in Stonehenge Subdivision, Section A, the subdivision
plat of which was made by F. T. Seargent, Certified Land Surveyor, dated
September 20, 1966, recorded October 13, 1966, in Plat Book 15, pages 62,
63 and 64, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield
County, Virginia.
2. That said lot and reserved parcel front on the eastern line
of Harwick Drive and the southerly 16 feet of said Lot 8 is subject to a
16 foot alley easement along the entire length of the southerly line of
said Lot 8 from the eastern line of Harwick Drive and extending eastwardly
to the property line of Lester J. Hancock, all as shown on the aforesaid
recorded subdivision plat.
3. That said easement has not been used for any purpose since
its dedication.
4. That the petitioners by agreement dated April 1, 1974, and
recorded January 21, 1975, in Deed Book 1142, page 580, aforesaid Clerk's
Office, conveyed to Bonarco Corporation, the subdivider of Stonehenge,
Section A, an easement for drainage and utilities 8 feet in width along the
southeasterly line of the aforesaid reserved lot and Lot 8, as shown on the
plat by Lewis & Owens, Inc., Engineering and Surveying, dated March. 19,
1974, and revised January 24, 1975, a copy of which is attached hereto,
as "Proposed 8' Easement" and that Bonarco Corporation by said agreement
agreed that it would, upon being requested by the County of Chesterfield,
Virginia, convey said easement to said County.
5. That the portion of said 16 foot easement proposed to be
vacated is the area shown in hatch marks and outlined in red on the
attached plat and is described as a parcel 16 feet in width running east-
wardly from Hayrick Drive along the southerly line of said Lot 8 to the
northwesterly line of the easement referred to in item "4" above.
6. That the said 16 foot alley easement serves, no useful or
worthwhile public purpose, and its use is detrimental to your petitioners
causing substantial damage to their property.
WHEREFORE, your petitioners pray that the Board of Supervisors
will consider the ordinance attached hereto for adoption and approve and
pass the same in order that the 16 foot wide alley' easement be vacated
in accordance with Section 15,1-482 of the Code of Virginia (~950) as
amended.
McCaul, Grigsby and Pearsall
Attorneys at Law
1005 United Virginia Bank Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Respectfully submi%ted,
IRBANE H. INGRAM and FRANCES W. INGRAM
Of Counael ~
APPROVED
PEANNING DEPARTMENT,
v'"?t
co ucr~ART~4ENT
OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA
DATE--~-~.~g-/~7~By~ ~/~'~' ~
i
I
I
/
!
!
!
/
,/
TAKE NOTICE that on the day of , 1975, at
, or as soon thereafter as may be heard, the Board of Super-
visors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, at its regular meeting
place in the Board Room of the County Courthouse at Chesterfield,
Virginia, will consider the following vacation ordinance for adoption:
AN ORDINANCE to vacate a portion of a 16 foot wide alley ease-
ment along the southerly line of Lot 8, Block C, Section A, Stonehenge
Subdivision, a plat of which made by F. T. Seargent, Certified Land
Surveyor, dated September 20, 1966, recorded October 13, 1966, in Plat
Book 15, pages 62, 63 and 64, Clerk's Office, Circuit Court of Chester-
field County, Virginia, the said portion of said 16 foot wide alley
easement being more particularly shown on map prepared by Lewis & Owens,
Inc., Engineering and Surveying, dated March 19, 1974, revised January 24,
1975, a copy of which is attached to the proposed Ordinance, and by
reference made a part thereof.
The complete text of the proposed Ordinance is on file in the
office of the County Administrator, Chesterfield County, Virginia, and
may be examined by all interested parties between the hours of 9:00 A. M.
and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday.
DOUGLAS B, FUGATE, COMMISSIONER
'LEONARD R. HALL, BRISTOL, BRIRTOL DISTRICT
HORACE G, FRALIN, ROANOKE, *$AL~'M DI,~TRI(.T
THOMAS R. GLASE, LYNCRBURG, LYNCHBURG DI~;TR.rCT
MORRILL M. CROWE, RICHMOND, RICHMOND DI,~TRICT
WILLIAM T. RODS, YORKTOWN, ~(;UFFOLK DI,5'TR]CT
DOUGLAS G. JANNEY, FREDERICKSBURG, FREDERICKSBURG D[gTR/CT
RALPH A. BRETON, FALLS CHURCH, CU£PEPI~R DIRTRICT
ROBERT S. LANDES, STAUNTON, ETA UNTON
T. RAY HABSELL, Itl, CHESAPEAKE, AT
CHARLES S. HOOPER, JR., CREWE, AT £ARGE-RUR/IL
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION
1221 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
L, E, BRETT, JR.
DISTRICT ENGINEER
March 7, 1975
JOHN E. HARWOOD
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHIEF ENGINEER
W. S. G. BRITTON
DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION
H. GORDON BLUNDON
DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
J. Hi. WRAY, JR.
DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
J. P. ROYER, JR.
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
P. B. COLDIRON
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO
OFFICE OF DISTRICT ENGINEER
PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA 23803
Mr. M. W. Burnett, County Administrator
County of Chesterfield
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear Mr. Burnett:
1975
Pre-A1 location Hearings
The Department of Highways and Transportation in a continuing effort
to give citizens and public officials additional opportunity to partic-
ipate in the transportation decision-making process is again scheduling a
series of public meetings throughout the Commonwealth.
As in the past, these meetings are being scheduled to specifically
obtain citizens' advice in advance of the preparation of tentative
allocations of Interstate, Arterial, Primary and Urban funds for the
next fiscal year beginning July 1, 1975. As provided under the law,
requests for secondary road allocations should be withheld until annual
public hearings are conducted by County Board of Supervisors and Resident
Engineers.
We want to continuously impress upon all interested and responsible
individuals that their input will form a vital part of the Highway
Department Action Plan for the involvement of the citizen in highway
matters.
The meeting for the Richmond District is on Tuesday(~'~-~-ch 25' 197~,-~'~
~n the Conference Room of the District Office locate~
Drive, just north of Colonial Heights.
A HIGHWAY IS AS SAFE AS THE USER MAKES IT
Page 2
March 7, 1975
You are invited to attend and to express your thoughts relative to
these matters.
Very truly yours,
~District Engineer
Va. Dept. of Hwys. and Trans.
P. O. Box 391
Petersburg, Virginia 23803
LEBjr:lml
cc: Mr. D. B. Fugate Mr. J. E. Harwood
Mr. W. S. G. Britton
1975
Robert A,
County o~ Chescer£ield,
Cheeter£ield, Va.
been ~ o~hr, ~or n m~t as .h~. ~ese o~ers ~ve
~R
Albert F~. ~avez & ~: ~
Bettie ~. WeaveF ~-dLothLtn ~J~er
& Censc~e O. bynolds Clover Hi/ ~r
Jo~n L. ~Jame &
~ OF
ST~.,,3OT/C
~ 72a.63
S7~-62C/$ $ 133.25
.$ i~ere ly,
A. J B::i~d~
Robert A. Fatnce~,, Coun~ ~Aneer
DOUGLAS B. FUGATE, COMMISSIONER
LEONARD R. HALL, BRISTOL, BRISTOL DISTRICT
HORACE G, FRALIN, ROANOKE, SALEM DISTRICT
THOMAS R, GLASS, LYNCHBURG, LYNCHBURG D1STRICT
MORRILL M. CROWE, RICHMOND, RICHMOND DI,~TR1CT
WI LLIAM T. ROOS, YORKTOWN, ,~;UFFOLK DI,~TR1C?
DOUGLAS G. JANNEY, FREDERICKSBURG, FREDERICK~BURG DISTRICT
RALPH A, BEETON, FALLS CHURCH, CULPEPL~ DISTRICT
ROBERT S. LANDES, STAUNTON. STAUHTON DISTRICT
T. RAY HASSELL, Ill, CHESAPEAKE, AT£ARGE-URBAN
CHARLES S. HOOPER, JR., CREWE, AT LARGE-RURAL
L. E. BRETT, .IR.
DISTRICT ENGINEER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRglNIA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION
1221 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
March 10, 1975
JOHN E. HARWOOD
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHIEF ENGINEER
W. S. G. BRITTON
DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION
H. GORDON BLUNDON
DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
J. M, WRAY, JR.
DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
J. P. ROYER. JR.
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
P. B. COLDIRON
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
iN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO
OFFICE OF DISTRICT ENGINEER
PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA 23803
Mr. M. W. Burnett, County Administrator
County of Chesterfield
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear Mr. Burnett:
Reference is made to my letter of March 7th, concerning
Pre-Allocation Hearings.
The time has now been set for 10:00 A.M. on March 25,
Sincerely,
L. E. Brett, Jr.
District Engineer
the 1975
1975.
LEBjr:lml
A HIGHWAY IS AS SAFE AS THE USER MAKES IT
~. John L. Ad~s
Mrs. Viv {a~ A. ~s
1406 Cc~federate Avenue
R~ch~nd, V~r~
~aary 25, 197~
~r ~s~t ~e~t c~os~
g ~ Pond Ln Cheeterff
T~b~ ........ .... -. · -
Total ........... .... ........
f-' Please a~ise by Fridey,~ch 7, 1975 tf chum Im smtim~actc~:
assure tc reply will be ~terp~e~
~ the ev~c that
sented to the ~.o~d o{ ~u~rvimorm on U~ueedey, ~rch 12, 1975,
tot their rev~,
~y questions ~e~arding the above~ please feel free
contac this o~iee or my hom~ at any tiu~e.
A. J. ~Ftdgem
)=~tght o~ ~Aay ~4gineer
.~'~O. Home~. ~9~oerviso~ - Clover Hill
J. C, Falcor~r, ~uatyAssessor
Robert A. Painter, Cotmty Eng~er
'0
~r. Albert F. Weaver
~rs. Berrie ~. Weaver
1700 Salisbury l~ive.
Midlothian, Vh. 2311i
Dear ~r. & ~rs, ~esver:
February 25, 1975
ted in Midlothi~ Dis--,--"~.~_~.~.Y-?e_io~gin~ ~o you
offer of ~v "~, ~S~err~eld ~t V~
P~per~y
$ 411 O0
T~er .,,.,,.,.,,..,...,,,,,,.,.,,
· ~al ,,.,,,,.,.,.,,,..,,,,,..,.,...,,,,, $
. ~a by F tday
t~tOry; fail~e Co ~eply will be interpreted as re~eal o
~n the event that this offset is rejected, it will be
P~esented to the ~oard of Supervisors on ~ednesday, ~trch 12, 1975
for their revt~.
~my questions resardtn~ ~he above, please feel free tc e~mt~t
~his office or my home at any tt~e.
Yougs very tidally,
A. J. Bridges
R~h~; of Way Engineer
COl A. J. ~epela, Supervisor ~ Mtglo~hian District
M~c:: ~' W. Bu~ecc~ ~cy l~istrator
: J. C. Faic~er, ~ty Assessor
cCI ~e~t A, Pa~ez, County
~cta. 2
----- j
February 25, lg75
Dear Hr. & ~s. Reyr~Id$:
re: ~ap Section: 38-16
Project No. $74-62C/4
Property:
Ja~es ~. R~ynolds ,
, :~'~nclosed, please find the oft inll and one copy of standard
P posed ae~er ~d drainage.
An o~er o~ I~ fl~n~red and aeveaLy seven Oolla:a (~277.~)
la hereby made for the ~se 0~ your land as outlim~
Property right~
$ 17.0o
.... ....... .... ........
Please advise bY Friday, March 7, 1975 if this is satisfacc~y;
failure ~o reply will be ~nterpre~ a8 re~aal.
~ the ev~t that this offer ~$ refu~, i= will be
scheduled ~eettnS, March ~2,
contact thts office a= ~y
Yours very truly,
Right of d~:y EP4~Zneer
Copies to: ~v~ G. Homer , ~Pe~ilot - Clover flill District
/~. W. Burets, !~Cy Administrator
J. C. Falconer,
/0
/
Bf':~Ol[.-:_. MILL,,:;.-'F/k"<~.~' !l"t ~'~ fz]i Jf~"'r'[!!Al':~
:co/c./ :,.5,0'
,_G ?.J.
BODIE, ~VllLLs, TAYLOR & PURYEAFI
INC
DOUGLAS B FUGATE, COMMISSIONER
LEONARD R HALL, BRISTOL, flRISTOI DISTRI(']
HORACE G FRALIN, ROANOKE, S'AI, I'.M DISTRIUI'
THOMAS R. GLASS. LYNCHBURG, AYNE'I~tJUR(; DISIRI('T
MORRILL M CROWE, RICHMOND, I~ICILtfOND DISTRICT
WI LLIAM T. ROOS, YORKTOWN, SUff"E'OLK DISTRICT
DOUGLAS G JANNEY, FREDERICKSBURG, FRE'DE'RIUKA'BLRU DIS'TRfCT
RALPH A. BEETON. FALLS CHURCH, CULPEPA'R DISTRIE'T
ROBERT S. LANDES. STAUNTON, ,~7~'1 {Jr,TM DI,S'TRI(I'
T. RAY HASSELL, III, CHESAPEAKE, ATLARGE.'.URBAA
CHARLES S. HOOPER, JR., CREWE, A T LARGE-RURAl.
GG-,7-.IMoNWEALTI+ OF I
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION
1221 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
March 3~ 1975
JOHN E. HARWOOD
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHIEF ENGINEER
W. S. G. BRITTON
DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION
H. GORDON BLUNDON
DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
J. M. WRAY, JR., DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
J. P. ROYER, JR.
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
P. B. COLDIRON, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
IN REPLY PLEASEREFERTO
Secondary System
Additions
Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County
Chesterfield Court House, Virginia 23832
Gentlemen:
As requested in resolution by your Board on November 13, 1974, the following
additions to the Secondary System of Chesterfield Coumty are hereby approved~
effective March 1, 1975.
ADDITION LENGTH
HICKORY HILL ESTATES - SECTION B
Ravensbourne Drive - From its intersection with Hickory Road
(Rte. 628) southwardly 0.07 mi. to Winterbourne Drive, thence
southwardly 0.03 mi. to a ~ul-de-sac.
0.10 Mi.
Winterbourne Drive - From its intersection with Ravensbourne
Drive, southeastwardly 0.07 mi. to Winterbourne Court, thence
southeastwardly 0.11 mi. to Willowdale Dr.
0.18 Mi.
Willowdale Drive - From its intersection with Hickory Road
(Rt. 628) southwardly 0.05 mi. to Winterbourne Drive, thence
southwardly 0.03 mi. to a cul-de-sac,
0.08 Mi.
Winterbourne Court - From its intersection with Winterbourne
Drive 0°03 mi. southwardly to a cul-de-sac.
Copies:
Mr. A. S. Mattox
Mr. Jo P. Mills, Jr,
Mr. A. S. Brown
Mr. L. E. Brett, Jr.
Mr. L. H. Dawson, Jr.
0.03 Mi.
j.I_E._ Harwood,_ Deputy Commissioner
Chief Engineer
Mr. E. L. Covington, Jr. - Chesterfield
A HIGHWAY IS AS SAFE AS THE USER MAKES IT
DOUGLAS B FUGATE, COMMISSIONER
LEONARD R HALL, BRISTOL, HRI5101 DISli~I(
THOMAS R. GLASS, LYNCHBURG, Ly,~£'IIBURG DISTRICT
WILLIAM T. ROOS, YORKTOWN, ,SUFE'OLK
RALPH A. BEETON, FALLS CHURCH, ('ULPEIqfR DL~?'RICT"
ROBERT S. LANDES, STAUNTON, ,%7:-1U.~/?O,¥ DISTRICT
T, RAY RASSELL, Ill, CHESAPEAKE, AT I,ARGE.UR~A,%
CHARLES S, HOOPER, JR., CREWE, Al' ],ARGt£.RURAL
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION
1221 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
March 3, 1975
JOHN E. HARWOOD
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHIEF ENGINEER
W. S. G. BRITTON
DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION
N. GORDON SLUNDON
DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
J. M. WRAY, JR., DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
J. p. ROYER, JR.
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
P. 8. COLDIRON, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
tN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO
Secondary System
Additions
Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisers of Chesterfield County
Chesterfield Court House, Virginia 23832
Gentlemen:
As requested in resolution by your Board on December 30, 1974, the following
additions to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County are hereby approved,
effective March 1, 1975.
LENGTH
ADDITION
CHESTERBROOK FARMS SUBDIVISION
Birdie Lane - Beginning at a point 0.14 mile westerly, thence
northerly from its intersection with State Route 1582, northerly
0.11 mile to its intersection with Empire Parkway thence
northerly 0.09 mile to its intersection with McAllister Drive
thence northerly 0.03 mile to a dead end.
McAllister Drive-Beginning at its intersection with State Route
1521 westerly 0.16 mile to its intersection with Birdie Lane,
thence westerly 0.15 mile to its intersection with Empire
Parkway.
Empire Parkway-Beginning at its intersection with State Route
1521 westerly 0.16 mile to its intersection with Birdie Lane,
thence northwesterly 0,17 mile to its intersection with
McAllister Drive thence northwesterly 0.06 mile to a cul-de-sac.
Copies:
Mr. A. S. Mattox
Mr. J. P. Mills, Jr.
Mr. A. S. Brown
Mr. L. E. Brett, Jr.
Mr. L. H. Dawson, Jr.
Mr. E. L. Covington, Jr. - Chesterfield
0.23.Mi.
0.31 Mi.
0.39 Mi.
Commis s ioner
Chief Engineer
A HIGHWAY IS AS SAFE AS THE USER MAKES IT
DOUGLAS B. FUGATE, COMMISSIONER
LEONARD R HALL, BRISTOL, HRIS701 I)ISTRI(7
HORACE G FRAL~N, ROANOKE, .%'ALI:M DISPRICT
THOMAS R. GLASS, LYNCHBURG, I.Y~¥ETIBURG DIfi'TRICT
MORRILL M CROWE, RICHMOND, RICHAIO/V~ DISTRICT
WILLIAM T. ROMS, YORKTOWN, SUE'E~)f,K I)ISTRICT
DOUGLAS G JANNEY, FREDERICKSBURG, FRI:'DI:'RI('KS'BbRG DI,~'I'RIC7
RALPH A. BEETON, FALLS CHURCH, CE'LPI:PEfR DIB'TRICT
ROBERT S. LANDES, STAUNTON, .S'7~1 UNTO.%' DL(;TRK.'T
T, RAY HASSELL, III, CHESAPEAKE, AT IARGI.£.URBH.N
CHARLES S. HOOPER, JR., CREWE,AT£ARGI'.'-RUf{.4L
(3C.' 'iMoNWEALT I+
JOHN E. HARWOOD
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHIEF ENGINEER
W. S, G. BRITTON
DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION
H. GORDON BLUNDON
DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
J.M. WRAY, JR.,DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
J.P. ROYER, JR.
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION
1221 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
February 27, 1975
P. B. COLDIRON, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO
Secondary System
Additions
Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County
Chesterfield Court House, Virginia 23832
Gentlemen:
As requested in resolution by your Board on December 11, 1974, the
following additions to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County
are hereby approved, effective March 1, 1975.
ADDITION
PHYSIC HILL SUBDIVISION - SECTION E
LENGTH
Danforth Road - Beginning at its intersection with
Physic Hill Road southerly 0.27 mile to its inter-
section with Ranger Road, thence southerly 0.05 mile
to a dead end.
0.32 Mi.
Mendota Road --Beginning at its intersection with
Ranger Road southwesterly 0.16 mile to its inter-
section with Rosebud Road.
0.16 Mi.
R~sebud Road - From Mendota Road southeasterly
0.11 mile to a dead end.
0.11 Mi.
SECTION B, D~ E
Ranger Road - Beginning at its intersection with
State Route 621 easterly 0.09 mile to its inter-
section with Celtic Road, thence 0.09 mile to its
intersection with Mendota Road, thence 0.14 mile
to its intersection with Danforth Road.
0.32 Mi.
A HIGHWAY IS AS SAFE AS THE USER MAKES IT
-2-
ADD IT ION
LENGTH
PHYSIC HILL SUBDIVISION ~ SECTION D
Celtic Road - Beginning at its intersection with
Ranger Road southwesterly 0.14 mile to a cul-de-sac;
and from its intersection with Ranger Road northerly
0.20 mile to Physic Hill Road.
0.34 Mi,
Sinceraly,
J. E. Harwood, Deputy Commissioner
and Chief Engineer
Copies:
Mr. A. S. Mattox
Mr. J. P. Mills, Jr.
Mr. A. S. Brown
Mr. L. E. Brett, Jr.
Mr. L. H. Dawson, Jr.
Mr. E. L. Covington, Jr. - Chesterfield
At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County
held this day of , 19 , it was duly
moved and seconded that:
WHEREAS, Primary Route 10, from Station 557+00 to Station 762+32, a
distance of 3.893 miles, has been altered, and a new road has been constructed
a~approved by the State Highway Commissioner, which new road serves the
same citizens as the road so altered; and
WHEREAS, certain sections of this road follow new locations, these
being shown on the attached sketch titled, "Changes in Primary and Secondary
Systems Due to Relocation and Construction on Route 10, Project 0010-020~109,
C501, dated at Richmond, Virginia 8-1-74."
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the portions of Primary Route 10,
i.e., Sections 1, 2, 3, and 8, shown in red on the sketch titled,?Changes
in Primary and Secondary Systems Due to Relocation and Construction on
Route 10, Project 0010-020-109, C501, dated at Richmond, Virginia 8-1-74,
a total distance of 1.22 miles be, and the same hereby is transferred to
the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to Section 33-27 of the
Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended;
~d further that the sections of new location, i.e., Sections 6 and 7,
shown in brown on the aforementioned sketch, a total distance of 0.15 miles,
be, and the same hereby is, added to the Secondary System of State Highways,
pursuant to Section 33-141 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended;
And further, that the sections of old location, i.e., Sections 9 and 4,
shown in blue on the aforementioned sketch, a total distance of 0.19 miles, be
PAGE 2
and the same hereby is, abandoned as a public road, pursuant to Section
33-76.12 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended;
And further, that the State Highway Commissioner be requested to take
the necessary action to abandon the section of old location, i.e., Section
5, shown in green on the aforementioned sketch, a total distance of 0.04
miles, as a part of the Secondary System of state Highways as provided
in Section 33-76.12 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended.
Motion carried.
A COPY TESTE:
Clerk
VIRGINIA: At a regular meeting of
the Board of Supervisors of
Chesterfield County, held at the
CourthOuse on November 13, 1974,
at 9:00 a.m.
On motion of Mr. Myers, seconded by Mr. Apperson, it
is resolved that the following resolution be and it hereby is
adopted:
WHEREAS, Primary Route 10, from 0.044 mile east of
Route 145 (Chesterfield) to 0.373 mile west of intersection with
Route 144 (Chester), a distance of 3.867 miles, has been altered
and a new road has been constructed and approved by the State
Highway Commissioner, which new road serves the same citizens
as the road so altered; and
WHEREAS, certain sections of this new road follow new
locations, these being shown on the attached sketch titled,
"Changes in Primary and Secondary System's Due to Relocation and
Construction on Route 10," Project 0010-020-109, C501, dated at
Richmond, Virginia, 8-1-74.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the portion of
Primary Route 10, i.e., Sections 1 and 3, shown in red on the
sketch titled, "Changes in Primary and Secondary System's Due to
Relocation and Construction on Route 10, Project 0010-020-109,
C501, dated at Richmond, Virginia on 8-1-74, a total distance of
1.03 miles, be, and it hereby is, added to the Secondary System
of State Highways pursuant to Section 33-141 of the Code of
Virginia of 1950, as amended.
AND FURTHER, that the sections of old location, i.e.,
Section 4, shown in blue on the aforementioned sketch, a total
distance of 0.17 mile be, and the same is hereby abandoned from
the Primary System as a public road, pursuant to Section
33-76-12 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended.
AND FURTHER, that the sections of old location, i.e.,
Section 4, shown in blue on the aforementioned sketch, a total
distance of 0.17 mile be, and the same is hereby abandoned from
the Primary System as a public road, pursuant to Section 33-76-
12 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended.
AND FURTHER, that the State Highway Commission be
requested to take the necessary action to discontinue the
section of old location Section 2, shown in yellow aforemention-
ed sketch, a total distance of 0.17 mile, as a part of the
Primary System of State Highways as provided in Section 33-76.7
of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended;
AND FURTHER, that the section of old location, i.e.,
Section 5 shown in green on the aforementioned sketch, a total
distance of 0.04 mile, be, and the same is hereby abandoned
from the Secondary System as a public road, pursuant to
Section 33-76-12 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That Sections 6 and 7
shown in brown on the aforementioned sketch, a total distance
of 0.15 mile, be, and hereby is, added to the Secondary
System of State Highways, pursuant to Section 33-141 of the
Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended.
Ayes: Mr. Homer, Mr. Myers, Mr. Apperson and Mr. Krepela.
A Copy: Teste -
VIROINIA: At a regular meeting of
the Board of Supervisors of
Chesterfield County, held at
Courthouse on November 13, 1974,
at 9:00 a.m.
On motion of Mr. Myers, seconded by Mr. Apperson, it
is resolved that the following resolution be and it hereby is
adopted:
· " ~ Primary Route 10, fro~ 0.044 mile east of
WHEREAS, .
Route 145 (Chesterfield) to 0.373 mile west of intersection with
Route 144 (Chester), a distance of 3.867 miles, has been altered
and a new road has bee~% constructed m%d approved by the State
i{ighway Commissioner, which new road serves the same citizens
as the road so altered; and
%~LEREAS, certa~l sections of this new road follow new
locations, these being shown on the attached sketch titled,
"Changes in Primary and Secondary System's Due to Relocation and
Construction on Route 10," Project 0010-020-109, C501, dated at
Richmond, Virginia, 8-1-74.
N~, T~P~FOR~, BE IT ~SOLTE~: ~nat the portion of ~
Primary Route 10, i.e., Sections i and 3, s~hown in red on the
sketch titled, "Changes in Primary and Secondary System's Due tc
Relocation and Construction on Route 10, Project 0010-020-109,
C501, dated at Richmond, Virginia on 8-1-74, a total distance of
1.03 miles, be, ~d it hereby is, added to the Secondary System
of State Highways pursuant to Section 33-141 of the Code of
Virginia of 1950, as amended.
AI-~D FUR~Lx, that the sections of old location i.e.
Section 4, shown in blue on the aforementioned sketch, a total
distance of 0.17 mile be, and the same is hereby abandoned from
the Primary System as a public road, pursuant to Section
33-76-12 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended.
BleD FURTHER, that the sections of old location, i.e.,
Section 4, shown in blue on the aforementioned sketch, a total
distance of 0.17 ~le be, and tbs same is hereby abandoned from
the Primary System as a public road, pursuant to 'Section 33-76-
12 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended.
AND FURTi.~k, that the State Hfgh~a)' Co~ission be
requested to take the necessar?? action to ,llscontinue the
section of old location Section 2, shown in yellow aforemention-
ed sketch, a total distance of 0.17 mile, as a part of the
Primary System of State Highways as provided in Section 33-76.7
of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended:
A~ND ~UR.T~ER, that the section of old location, i.e.,
Section 5 shown in green on the aforem~.ntioned sketch, a total
distance of 0.04 ~ile, be, and the same is hereby abandoned
from the Secondary System as a public road, pursuant to
Section 33-76-12 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended;
NOW, T~EREFOR.E, BE IT tiESOLVED: That Sections 6 and 7
shown in brown on the aforementioned sketch, a total distance
of 0.15 mile, be, and hereby is, added to the Seconda~f
System of State Highways, pursuant to Section 33-141 of the
Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended.
Ayes: ~tr. Homer, Mr. Hyers, ~[r. Apperson and %~r, Krepela.
A Copy:
Teste -
~st~ator
At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County
held this day of , 19 , it was duly moved
and seconded that:
WHERE,A~Secondary Route 616 and Route 732, from Station 10+12.51 to
Station 114+00, a distance of 1.967 miles, has been altered, and a new road
has been constructed and approved by the State Highway Commissioner, which
new road serves the same citizens as the road so altered; and
WHEREAS, certain sections of this new road follow new locations, these
being shown on the attached sketch titled, "Changes in Secondary System Due
to Relocation and Construction on Route 616, Project 0616-020-164, C501,
dated at Richmond, Virginia 9-3-74."
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the portions of Secondary Route
616 and 732, i.e., Sections 8, 4, and 5, shown in red on the sketch titled,
"Changes in Secondary System Due to Relocation and Construction on Route 616,
Project 0616-020-164, C501, dated at Richmond, Virginia 9-3-74", a total distance
of 0.37 miles be, and hereby is, added to the Secondary System of State Highways,
pursuant to Section 33-141 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended;
And further that the section of present location, i.e., Section 2, shown
in orange on the aforementioned sketch, a total distance of 0.04 miles, be,
and the same hereby is, to remain in the Secondary System of State Highways.
And further, that the sections of old location, i.e., Sections 7, 6,
and 3, shown in blue on the aforementioned sketch, a total distance of 0.35
miles, be, and the same hereby is, abandoned as a public road, pursuant to
Section 33-76.12 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended;
And further, that the State Highway Commission be requested to take
the necessary action to discontinue the sections of old location, i.e.,
Section 1, shown in yellow on the aforementioned sketch, a total distance
of 0.06 miles, as a part of the Secondary System of State Highways as
provided in Section 33-76.7 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended.
Motion carried.
A COPY TESTE:
Clerk
To Hopewell
o ~ o rtl
~,. o o o -I~0 rtl
= o o rtl-<
~ ~ ~ 0
~ I
'< Z
~ 0
TO Rte.
ENGINEERING AND UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD
AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MARCH 12, 1.975
VI.
~~II.
III.
XIII.
Report on Flood Plain Information for Swift Creek by Corps. of
Engineers.
Request for sewer service for State Police Headquarters on Route 60.
Approval of water contracts:
(a) W75-26D Route 360 -' Warehouse Park $22,529.00
Contractor: Hawkins & Dettor
Consideration of a petition for water service on Hybla Road.
Approval of sewer contracts:
(a) S74-24D Bexley, Sections 2 & 4 $21,611.50
Contractor: Stamie E. Lyttle Company, Inc.
(b) S75-13CD Nuttree Creek $95,522.00 ~//~,,J. '~,~o
Contractor: G. L. Howard, Incorporated
(c) S75-8D Chesterfield Library $8,391.55 /~.
Contractor: Rada & Saunders, Incorporated
(d) S75-18D Poplar Grove - Brandermill $90,472.00
Contractor: Stamie E. Lyttle Company, Inc.
Review results of sewer survey for Garland Heights.
Discuss sewer service for Swift Creek area.
Consideration of a 60-day extension of time on Contract 7032-6A,
T & E Construction Company, Incorporated.
Discussion of Johnson easement under Contract S73-26T, Redwater
Creek.
Award of Sewer Project S75-6C, Ghent Drive.
Letter dated February 25, 1975 from R. G. Martz Incorporated
requesting fifteen (15) additional sewer connections in Hickory
Hill Estates.
Resolution authorizing the CountY Attorney to prepare deed for
the vacation of 16' easement on Myron Avenue in return for
easement from VEPCO, Sewer Contract 6511-19C/2 .
Review letter of Sebruary 13, 1975 from Mr. Limerick re property
needed by Highway Department and VEPCO.
Agenda - Engineering & Utilities Department
Page 2
March 12, 197.5
Resolution authorizing, condemnation proceedings against the
following property owners:
(1)
Albert F. Weaver and Berrie W. Weaver Project S74-30T/C
Offer: $724°63
Robert B. Reynolds and Constance G. Reynolds Project S74-620/3
Offer: $133.25
John L. Adams & Vivian A. Adams Project S74-62C/2
Offer: $345.10
Request roads to be taken in State System.
Review request by Mr. L. T. Jenkins to put a septic System drain-
field in County easement.
Miscellaneous
Robert A. Painter
County Engineer
March 7, 1975
LEONARD R. HALL, BRISTOL, BRISTOL DISTRICT
HORACE G. FRALIN, ROANOKE, ,5~ILEM DI,(;TRI~7
THOMAS R. GLASS. LYNCHBURG, LYNCH~URG D/STRICT
MORRILL M. CROWE, RICHMOND, R]CHMOND DISTRICT
WILLIAM T. RODS, YORKTOWN, ,~;UFFOLK D/STRICT
RALPH A. SEETON, FALLS CHURCH, CU£?J~'p~ DI,¥TRIC~
ROBERT S. LANDES, STAUNTON, ETA UNTON DI, C;TRICT
T. RAY HASSELL, IlL CHESAPEAKE, ATI, ARGE-URB,~N
CHARLES S. HOOPER, JR,, CREWE, AT L,4RGE.RURAL
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION
1221 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
L. E. BRETT, JR.
DISTRICT ENGINEER
February 28, 1975
Mr. R. A. Painter
County Engineer
County of Chesterfield
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
JOHN E. HARWOOD
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHIEF ENGINEER
W. S. G. BRITTON
DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION
H. GORDON BLUNDON
DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
J. M. WRAY, JR.
DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
J. P. ROYER, JR.
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
P.B. COLDIRON
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO
OFFICE OF DISTRICT ENGINEER
PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA 23803
P. O. Box 3036
Bon Air, Virginia 23235
Re: Lake Genito Subd. ivision -
Section B
Dear Mr. Painter:
An inspection was made of the above mentioned subdivision. The roads
were built to State specifications and satisfies all of our require-
ments. Therefore, the developer can request a resolution from the
Board of Supervisors for the following roads to be taken into
State System for maintenance:
1. Delgado Road from Clintwood Drive to a dead end.
2. Elshur Road from Clintwood Drive to i[etlynn Drive.
Kellynn Drive from Delgado Road to Elshur Road.
Sincerely,
E. L. Covington, Jr.
Resident Engineer
cc: Hr. ~.
A. Prosise, Jr.
By:
R. ~4. ~4cElfish ~
Assistant Resident Engineer
A HIGHWAY IS AS SAFE AS THE USER MAKES IT
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
1975
P. O. :Box 3036
]Scm AJx, ~ ~3135
Che~t:~x'~teld, V,t~g~-'d.a :~3832
1. Delg~ l~&d fxcea C1iA~t'WOOd I~Ve tO & dead end.
2. gl~hux ~ fzo~ C1/nt:w=<~ D~lve to ~ll~ D=i~.
Sincerely,
RI~: eb
oc: I~. W. A. Pz~eise, ~j:.b/
R. M. MaEI£JJh
COLONEL E. P. GILL
CHIEF OF POLICE
W. E. MARTIN
CAPTAIN OF POLICE
COU
NTY OF CHESTER
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA
POLiCe D EPARTM ENT
FI
EL
d
March 6, 1975
M~. M. W. Burnett
County Administrator
Chesterfield County
Chesterfield, Virginia
Dear Sir:
I would like to get a resolution passed by the Board
of Supervisors to purchase 90 copies of thepolice, Crimes
and Offenses and Motor Vehicle Laws of Virg~. This will
cost us $1,980.00.
I think it is essential that each officer has copies
of each volume.
Respectfully submitted,
Colonel E. P. Gill
Chief of Police
EPG:vlh
Attachment
THE
Sales and Marketing Division P.O. Box 7587 Charlottesville, Virginia 22906 Phone (804) 295-617I
JUST PUBLISHED!
Police, Crimes and Offenses
and
Motor Vehicle Laws of Virginia
This edition, complete with all 1974 legislation, supersedes all previous editions.
It brings together in one volume all of the statutory provisions which deal with crimes and offenses
and motor vehicles in Virginia. It also contains related matter covering such subjects as statutory
provisions relating to juveniles, fireworks, pharmacies and drugs, aircraft, service of process on
non-residents, tourist camp registers, etc.
The volume is fully annotated and comprehensively indexed. It contains more than 800 pages and
is equipped with a pocket for future supplements.
To have all these statutory provisions from the Virginia Code at your finger tips in one volume,
order your copy, today.
1 Copy ............... $30.00 ea.
2-4 Copies ............. $28,00 ea.
5-9 Copies ............. $26.00 ea.
10-19 Copies ........... $24.00 ea.
~--- 20 Copies or more ........... $22.00 ea.
F3
m. OUNTY OF ~HESTI~RFI£LD
I3F~II~ ~1~ THI~ TI~£ASlJI~R
CHEBTERFIELD, VIRBINIA
mlEO. W. MOORE;, JR.
March 6, 1975
Mr. M. W. Burnett, County Administrator
County of Chesterfield
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear Mr. Burnett:
Cash balances of the General County and School Operating
Funds will not be sufficient to pay operating expenses for the
month of March and 1975 personnal property taxes and first half of
1975 real estate taxes will not be due until June 5, 1975.
I respectively request that the treasurer be authorized
to negotiate a short-term ~oan not to exceed $2,50Q000 in accordance
with Sec. 15.1-545 and 15.1-546 of the Code of Virginia.
Very truly yours,
George W.Moore, Jr.
Treasurer
WM/vbt
FRED G, POL.~RD
COM~I=NSATION BOARD
P. O. BOX 'i I77
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 232Og
JO~I~PH ~. JAME~
March 3, 1975
TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADDRESSED:
Written notice is hereby given you that the Compensation Board will
meet on the 1st day of April, 1975, beginning at 8:30 a.m. on that day
in Room 100 of the James Madison Building (Main Floor Auditorium), located
at 109 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia, for the purpose of receiving
any information which the Attorney for the Commonwealth, Commissioner of
the Revenue, Sheriff and Treasurer may wish to present in support of their
salary and expense requests for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1975 and
ending June 30, 1976.
The Compensation Board will hear the officials from each locality as
a group, not individually, so please plan accordingly. Those having to
travel the farthest distance will be heard first.
Please return the enclosed card at your earliest convenience if you
plan to attend the meeting.
JMRJr./kl
Enclosure
Very truly yours,
~ed ?/ Pollard, C~a~.i~rman
Executive Secretary
JOHN M, RASNICK, JR. '
COM~F-.NSATION BOA-I=~3
P. O, BOX 1177
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
JC)~BI~PH S. JAML~
W. H, FoR~rr
March 3, 1975
TO BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS AND CITY COUNCILS:
We have sent you a notice of the Compensation Board meetings to be held
in Richmond or Salem, along with copies of instructions that were furnished
the Constitutional officers to be followed in filing their budget requests
for the fiscal year 1975-76.
The Code of Virginia (Section 14.1-50) requires that each officer file
a true copy of his budget request with the governing body of his political
subdivision. Therefore, the primary purpose of this letter is to advise
that the Compensation Board would appreciate an expression from you as to
your policy concerning salary increases in your locality, as well as your
recommendations in regard to the budget req~sts filed by the Constitutional
officers.
During the months of April and May, the Compensation Board will be
setting the salaries of the Constitutional officers and their employees
and would find the information requested above to be very helpful when
they are considering the budgets. The Compensation Board has, whenever
possible, respected the recommendations of the local governing body,
provided they are reasonable and consistent. Several counties and cities
have adopted pay plans which include the Constitutional officers and their
employees. Although not mandated by law to do so, the Board will give
consideration to such pay plans.
Please furnish the above information at your earliest convenience
together with any other material that you feel would be helpful to this
Board.
Very truly yours,
JMRJr./kl
.~red G. Pollard, 5h~a~man
Executive 'Secretary
C.~ENSATION BOAI~
P. o. Box !~1'77
RlCHJ~JON D , VIRGINIA
March 3, 1975
TO: SHERIFFS
SERGEANT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Enclosed is the official salary and expense request form for use in
submitting your requests for allowances for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1976. Under the provisions of Section 14.1-50 of the Code of
Virginia, as amended, this form must be executed and filed with the
Compensation Board on or before April 1, 1975.
It is important that the instructions printed on the back of the
form be followed, and your attention is called to the following require-
ments of the Compensation Board so as to avoid delay in approving your
budget for the next fiscal year.
1)
Salaries: Fill in all information and please accurately and precisely
describe all positions, such as field deputy, court deputy, record
deputy, jailor, cook, matron, typist, secretary, etc.
On January 8, 1975, we mailed to each Sheriff and local governing
body instructions as to the new salary scale for law enforcement
deputies and correctional officers (copy enclosed) who have met
the requirements of the Criminal Justice Officers Training and
Standards Commission. Please make your requests to conform to the
above mentioned scale.
The General Assembly at the 1973 Session enacted legislation which
amends Section 14.1-70 of the Code of Virginia so as to provide one
law enforcement deputy for each 2,000 population in counties without
police departments. The above amendment also provides that the request
must be approved by the Board of Supervisors. The Compensation Board
will not consider requests for additional law enforcement deputies unless
same has been..approved by your Board of Supervisors.
2)
C. B. Form 14 is furnished for your use where an increase in the salary
of either the officer or an employee is requested. No special conside-
ration can be given unless this form, duly executed} is filed with the
.~equept.
SHERIFFS
SERGEANT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Page Two
March 3, 1975
3)
Office furniture and equipment and rental thereof: You are cautioned
to anticipate your needs for equipment. During the past year the
Compensation Board received several requests that cogld have been
anticipated in the annual budget.
4)
The Board will not give favorable consideration to any request that
could have been anticipated when you filed your annual budget request,
except for those emergency situations that could not reasonably have
been foreseen.
Your prompt attention to the filing of your budget request will be
appreciated.
Very truly yours,
JMP, Jr./kl
,/'~d G. Pollard, Chairman
Executive Secretary
Copy to: Board of Supervisors
City Council
Enclosure
MoNWEA[TI+ OF
C~F'ENSATION BOAI;I*I~
P. O. BOX 1177
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23~09
W. H, FOI~;T
btarch 3, 1975
I0 ATTOI~EYS }'OR IttE COMMOI~iFAL~H:
Enclosed is the official salary and expense request for use in
submitting your requests for allowances for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1976. Under the provisions of Section 14.1-50 of the Code of
Virginia, as amended, this form must be executed and filed with the
Compensation Board on or before April 1, 1975.
It is important that the instructions printed on the back of
the form be followed, and your attention is called to the following
requirements of the Compensation Board so as to avoid delay in approving
your budget for the next fiscal year.
1)
Salaries: Fill in all information and please accurately
and precisely descr'ib~ all positions, such as assistant,
secretary, typist, etc.
2)
C. B. Form 14 is furnished for your use where an increase
in the salary of either the officer or an employee is
requested. No special consideration can be given unless
this form~ d~ly' executed~, is ~il'~d ~ith the request"~ -
Office furniture and equipment and rental thereof, where
office space is furnished by the locality. You are
cautioned to anticipate your needs for equipment. During
the past year, the Compensation Board received several
requests that could have been anticipated in the annual budget
request.
4)
The C~mpensation Board for the fiscal year 1974-75 approved
an allowance for a subscription to the Criminal Law Reporter
for all Commonwealth's Attorneys. '
5)
For the fiscal year 1975-76, if you wish to continue the sub-
scription, be sure ~o include in your annual budget request an
amount for one subscription to the above publication. We have
been advised by the Bureau of National Affairs that the annual
subscription rate on an individual basis is $180.
The Board will not give favorable consideration to any request
that could have been anticipated when you filed your annual
budget request, except for those emergency situations that
could not reasonably have been foreseen.
Your prompt attention to the filing of your budget request will be
appreciated.
J}iRJr./kl
Copy to;
Very truly yours,
/./l~d G...Po 1 lard, ~..'.~s~n
Executive Secretary
5oard of Supervisors
City Council
FRIED G. POIL.f,.ARD
COMPENSATION BOARD
P. O, BOX 1177
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 232Og
Hatch 3, 1975
W. H, FOR~JT
I~X- OFF~ClO MIF..IV(li'/Ill
I0 ~117A8~ ~ CCI~ISSIONER,S OF ~HE Ill[VENUE:
Enclosed is the official salary and expense form for use in
submitting your requests for allowances for the fiscal year endin~
June 30, 1976. Under the provisions of Section 14.1-50 of the Code
of Virginia, as amended, this fo~n must be executed and filed with
the Compensation Board on or before April 1, 1975.
It is important that the instructions printed on the back
of the form be followed, and your attention is called to the following
requirements of the Compensation Board so as to avoid delay in approving
your budget for the next fiscal year.
1)
Salaries: Fill in all information and please accurately
and precisely describe all positions, such as deputy,
typist, secretary, assistant, field collector, field
assessor, etc,
2)
C. B. Form 14 is furnished for your use where an increase
in the salary of either the officer or an employee is
requested. No special consideration can be ~iven unless
this form, duly Lexecuted~ is filed With th~ request."'
3)
Office furniture and equipment and rental thereof: You are
cautioned to anticipate your needs for equipment. During the
past year, the Compensation Board received several requests
that could have been anticipated in the annual budget.
The Board will not give favorable consideration to any request
that could have been anticipated when you filed your annual
budget request, except for those emergency situations that
could not reasonably have been foreseen.
Your prompt attention to the filing of your budget request will be
appreciated.
Very truly yours,
~P~lr./kl
~C: Board of Supervisors
City Council
/P~d G./~ollard, Cha~.~
/ Executive Secretary
S(.t~,.. Z---7~ ;5 8--1 .'5/,[
~ COMMONWEAL'tH OF VIRGINIA ~,
FATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
Application of
WILMER R. WALLER
For a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity as
a Common Carrier of Passengers
by Motor Vehicle.
CITY OF RICHMOND
February 19, 1975
Case No. CC-7174
Application having been made to the State Corporation
Commission by Wilmer R. Waller for a certificate of public
convenience and necessity as a common carrier of passengers by
motor vehicle over the following route:
and
From Petersburg to Richmond: From Petersburg
via U. S. Route 1 to Colonial Heights, thence
via U. S. Route 1 and Virginia Highway 144 to
Chester, thence via Virginia Highway 10 to
U. S. Route 1, and thence via U.S. Route 1 to
Richmond; and return over the same route,
It appearing to the Commission that the application
should come before the Commission for a hearing;
IT IS ORDERED that the application be, and it is hereby,
docketed for hearing before the State Corporation Commission
in its courtroom, Blanton Building, Bank and Governor Streets,
in the City of Richmond at 2:00 P.M., on March 17, 1975.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the applicant shall cause
notice of such application to be served, at least twenty days
prior to the date of the hearing, on the mayor or principal
officer of any city or town and on the chairman of the board of
supervisors of every county into or through which the applicant
may desire to provide service, and on an officer or owner of
every common carrier of passengers by motor vehicle presently
rendering service within the area proposed to b8 served by the
applicant by mailing to the above parties, registered or
certified mail - return receipt requested, of this
COMMONWEALq !t OF VIRGINIA
'""\TE CORPORATI~;)N COMMISSION'"'
Case No. CC-7174
Page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that parties choosing to patti-
cipate in the hearing as a protestant shall do so by filing a
"Protest" with Clerk, State Corporation Commission, P.O. Box
1197, Richmond, Virginia 23209, at least ten days prior to the
hearing date with copy of such Protest directed to counsel for
the applicant.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following notice be
published in a newspaper having a general circulation in the
area to be served at least twenty days prior to the hearing
date:
NOTICE is hereby given of an open hearing before
the State Corporation Commission in Richmond,
Virginia on March 17, 1975, 2:00 P.M., to consider
the application of Wilmer R. Waller for a
certificate of public convenience and necessity as
a common carrier of passengers between Petersburg,
Colonial Heights, Chester and Richmond. Parties
choosing to participate in the hearing as a
protestant shall do so by filing a "Protest" with
Clerk, State Corporation Commission, P.O. Box 1197,
Richmond, Virginia, 23209, at least ten days prior
to the hearing date.
IN REPLY REFER TO:
L14
United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
RICHMOND NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK
3215 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23223
February 27, 1975
Mr. M. W. Burnett
Executive Secretary
County of Chesterfield
Chesterfield, VA 25832
Dear Mr. Burnett:
In a letter dated February S, 1975, Mrs. Orien E. Dalton, Jr., re-
quested that I respond directly to you which of the improvements dis-
cussed at the meeting of November 26 can be met assuming the County
of Chesterfield donated the 23.2 acres of land it owns' adjoining the
present Park unit. Should that 23.2 acres be donated to the Battlefield
Park and the National Park Service accept it we would plan the following,
in the order listed in Mrs. Dalton's letter (copy enclosed):
1. Picnic Area: Land currently owned by the National Park Service
is insufficient for the development of a picnic area. ShoUld the County
land be acquired, we would plan to place picnic tables there between the
months of May and September. A more sophisticated picnic area, with
fire pits, would be developed as the need became evident and practical.
2. Trails: One of our serious problems is the spurious trail to
the river which is both dangerous and destructive to the earthworks.
We plan to fence it closed this summer (see below). If we owned the
County land we would develop a trail outside the fort from the old pic-
nic area to the river to assist the success of this closure. Should the
land not be donated in the immediate future, we request that you provide
such a trail as a service to the public and for the protection of the
historic resource. If the land was donated in the immediate future, we
would also plan to develop a nature trail by the summer of 1976 as an
adjunct of the Bicentennial celebration. This would probably be a spur
off the river trail looping back to the parking lot. It would have to
begin simply and develop 'sophistication withtime.
Let~ Oi~m Up America For Our 200th Birthday
5. Natural Open Areas: This was probably discussed as the nature
trail, listed above.
4. Parking Lot: It is, of course, impossible to budget funds for
improvement of land not Federally owned. If the land was donated before
the end of March, we would be able to contract for the resealing and
improvement of the entrance road and parking lot in the fiscal year
ending June 50, 1975. Availability of funds in the following fiscal year
is unknown, but you can be assured this would be a top Park priority.
5. New Signs: Boundary signs would be installed as a matter of
routine within two weeks of donation of the land. The entrance sign would
be relocated at the new entrance where it could better identify the site.
A new entrance sign more effectively attracting visitors from 1-95 would
be requested of our design office, but we can give no time estimate for
its realization.
6. A gun: The contractors inform us they will deliver the Columbiad
carriage on May 14. The tube weighing 8,800 pounds will be installed on
it within the following few days. We hope you can be present for the
culmination of this installation.
7. We will hire a fulltime caretaker/guide in the summer of 1975 on
a 40 or 56 hour basis. For the first time we have been able to budget
such a position for Fort Darling. A Park Aid will be on duty at least
five days a week, probably seven days, during the summer and parttime,
at least weekends, spring and fall. He will start by April 5. His
duties will include area cleanup and other daily maintenance, interpre-
tation to visitors and site protection.
8. Cleaning up the site: Except for one major accumulation of car
bodies and other large size junk, this is a matter of routine which would
be accomplished over the first few months of National Park Service owner-
ship.
9. A new fence: At our request, since our meeting of November 26,
the Regional Safety Officer and the Regional Historic Architect have
visited the unit 'ia study the need for a fence along the bluff. The
latter is writing specifications for it and funds have been made available.
The contract for its installation will be awarded this fiscal year assuming
there is an acceptable bidder.
We also discussed a boundary fence. The need for one is not proven at
this time and thus this is a lower priority. Should the need become
2
evident, it will be installed at the earliest time funds becomeavail-
able. The need for a gate across the entrance road is another matter
and one will be installed within three months of the time the land is
donated.
10. Installation of a new well, reviving the old septic tank, re-
modeling the restroom building: This, of course, is a major project
and funds cannot be programmed for work on lands outside Federal owner-
ship. If, however, the land is donated prior to the end of March,
the probability is at least fair that funds can be made available and
obligated this fiscal year. As noted above, funding next fiscal year
is much more problematical. This would be a top Park priority until
accomplished and if not completed earlier I have learned there is an
outstanding possibility it can be accomplished the following year, if
the land is donated in the immediate future to allow us to program
those funds.
11. Planting grass and landscaping the landfill site: Grass would
be planted during the first appropriate season after donation. Land-
scaping would be a continuing process over the next several years and
be modified as developments were effected. '
12. Signing and securing the site: TheSe items are covered in
various headings above.
13. Cooperating with the School Board and Recreation Department for
use of the Park for educational purposes: As discussed in our meeting,
this is one of the most exciting potential uses of the land. The City
of Richmond and the County of Henrico are currently participating in the
multi-agency Stun Fun program on other units of the Battlefield. This
program has been highly successful and acclaimed at all levels of govern-
ment. UnfortunatelY, we do not have adequate land for expansion of the
program to Fort Darling; however, should this land be donated, we would
begin arrangements for this expansion with proper units of County govern-
ment.
There are two items which I do not at this time conceive as being within
our capabilities. One is the removal of the major talus of junk mentioned
above. The other is the spreading of top soil across the landfill area.
There is also the possibility that because of the current economic
situation FederaI funding might be reduced, in the next fiscal year, thus
delaying some of the above projects; howeVer, these items would remain at
3
the highest posSible priority for accomplishment when the economic
situation reverses itself. Working together, I believe we can
develop Fort Darling into the National historic asset it should be.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
Stuart H. Maule
Superintendent
cc:
Regional Director, Mid-Atlantic Region
Special Assistant to the Regional Director [Virginia)
Mrs. Orien J. Dalton, Jr.
The Junior Woman's Club of Chester
Mr. Stuart H. Maule, Superintendent
Richmond National Battlefield Park
3215 E. Broad Street
Richmond, Va. 23223
Dear Mr. Maule::
In an effort to revitalize negotiations with 0hesterfield County
for the land surrounding Fort Darling I contacted Mr. M.W. Barnett by
phone on January 20, 1975. In this conversation ne indicated to me that
he required some guarantee from the National Park Service that certain
commitments for the development and improvement of the land would be
met should 0hesterfield County make this donation.
I am therefore requesting that you respond to him by indicating
which of the improvements discussed at the meeting on November 26, 1974
can be met by the National Park Service. As s~mmarized by Mike Ritz~
in his letter of December 2, 1974 they are! ~icnic tablem and picnic
area, trails, natural open areas, and possible a. parking lot, new signs,
a gun, a full time caretaker/guide in the summer' On a 4-0-56 hour basis,
cleaning up the site and a new, fence, installation of a new well,
reviving the old septic tanks, remodeling the rest room building, plant-
ing grass amd landscaping the land fill site, signing and securing the
site and cooperating with the School Board and Recreatio~ Department
for use of the park for educational purposes.
! have also requested that Mr. Barnett forward to y,ou withim three
weeks any further requests the County might have regarding improvements.
If none are received you can assume that the above listed improvements
meet the County's requirement for the transaction.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Siaoerely,
Mrs. 0rien E. Dalton, Jr~~
COLONEL E. P. GILL
CHIEF OF POLICE
W. E. MARTIN
CAPTAIN OF POLICE
COU
NTY OF CHESTERFIELD
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA
POLICE DEPARTMENT
March 7, 1975
F~. M. W. Burnett
County Administrator
Chesterfield County
Chesterfield, Virginia
Reference: Grant #74-A-2794
Mobile Crime Laboratory
Dear Sir:
The ~ssionon Crimimml Justice approved the grant request
for the Mobile Crime Laboratory in the amount of $9,278.00 on
March 6, 1975. This grant was approved on the condition that the
County must fund $9,770.00 to makeUp the total of $19,048.00,
which was the amount of the grant.
If the Board of Supervisors wish to proceed with this grant,
they nust therefore appropriate $9,770.00. In the original
grant they had already appropriated $980.80. This actually means
the Board of Supervisors must appropriate an additional $8,789.20
to allow us to purchase this Mobile Crimm Laboratory.
Respectfully,
Det Sergeant Mason T. Chalkley
Special Assistant to Chief of Police
MIC :vlh
cc: Lee O. Falwell
James R. Condrey
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
IRVING. HORNER. CHA!RRAN
CLOVIR NILL DIITRICT
lEO MYERS, VICI CNAIDRAN
IERIEUDA DI~TIIICT
BO&RD OF SUPERVISORS
3. RUFFIN APPERSON
DALE DISTIBJ C7
ALDRICH ,J. KREPEL&.
MIDLOTHBAN DISTRICT
I:' MERLIN O*HEILL, SR.
IIATOACA DISTRICT
COU.NTY
OF
CHESTERFIELD
C'HI:'$T£RFIELD,
M. W. BURNETT
COUNTY ADM I N [$TRATOR
VIRGINIA
SUBJECT: Mobile Crz/me--~--~Lab March 10, 1975
I believe that every request for a major expenditure of govern-
ment should be analyzed for its cost effectiveness or benefits
and then tempered with judgment and political acumen before
being acted upon by the legislative body.
In Mason Chalkley's memo of March 3, 1975 he states the direct
costs for this vehicle to be $10,000. No statement was made
about the necessity or desirability of protectively housing
ature extremesto prevent adverse e~e~2cts
~in it. Nez-i-fh-e~-is an-~--f~-f~-~nce-
~a e o the zni za an continu{ng cost for additional man
power to man t~- ve~.
The benefits of the purchase are only alluded to when Sgt.
Chalkley states that it could have been used in 1,397 cases
during the past year. The average of 116.41 cases per month
does not take into consideration the statistical time distri-
bution of these cases and therefore the fact that the vehicle
could already be in service when called for.
Neither does Sgt. Chalkley, nor has anyone else ever identified
how crimes could be solved more quickly, better solved, or how
the solution of crimes rates could be increased by the use of
this vehicle.
No measures of performance or of cost-effectiveness have been
given - the police department just wants it - nor have any
quantifiable analysis been made for alternative methods for
improved for importance.
It will probably be two weeks before we are formally advised
of the decision of the Commission on Criminal Justice and hope-
fully by that time a new Chief of Police will have been appointed.
I suggest that he be asked to justify the expenditure to you and
Mr. M. W. Burnett
Page 2
March 10, 1975
to the Board.
If the Board does not approve the additional money, is it pos-
sible or likely that the new Chief can request the Judge of the
Circuit Court to "order" the County to make the purchase?
COLONEL E. P. GILL
CHIEF OF POLICE
W. E. MARTIN
CAPTAIN OF POLICE
COUNTY
OF
CHESTERFIELD
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA
POLICE D EPARTM ENT
March 3, 1975
Mr. Melvin W. Burnett
County Administrator
Chesterfield County
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Reference:
Grant #74-A-2794
Mobile Crime Laboratory
Amount-S19,048.00
Dear Sir:
The above grant which was approved by the Board of Supervisors
on December 12, 1974 has been the subject of much discussion at the
Division of Justice and Crime Prevention, and I was advised that
on several occasions that they were not going to recommend funding
of this grant because they felt it was not needed, etc. Their
philosophies for handling evidence is different from our philosophies
in the police department. After a lengthy meeting with
Mr. Whit Robertson, Lieutenant Richter and myself, it is apparent
now that we were successful in our efforts, and the Division will
partially fund this grant.
I was advised a couple days ago by Mr. Robertson that a
decision has been finally made. He advised that the Division is going
before the Council or the Full Commission on Criminal Justice on
March 6, and at that time will recommend that they approve the grant
request as it is written. The problem exists in that they only have
approximately $20,000 to divide between 12 grants; and, therefore,
will recommend that approximately $9,000 be funded to Chesterfield
for this Mobile Crime Lab. If Chesterfield wishes to proceed then
the County must pay the additional amount of the grant.
Mr. M. W. Burnett
Page 2
March B, 1975
The grant is broken down in the following categories:
1. $568.00 is required to send two men to
the school to train in the use of this
Mobile Lab, etc.
2. $187480.00 is required to purchase the
actual vehicle and all the equipment.
This makes a total of $19,048 for the grant of which $980.80 would
be the county match. With the Division funding approximately
$9,000, then the COunty must come up with approximately $10,000 in
order to fund this grant now instead of the $980.80 as originally
applied for.
Chief Gill, Lieutenant Richter, and myself all agree that
this is a much needed piece of equipment. Lieutenant Richter
and Sergeant Greene have spent much time in going over every
piece of equipment and customizing it to fit our situation in
Chesterfield, so that this laboratory is not just a stock item
that cannot be really used or having certain equipment that will
not be used. It has been customized to fit our particular
situation in Chesterfield.
As I see the situation now, we have several alternatives.
We can either request that the grant be dropped and just not
proceed any further with it and loose the $9,000 in Federal funds,
or we can add the additional $10,000 required and be able to
furnish the department with this much needed piece of equipment.
Another alternative, which we really do not subscribe to, is to
use the $9,000 to buy a much smaller and less equipped piece of
equipment. We do not feel that this will be satisfactory as it
would not meet our needs.
An actual study of the number of offenses investigated by
our police department during 1974 reveals that if we had had this
piece of equipment we would have used it in 1,397 cases during
the year, which averages out to 116.41 average instances per month.
This includes investigation of homicide, rape, robbery, burglary,
auto theft, and suicides.
Mr. M. W. Burnett
Page B
March 3, 1975
We would request, therefore, at the first available Board
meeting, that you apprise the Board of this recent decision of
DJCP, and ascertain their wishes in this matter as a decision
must be made relative the course of action that we take. It is
certainly our hope that the County will fund the extra $10,000
so that we may purchase thispiece of equipment, and this would
be our recommendation.
Respectfully submitted,
-~geant Mason T. Chalkley
Special Assistant to Chief of Police
MTC:vlh
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 6, 1975
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. M. W. Burnett, Coun_ty Administrator
Mr. Michael C. Ritz, Director of Planning
Required Ordinance Changes to maintain eligibility
for Federal Flood Insurance
See attached letter from Federal Insurance Administrator.
I have had the attached amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Regulations reviewed and approved by the County
Engineer, County Attorney, Building Inspector, and Health De-
partment. Please ask the Board to send these to the Planning
Commission for public hearing.
Please note we have until July 10, 1975 to submit evidence
to HUD to maintain eligibility.
Eric.
Proposed amendment to the Z__oning Ordinance of the County o_f
Chesterfield, ¥~rginla to provide for the protection of mobile
homes and other developments from flooding.
Add the following: ,'Section 24-12 Flood Protection-
(l) All buildings or structures located within a Flood Hazard
Area designated by the Federal Insurance Administrator of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development or in a 100 Year
Flood Plain determined and published in reports of the U.S. Corps
of Engineers shall be reviewed by the County to assure that con-
struction of same is consistent with the need to minimize flood
damage. Ail public and private utilities and facilities, such as
sewer, gas, electrical and water systems shall be located, elevated
and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage, and drainage
shall be provided so as to reduce exposure to flood hazards.
(2) Ail mobile homes located within a Flood Hazard Area designated
h¥ the Federal Insurance Administrator of the Department of Housing
and urban Development or in a 100 Year Flood Plain determined and
published in reports of the U.S. Corps of Engineers shall be pro-
tected against flood damage. Ail mobile homes so located shall
be sited and anchored to prevent floatation, collapse or lateral
movement of the structure. Any appurtenances to such mobile
homes shall be added or be constructed of materials and utility
equipment that is resistant to flood damage and shall use construc-
tion methods and practices that best minimize flood damage."
To the Chesterfield Subdivision Regulations add the following:
"Section 8.4-4 Ail subdivisions shall be reviewed by the County
Planning Commission to assure that all such proposals are consistent
~ith the need to minim~ze flood damage. All public and private
utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical and water
systems shall be located, elevated and constructed to minimize
and eliminate flood damage, and drainage shall be provided so as
to reduce exposure to flood hazards. For the purposes of review,
the Planning Commission shall rely on the Flood Hazard Areas as
indicated on maps supplied by the Federal Insurance Administrator
of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the 100
year Flood Plain determined and published in reports of the U.S.
Corps of Engineers.
I
Plannig Director
P1 annign Dept.
County of Chesterfield
Chesterfield County Courthouse
Room 307
Chesterfield, VA 23832
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
FEDE. RAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20410
1/10/75
~ IN REPLY REFER
. .~_~' ~ IFO- 3a
Dear Sir:
~nclosed ~re copies of the off±c±~l ¥1ood ~a~ard ~ou~d~ry l~(s)
~re~ared for your community by ~he ~ederal ~su~ance Adm~nistrat~o~.
The purpose of the map(s) is to identify those areas of the community
which our studies have shown to be subject to special' flood hazards;
that is, the area or areas of the community that are likely to be
inundated by the flood having a one-percent per annum chance of occur-
rence, i.e., the so-called 100 year flood.
After the effective date of the map(s), under the provisions of
Section 102 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L.93-234),
any reci ie_~of Federal financial assistance or of any'loan from
A Federally-insured or regulated bank, savings and loan association
or similar institution for acquisition or construction purposes
within the special flood hazard areas identified on the map(s)
will be required to purchase flood insurance as a condition of
obtaining the loan or other assistance. .
In addition, the map(s) will enable you more effectively to administer
flood plain management measures in order to reduce or avoid future
flood damage. In this respect, your community is required to submi._~_~d*'"
to this office, within six months' of the date of this ietter,~lega£1y-
enforceable flood plain management ordinances in accor_~danic~e
standards of Section 1910.3(b) of our enclosed program regulations.
These community regulations must provide that all building e~_~s
and subdivision proposals be~carefully reviewed in relation to the
Flood Hazard Boundary Map to assure that the proposed site and c__on-
~tru~'~~e sub3ect to ne~-dless flood hazards.
It should be noted that a Flood Insurance Rate Study of the community
will be conducted to provide a more detailed analysis of your community's
flood hazard and related elevations, which will result in the publication
of a Flood Insurance Rate Mae. After December 31, 1974, or on the effective
date of the Flood Insurance Rate Map, whichever is later, both new con-
struction and substantial improvements to existing structures within the
special flood hazard areas will be eligible for flood insurance coverage
only at actuarial rates. However, coverage at subsidized rates will
continue to be available with respect to all structures in the entire
community which were in existence or under construction prior to that
date.
If we ~an be of further assistance to you in any of these matters
pleas~et us know. . '
/~.J./.Robe_r t _Hun_tel _
cting Federal Insurance Administrator
Enclosures
Oi
e z
_JO
March 12, 1975
Mr. Irvin G. ~orner, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
Chesterfield Courthouse
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Re:
W. S. Carnes
Use Permit 975SO14
Dear Mr. ~orner=
As you are aware request for use permit captioned above is
on the agenda to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on
March 26, 1975. This office r~presents the Chesterfield
Civic Association and others who are opposing the subject
request. Inasmuch as ~ny of the persons who are opposing
subject request are working, it would be a hardship for them
to attend a hearing in the afternoon. Consequently, it is
requested that the hearing on this matter be set for 5:30 p.m.,
March 26, 1975, to enable our clients and others who are op-
posing this matter to be present and be heard.
Thanking you for your kind consideratio~, I am
Si c tel ,
~. Miller
KEM ~ rc
cc:. J. Ruffin Apperson, Supervisor, Dale District
~' M. W. Burnett, Executive Secretaz-f
Michael C. Bitz, Planning Department
John E. Dodson, Esquire, Counsel for Applicant
VIRGINIA: At a regular meeting of the
Chesterfield County ~chool Board held
Wednesday evening, February 26, 197
at 8 otclock, in the board room of the
School Administration Building
PRESENT:
Mr. C. E. Curtis, Jr., chairman
Dr. G. R. Partin, vice-chairman
Mr. E. A. Meseley, Jr.
Mr. John S. Marvie, BII
Mr. A. Perry Strickland, III
On motion of Dr. Partin, seconded by Mr. Strickland, the school
board directed that the board of supervisors be respectfully requested to
extend the school budget by $23,850, which funds are to come from the
state for the Program for Gifted and Talented.
A copy: teste-
Robert A. Lux, Clerk
APPLICATION FOR BINGO AND/OR RAFFLE PERMIT
The undersigned applicant, pursuant to the provisions of
Section 18.1-316 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, hereby
petitions the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County for a
one-year permit to conduct Bingo games and/or raffles.
1. The applicant, in support of this petition, says that it
is a proper organization to conduct such Bingo games and/or raffles
because (state here the kind of organization requesting said permit)
-.meric~on Post 186_ .0tterdale Road,~Midlothian, Va. 23113
~~-'--:~' _n - -ekin~ funds to su~nort Le~ion Activiti '
c~zvi~zes lus enlargement im rovement of facilities. )
2. An authenticated copy of a resolution of the Board of
Directors or other governing body of said organization requesting
said permit is attached hereto, together with supporting evidence
that said organization is an organization permitted to conduct said
Bingo games and/or raffles under Section 18 1-316 of the 1950 Code
of Virginia, as amended. '
3o The applicant further states that it has read all of the
conditions which will be a part of said permit and agrees to comply
therewith.
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY of CHESTERFIELD, to-wit:
Subscribed and sworn to before me this~..(~ day of ~~
My commission expires:~/~)/?~'
Hunter ~. Williams, CO~nandsr p0~%~186
The American Legion
' '~NOtar)~ --
.. t-'ub 1 i c
,.~, , ~ .... ~ ~ P~)$~ N(~,.~186
PPROVED BY
H H Willies
MINUTES OF
_DEPARTMENT
THE AMERICAN LEGION
DATE
ATTENDANCE
....... 26
The regular meeting of the American Legion Post 186, Department of Virginia, was d...
called to order by Commander Williams at 8:10 PM, February 21, 1975.
Commander Williams led the membership in the Pledge of Allegiance and a recitat~or
the Preamble to the Constitution.
Mr Cook gave the invocation.
The Adjutant read the minutes of the last meeting which we"e approved as reed. ?he ~'
reported a bank balance of $5300 tnbank plus $1000 Savings Certificate.
~ Goodman reported 75 paid up members. Guests and prospective new members were i~ .... '.'~'
they were Frank Beddow, Douglas Clark, ~ C Smith.
~r Watkins reported that the Turkey Shoots had netted 1715 dollars to date, whi:;
~35 from last month. Jan 25th dance netted $~71.55~ Feb 15 dance had 81 ~ouples t.,~
of ~437.15. Executive Conmitt reco:mnended a raffle 'of Co]~)r TV set, will~ offer raf~ e
tickets at ~lO.O0 per book, each book to contain ll tickets. Membership agreed that
§ood idea, discussion, motion made and seconded that raffle be held for color TV,
Nr Watkins reported that Post will hold a tea dance , Saturday Night. 8 March. D~ce
be free to Legionnaires. Cocktails at 5:30 to 7 PM, with sr,r2mp, dj. ps, snacks,
Dance will be 7 to 10, BYOB. Will use tapes and records for music. ~uests will ~. ~l~
per couple~ Reservations must be in by ~ March.
Comman~]er %4Jill-ams repo:cted that the Executive Co~aittee has discussed Bingo and agree
that Post should go ahead with plans. Mr Earl Tyler has agreed to be in charge of
Bingo Co.~4n. ittee and get it started. Discussion of costs (approx $1500 to get sta~ted),
adequate help, rules of no alchohol however soft drinks and hot dogs, etc will be plan~'~
Fifteen of the members present volunteered to help. ~ Wednesday night was decided
as best night since there were no Bingo Games known on that night. Motion was ~made a.~ .~
seconded that Bingo Be conducted by the Post and that Mr Earl Tyler be authorized to
prec-.ed with plan~, obtain permit, and start Bingo as soon as feasible. Motion was
car~'ied by unanimous vote.
Mr Butler reported that Bill Bishop s)~ould tell us about his son who has been ill for
so~e ti.;~e. Mm Bishop stated his son was out of hospital two weeks ago but back in
v~ith flu. Butler reported that Jack David has some breaking out on his hands, also
Wil~i~ Stanley's son Mark was accidentally sho~ Feb 2dn, had sent f~owers. Earl Tyler's
Daughter was in Hospital.
Mz fJoswell r(:ported 26 m~m]boz's and 3 &mosts were present.
Cmdr Williams reported Spring Conference March l&, 15 & 16.
~ Winfree reported that will cost about $1000 this year for baseball team, spent about
~2000 last year but won't be that much thee time because still have uniforms and so~e
equipment. Meeting on 25th to discuss teams - need to know tonight if we are still going
to field a team. Also need committee to help set up and administer. Co~-~ittee appointed
by Cmdr dilli~s, they are: Winfree-Chairman, Pugh~ Horner, Ferrell~ and Beck. Stacy
Good available as manager. Mo~ion made and seconded that Post sponsor a team again
this year ~ a~thorized to spend up_to $1000. Carried by all ~resent.
MPILED BY_ ,_.__; /.~.~.- ~/~ ~
........ ~/ MINUTES OF Cc .£nued
P
,'ROVED BY //F.~_ OS?" NO. DEPARTMENT OF
THE AMERICAN LEGION
DATE_._. ?!
ATTENDANCE.
................... TOTAL ......
prospectzve ......... :~ .:.~.
Five/new members were presented to the membership along with their sponsors, they a:,
C P Smith sponsored by W Watkins
D L Clark " D May
F Bet]dow " K Stafford
J N Morris " H Elliott
C H Pearce " J Elliott
Prospective members left meeting room and were discu~sed~ all were voted in as new
Resolution was proposed to send letter to other posts in Third District to nominate Dav!F
May as Vice Commander of ~hird D~trict. Motion made, seconded and carried that Reso]'~tio~
as proposed be adopted and copy forwarded to other posts in Third Dist.
Mothion made, seconded that Post 186 make bid for Third District Conference to be held at
this Post. Carried, adjutant to prepar~ letter for Coriander to sign.
Mr Cook gave closing prayer and meeting was adjourned by Co.~mmnder Williams at 9:05 ~,l.
Mr. M. W. Burnett
County Administrator
County of Chesterfield
Chesterfield, Virginia
Dear Mr. Burnett:
March 5,
23822
The Bicentennial Committee has requested
that I express the Committee's evaluation of
the proposed historical film strip to be pre-
pared for the County by Mr. A1 Stuart.
The quality of work that was presented
to us on March 4 is certainly what would be
expected for such an undertaking and the cost
appears to be within reason after considering the
recognizable need.
A film depicting the history of Chester-
field County would be most beneficial to our
school system as well as for reasons of public
relations and advertisement. Should the Board
decide to fund this project, we feel it will
be a meaningful gift from the Board of
Supervisors to the County which will reflect
pride in our counties heritage and future.
Since we have committed our efforts to
other projects, the committee feels we are
unable to request this funding as part of our
budget. However, we will appreciate your
thoughtful consideration of this excellent pro-
posal and hope you will be able to provide the
necessary appropriation.
CC:
Sincerely,
~ud~ F. Peachee
Mrs. A. F. Weaver
Mrs. Mary W. McGuire
Mr. A1 Stuart
C o,~-~y A~inistrmtor
Dear ~. Burrer:
Under the laws o£ Virginia, the S~e~i£f im r~spcm~ible for the
Courts Su.i~ and ~he Court
t~ ~ to c~ly
Judge ~
Ju~ C~tes' ~e~, I ~ ~ a ~~ of 1 ~~ ~ d~~
s~g
~o pay t&~
d~putios
no one ~
RULES GOVERNING TIlE COURT BUILDING
INCLUDING TtIE OLD COURTHOUSE AND NEW COURT BUILDIHG AT
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA
1. A].I entrap:ce ways, corridors and approaches to court
rooms, offices and other rooms in the Courthouse premises, in-
cluding the Circuit, General District, General District Juvcni]e
and Domestic Relations Courtrooms, shall be kept clear~for the
purpose of free access thereto by those employed therein, or
those who have business to transact in the courthouse.
2. No cameras, television, radio or sound equipment,
including tape recorders, will be permitted in the court buildings
These provisions will not apply to official court reporters. No
photographs shall be taken of any jury serving the Circuit Court,
~or will they be televised.
3. Ail persons seeking admission to the Courtrooms or
Court Buildings will submit voluntarily to a search of his person
before being admitted, if required.
4. No one will enter the Coortrooms after a session has
begun without permission of the Court., but must wait until the nex
recess. No one will leave the Courtroom except at recess' or adjou:
nment except in an emergency. At recess and adj, ournment, and at
any other time the Jury is retiring, or the prisoners are being
removed to the jail, the spectators shall remain seated in the
Courtroom until the Judge, Jury and prisoners have had ample time
to withdraw, and said spectators have been given permission to
disperse by the Baliff.
5. The bar of the Court within the rail is reserved for
the defendant, counsel, members of the Bar, Court personnel and
such witnesses as counsel may desire to be within the bar for
consultation purposes. No one else will enter without permission
of the Court.
6. No one except attorneys of record, their agents,
Court personnel, witnesses and Jurors may handle exhibits except
by order of the Court.
7. The Sheriff of this County and his deputies may
search each person entering the Court Buildings or the Courtrooms
in order to maintain maximum security and to prevent any violation:
of these rules.
8. The Court reserves the right to designate seating
accommodations of each Courtroom.
9. No firearms, or weapons of any kind may be brought
into the Court buildings, except by the Sheriff, Deputy Sheriffs,
Court personnel and police officers.
10. The Sheriff shall provide two deputies in the Court-
rooms at all times while the Courts are in session. One deputy
shall be stationed at the back of the Courtroom and one at the
front facing the audience. These two deputies shall provide
security and maintain order. These.deputies are directed to
devote their time to their duties and not become involved in
the trial proceedings. When the Court adjourns, or takes a
recess, a deputy shall leave the Courtroom and secure the
corridor .behind the Courtrooms and advise the J~gdge that it is
safe to leave the Courtroom. The deputy shall accompany the
Judge to his chambers.
Prisoners shall not be carried ~hrough the corridor
while the Judge is leaving the bench to return to his chambers.
The corridor behind the Courtroom shall be locked
at all times and only authorized persons may be admitted.
The Sheriff shall provide surveillance of the public
toilets and see that they are periodically patrolled and visually
insPected for suspicious items. Judges' offices, private toilets
and the Secretary's 'office shall be inspected daily.
The Sheriff may close any public entrances to the
'Court Building ~
~ he dete~-z~ines should be ==.os=~ for security
reasons.
A B~liff shall be provided in addition to the guard.~
to serve the Circuit Courtroom.
w/ Prisoners may not be visited by relatives or friend~
in'the Courtroom.
Guards shall be provided to escort prisoners to and
from the Courtroom and shall be present while prisoners are
being tried.
Nothing in these Rules is intended to preclude the
formulation or application of more restrictive rules regarding
criminal trials in this Court.
Ernest P. Gates, Chief Judge
Twelfth Judicial Circuit of Virgini
A POLICE DEP iRTMENT "~
P,.7 MEMORANDUM No.
To: M.W. Burnett Date:
From: Mason Chalkley Time:
Reference: GRANT = Identi-Kit
3/11t75
Message: This grant was included in our overall budget for 1974-1975 under GRANTS,
Code 11-061-299.7 in the amount of $425 with local match of $21.25, and
was approved with the total budget last year.
The actual grant calls for a total of $415 with local match of $20.75
Would you please bring this before the Board tomorrow and sign on Page 2
with the proper date etc.
"' Police Management Study
On the basis of information submitted in the proposals, costs, and
typical output re , it is believed that the most cost-beneficial
and ?uSet
Pa
Wash~n
The ~st~
wit
CO
and
on ma'
adap
del
Th~
go~
by
improvem
The fi
to Co'
bri~
The.- x~
be done by the 'firm of Cresap, McCormick and
consultants with home offices in
_.in two broad phases, the first to begin
[rd. ~Initially,.the firm would
.~w. of the rganizations,..operations
Oepartment to :secure ~'.'?'[quick f~x"
,~ssues:~for which:solUti6ns might':b~:'d~evelopecl;~:~_.
· ~i(waiting for the conclusion.ora more
~aty:s is
~lso de:¢elop-~. ..a set o~ major organizational - -- -
-objectSves for rev~e~ and consideration
r~s Would .... form a framework for subsequent
department.
hate in an oral presentation of findings
upported by a brief report documenting the
ed within six weeks.
analysis.-.o~:~ and issues identified in the first phase,
accomP~tnied.;i~tSy, morehexplicit assessment of factors likely to
would cul~i~kt e :: '~'
the/p'rep~ra~io~ 6f a more comprehensive study re orr.
and
durationof~ '/this ph'~Se would be five monZhs.
tions in the County over the long term. It
extensive oral briefings for County officials,
The total
The firm of Cresap, McCormick and Paget has a sizeable staff of
personnel experienced in various aspects of police management and
criminal justice studies. Ail members of the staff have good
academic qualifications.
For this project,~Mr,.~ Bill G'. Evans, as the firm's Director of
';.~::' Criminal Justice. Services, will provide overall policy direction,
while~Mr. Louis H, Knapp will have responsibility for directing
the .d. ay~to~-day 'studYi~ effort.
~t firm.!'proposes to sr~end.;~pro×imately
naI staff working, wi~h'~people
. ems .
Previ'6'US:. .-rep°rts':prepared. ,. b~Cresap, blcCormick and Paget for other
:~'--juriSdictiOns., have. ~specifically:;,:.. -identified problem areas,
- have
"~¢~rdocumented~..:~:. . . them.:in 'a~:.'manner that can be easily read and-understood,
and have made time-phased rec0~endations for problem s
-'~ olution or
improvement .... .. .
- .~ "~ t :~' ,: ~ ,.?: ~ t~7
The cost.for this study. will'.:be $24,750, with only f}v~'~ercent
of the cost ~$!,237.50) will be borno by the County. The remainder
will be'~funde.d by state and federal agencies (LE~)
March 7, 1975
MEMO TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The scope of work for this study was stated in our request for proposal
dated February 3, 1975 (copy attached) which was sent to six firms.
Proposals were received from the six firms, offering to do the work for
the amounts shown:
1. R.P.S. Associates, Inc.
2. Public Administration Service
3. International Assn. of Chiefs of Police
4. Cresap, McCormick & Paget
5. Arthur Yound & Company
6. Booz-Allen & Hamilton
$20,782
22,820
23,000
24,750
25,000
35~000
In addition to price, consideration was given to other quantifiable
statements made in their proposal (see table I).
Believing the output report to be one of the most effective measures of
performance, copies of reports prepared for comparable studies for other
jurisdictions, were solicited from the lowest and fourth lowest bidders.
The second and.third low bidders were not seriously considered for reasons
stated below.
On the basis of information submitted in the proposals, costs, and typical
output reports, it is my opinion that the most cost-beneficial and useful
study will be done by the firm of Cresap, McCormick and Paget, and it is
my recommendation that they be contracted to do the work.
To justify this recommendation, the following comments are offered:
1. The proposal submitted by RPS Associates, Inc., is well written
and it appears that the proposed project director, Mr. Cunningham, understands
the purpose of the study. However, the more recent work performed by
Mr. Cunningham and his proposed associates for the Chesterfield study was done
in McDonough County, Illinois while members of another firm (in 1974).
The study performed for McDonough County (appx. 250 page report) comments
on many problem areas and their alternative solutions but makes no specific
recommendations. The report concludes with a final note - "The task, then,
before McDonough County governments is to analize, evaluate and determine
their own wishes for law enforcement and commit their support to the ful-
fillment of those wishes."
M. W. Burnett
Page Two
A similar report on Hanover County, Virginia, was very superficial -
although well printed and bound, and in three colors.
2. The proposal submitted by the Public Administration
Service was drafted and priced out before then representative visited
C'hesterfield County. From the initial meeting, it was obvious that
i~ e
the firm had a preconceived approach and an att ~ud of "knowing it all"
Such an attitude would not be well received by any member of the police
department.
The PAS proposal gave no indication of how much time would
be spent on the project by any class of person, nor did they indicate
how many man days would be spent in the field. Costs were in no way detailed.
It is interesting toinote that after visiting the County, their costs were
increased 30% in their proposal.
3. The International Association of Chiefs of Police did not send
a representative to visit the County prior to submitting a proposal.
Their proposal offered only 18 man days of field work, less
than one-third of the time offered by other firms. This would lead one to
believe that the firm could not collect adequate facts nor make adequate
observations within that time. To say it another way, they plan to spend
two-thirds of the time of their professionals writing reports based upon
inadequate, incomplete, and unobserved facts.
4. By contrast, the Cresa2, HcCormick and Pa~$. f~rm proposed
to spend more professional time on the study than other firms, with 83%
of their time in the field with people and problems. Their cost, per man
hour for the complete study is less than firms with lower priced proposals.
The firm has a good reputation of long standing in the
Management Consultant field, and has a sizeable staff of personnel experienced
in police management and criminal justice studies. Members of the staff have
good academic qualifications.
When reading their reports prepared for Troy, N.Y., Evanston, itl.,
Greenville, S.C., and Richmond, Va., it can be noted that problem areas were
specifically identified, documented, and time phased recommendations made
for their solution or improvement. Their reports are easy to read and
understand, which is important if wide distribution is to be made of the report
within the police department.
No office space ~till be r6quired by their staff during the study.
They propose to spend their time in the field talking to and working with
people in their normal area of operations.
5. Other than price, the only other problem with Arthur Young and
CompanS is that their key man, Mr John Smock, would be spending only a portion
of his time in the County during ~he study.
M. W. Burnett
Page Three
6. Booz-Allen & Hamilton's price is disproportiovately high,
but they did include approximately $8',000-10,000 in their proposal for
supervision of implementation of the study, and this was not requested
by Chesterfield.
LOF/bjs
HV~
0
0
0
0
0
0
dH9
dOV~
CD
C~
O,J
! !
SVd
(23,
Sd~J
r...-- ,r,.
0 g-
f~-
0
0
0
0 cd
~=E 0
Q..)
Oq--
~ 0
COUNTY
OF CHESTER
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA
~'J. W. BURN£TT
February' 5, 19 75
FIELD
Gentlemen:
Chesterfield County is soliciting proposals, from firms
with extensive experience in law enforcement consulting,
for a complete revie~ and analysis of the organization,
management, operation, and service activities of its
police department.
The final report should be constructively critical, and
should be a comprehensive practical and feasible program
for improvement of police operations and organizational
structures that will be cost-effective. ,
I~ the study, problems are to be identified, statistical
analyses made to determine trends and limits, and quantifi-
able objectives and goals established for crime reduction
and for the increased protection of life and property.
After objectives and goals have been established and
accepted by the County, an analysis shall be made of
the present and proposed utilization of manpm~er and
equipment in relation to the established goals and the
County's financial capability. Recommendations for im-
proving methods of utilizing these resources shall be
submitted with particular emphasis on the utilization of
manpower.
Position classification and compensation plans shall be
studied and recommendations made for recruitment and
selection methods, compensation, performance evaluation
systems, and for specialized training and executive
development programs for all levels of personnel.
February
Page Two
radio communications systems), and control reports
for decision-making shall be studied
,.~¢h recommendations
to be made for system improvement in content and
utilization.
Capital and operating costs shall be studied with
recommendations made for any possible improvement
in cost-effectiveness.
In order that firms ',-,~,, athos- in£orma~TLon zo-._' n"~-':~?atio~,
'o'f its proposal., the County will schedule one mutually
agreeable working day for each firm 'to visit 'the County
to make observations and to talk with selected Cot~nty
police personnel and County officials.
The proposal submission shall detail the extent of work
to be performed, the sequence of study or analytical
activities, and the time to be taken for each part of
the study.
As pert of its proposal, each firm shall provide a list
of law enforcement agencies of approximately the same
size or larger that have previously been stuiied, indicating
the extent to wkich the studies have been implemented, and
a list of contacts for assessment of the firms work per,
formance.
Also, each firm shall identify its field project manager.
and other consultants that will participate in the study.
Biographical,outlines, academic credentials, and prior
management consulting experience listings shall be provided'
for each participant. -
Each proposal submitted will be carefully reviewed by Cot:nty
staff personnel after which the two leading contending
firms will be asked to have the field project manager make
an oral presentation to th~ Police Committee o~ Beard of
.... = the
Supervisors. The Board will make the final selection of the
successful firm upon the recommendation of the Police
Committee.
After selecting the firm to make the study the County will
submit a equesc for LEAA grant funds to the maximum extent.
r ~ '
possible. After approval of the grant request, a contract
will be consummated. The contract will be based upon the
requirements of this request for proposal and the offerings
made in the successful proposal. ~
Any communications regarding this project should be
directed to-
Mr. Lee O. Falwell (804) 271-0872
Assistant County Administrator
County of Chesterfield
Chesterfield, ~ 25832
February 3,
Page Three
before February 24, i~7:>.
Very truly yours
LOF/bj s
Lee O. Falwell
EXPLANATION OF AGENDA ITEMS
March 12, 1975
III.
The vacation of an easement in Stonehenge was erroneously
passed on February 26th and has been advertised properly for
March 12th.
Mr. Mike Ritz will again present the details of a Housing and
Community Development Program.
VI.
CODAC is requesting $3,857 for the County's share of its
operation.
VII.
The Chief is asking for a Mobile Crime Lab which was to be
financed by DJCP; however, these funds were reduced and
$9,000 is all that the County can get for this program. If
the Mobile Crime Lab is purchaaed, it will take approximately
$10,000 County money to fund this program. After discussing
this matter with those acquainted with the program, it is my
recommendation that we appropriate the necessary money to
purchase this piece of equipment.
Chief Gill is also requesting $1,980 for the purchase of 90
copies of the Police, Crimes and Offenses and Motor Vehicle Laws
of Virginia.
VIII.
The Treasurer is again requesting approval of borrowing
$2,500,000 on short-term loan. This is necessary since the
County will take in approximately $8 000 000 - $9 000 000 in
June. ' ' , ,
There are some small changes in the construction of the Terminal
Building and at this moment, we are still negotiating as to what is
the County's share of the extra cost.
XI.
XtI.
Perfunctory.
XIII.
Mrs. Dalton is upset by the lack of enthu, siasm of this office
and the Board toward giving County land to the National Park
Service.
XIV.
This is a change, proposed by Mr. Jack Williams, which provides
for a definition of "retail merchant" and "wholesale merchant".