Loading...
07-15-68 MinutesVIRGINIA: At an adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, held at the Courthouse on July 15, 1968 at 7:00 ~.M. Present: Mr. Irvin G. Horner, Chairman Mr. H. O. Browning, Vice-Chr. Mr. F. F. Dietsch Mr. J. Ruffin Apperson Mr. A. R. Martin Mr. C. J. Purdy Mr. Lee R. Gordon, Comm. Attorney Mr. Morris Mason, Asst. Comm. Atty. Mr. Howard A. Mayo, Jr., Co. Planner Mr. Maynard Elrod, Asst. Co. Engr. Mr. M. W. Burnett, Exec. Sec'y. Mr. John E. Longmire, Asst. Exec. Sec'y. Again the matter of design criteria of Rt, 147 was discussed. It was pointed out that the lack of right of way could prevent the Highway Department from construct this road with a 24' raised median and extra side slopes as requested. It was generally agreed that further action would be taken after discussing the ter with the Highway Department and the Richmond Regional Planning Commission. Mr. Irvin Horner, Chairman of the Board, states that he will not vote on the Ordi- nance to be discussed because he owns or is interested in two establishments which might be affected. Mr. Conrad Bareford comes before the Board explaining the necessity for an ordinan( change to lengthen the hours for the sale of beer and wine for the 108 licensees the County of Chesterfield. He states that these store owners now lose about 20% the time for the sale of beer and wine, that the County is losing revenue, that th is a matter of convenience to the general public of the County, that the store own ers should be treated the same as store owners in adjacent localities, that beer now sold and will continue to be sold and that the passage of this ordinance will not affect the sale of beer to a great extent, that the stores not only lose beer sales but other sales also which is unfair competition, that it is alleged that people buy beer in Richmond and throw the cans on the roads in Chesterfield coming home, and pleads with the Board to pass the proposed ordinance which has been advertised for public hearing on this date. Mr. Raymond Roberowski states that he has lived in three different States and as a private citizen the present beer laws make it expensive for the County citizen. Mr. H. Nelms, President of the U-Totem Stores, states that there are 12 stores in the area, only two in Chesterfield because of the prohibition of selling beer on Sunday. Mr. Robert Porter, member of the Board of Directors of the Meadowbrook CountrY speaking for said Club, requested the passage of the ordinance. Mr. Sam Wagstaff states that we should treat others as we would be treated. If other localities have longer hours for the sale of beer than Chesterfield, then merchants would necessarily suffer. Mr. Fadool runs a restaurant in the County and states that this is unfair competiti Mr. R. J. Batten, Mr. Sharko, Hr. Taytan and Mr. Russell Davenport, speak in favor of the ordinance. The Rev. W. C. Russ, speaking for the opposition to this request, stated that he concedes there will be more money to those people who sell beer in the County if the hours are lengthened but the more beer sold will mean more accidents and more deaths on the highways, that more taxes will be necessary to pay the cost of addi- tional police and the other services which are required by the sale of alcohol. He states further that 72 Counties do not sell beer on Sunday or after 11:00 P.M., that Hopewell and COlonial Heights do not sell beer on Sunday as was stated by the proponents. - The Rev. Frank LaPierre, states that since the hours for the sale of beer will dic- tate the hours of the sale of whiskey-by-the-drink, that there is more involved in this case than appears. Mr. Robert Bass, a business man, states that the increase of 20% will mean an in- crease in related problems, such a s broken homes, alcoholics, etc. He states fur. ther that the County is not really taking a loss because good people come into the County because of no Sunday sale of beer and concludes with the statement that there is too much promiscuity and not enough discipline. Mr. Treadway Layne, Attorney, states that the sale of beer is a dangerous business which has been controlled by legislation and should be further controlled. Mr. Finley Albright representing 30 people from Woods Church cites Biblical refer- ences against the use of alcoholic beverages Mr. W. L. P~hillips speaks for the future of young people in the area. id Mr. R. F. Cochrane, introduces Debbie Carlton who states that if one accident or eath is saved then don't pass the ordinance. Mr. John Reese states that additional hours for the sale of beer will mean additio~ al traffic, more police patrol and more over indulgence. Mrs. William Snead states that we do not alway agree with Richmond, why follow its example at this time. Mr. William Ritchie states that the officers in the Police Department say it would be harder to enforce the late hour sale of beer. Mr. J. L. Clarke, Rev. William Nottingham, C. E. Hall, George Bracley, Rev. Roland Powell, Mrs. Carolyn Beville, James Dyson, Austin Minnie and others speak against the. proposed ordinance. Mr. Bareford in rebuttal states that he had checked with the Police Department and he had been assured that there would be no difference in the operation of the Polic Department if the hours for the sale of beer were extended. Therefore, for the safety Qf the people of the County, for the good of the merchant and customers and citizens of the County, he again requests that the ordinance be passed. Mr. Dietsch states that the License Tax in Chesterfield is less than in Henrico County and the City of Richmond, that Menrico County did not get into any trouble when the hours were changed. At the request of the Rev. Roland Powell there were 106 people who raised their hands against the proposed ordinance and 98 people for the passage of the ordinance Mr. Browning presents 65/70 letters against the ordinance from which letters the writer' names were read. Mr. Apperson s~ates that his generation grew up with automobiles and bootleggers, that high speed causes accidents, that our Society is changing and morality is changing and we cannot legislate morals. Upon further consideration, Mr. Apperson makes the following motion - Be it resolved that the following ordinance be adopted: An Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 7, Section 7-2, paragraphs 1 and 2 to prohibit the sale of beer and wine during certain hours, and to provide penalties for violation. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA: 1. That Chapter 7, Section 7-2, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the County of Chester- field be and they are hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: SECTION 7-2 SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF BEER AND WINE PROHIBITED DURING CERTAIN HOURS OF EACH DAY; PENALTY FOR VIOLATION. It shall be unlawful for any person licensed under the provisions of the Alco- holic Beverage Contrbl Act or his agents, servants, or employees, to sell beer or wine or permit the consumption thereof on the premises mentioned in such license between the hours of 12:00 o'clock midnight and 6:00 o'clock A.M. of each calendar day, except Sunday, and between the hours of 12:00 o'clock mid- night and 12:00 o'clock noon of each Sunday. Each such offense shall constitute a separate violation punishable by a fine not exceeding five hUndred dollars ($500.00) or by confinement in jail not ex- ceeding twelve (12) ~onths, or both, in the discretion of the jury or of the trail justice or of the court trying the case without a jury. Whereupon Mr. Purdy states that this ordinance has nothing to do with the Sale of whiskey, that he has received many telephone calls and letters and visits and seconds the motion of Mr. Apperson. Mr. Dietsch states that the passage of this ordinance has no religious impli- cations and that we cannot legislate the morals and seconds Mr. Apperson's motion. Mr. Martin states that alcohol is the chief offender to our Society today. Mr. B~owning states that alcohol is the chief cause of highway accidents. After further comments Mr. Browning offers a substitute motion: That the ordinance be amended to eliminate the sale of beer and wine on Sunda' Whereupon Mr. Martin Seconds the substitute motion. Mr. Apperson cites a challenge to the "Men of the Cloth" to educate alcoh~ that he doesn't like to oppose people who feel as sincere as those present. Rev. Russ states that as a minister he sees the other side of the question pleads with the Board not to extend the hours for the sale of beer. A vote being taken on the substitute motion - Mr. Browning, Mr. Martin, Mr. Dietsch and Mr. Purdy vote Aye. Mr. Apperson votes No. A vote being taken on the original motion as amended those voting Aye - Mr. Apperson, Mr. Dietsch and Mr. Purdy. Those voting Nay - Mr. Martin and Mr. Browning, and the following ordinance adopted: ~ · An Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 7, Section 7-2, paragraphs 1 and 2 to prohibit the sale of beer and wine during certain hours, and to provid penalties for violation. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD VIRGINIA: 1. That chapter 7, Section 7-2, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield be and they are hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: 290E S=CTIO~ 7-2 SALE A~TD CONSUMPTION OF BEER ~ WINE PROHIBITED DURING CERTAIN HOURS; PENALTY FOR VIOLATION. It shall be unlawful for any person licensed under the provisions of the Alco- license between the hours of 12:00 o'clock midnight and 6:00 o'clock A.M. o£ each calendar day, except sunday and between the hours of 12:00 o'clock mid- twelve months, or both, in the discretion of the jury or of the trial justice the board in behalf of a request for a building permit for the Golden skillet on It was cited by a letter ~igned by Mr. Saunders that adequate provlsions would be granted, subject to the conditions embodied in a letter dated July 11, 1968 and This day there were presented to this Board ~he following bids for the sale of the $4,000,000 Water Revenue Eonds of Chesterfield Cou/~ty, Virqini~, dated April 1, 196 which were received on July 15, 1968 at the office of the Executive Secretary, Chesterfield County, Virginia. F. W. Craigie & Co., Inc. & Associates, water bonds due $150,000 April 1, 1970; $250,000 April 1, 1971; $200,000 each year April 1, 1972 to 1974, inclusive, at (6%) per centum per annum: due April 1, 1975 at Five and 20/lO0th$ {5.20%) per zen- rum per annum; due $200,000 each year April 1, 1976 to 1984, inclusive at Four and 75/100the (4.75%) per centum per ann~%m; due $250,000 each year April 1, 1985 fo 1988, inclusive, at Four and 80/lO0th (4.80%) per centum per annum, plus a premium of $583.00 at an effective interest rate of 4.894% per On motion of Mr. Dietsch., seconded by Mr. Appe~son, it is resolved that thi~ Board inform the Richmond Regional Planning Co~ission that it has reviewed the proposal to exchange a portion of Interstate Rt. 295 for a section of the Richmond MetropolJ tan ~pressway from Rt. 64 to the vicinity of the Boulevard and approves of said exchange in the hope that the arterial system in the Metropolitan area will be substantially improved. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $4,000,000 WATER REVENUE BONDS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, PAYABLE FROM THE NET REVENUE DERIVED BY THE COUNTY FROM THE OPERATION OF ITS WATER SYSTEM. WHEREAS, the County of Chesterfield (herein referred to as "County"), a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, now owns and operates and has heretofore for many years owned and operated a water system or systems designed to provide a supply of water to the County and its inhabitants~ and WHEREAS, the County is authorized by Chapter 5 of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, to acquire, contruct, reconstruct, improve, extend, enlarge, equip, maintain, repair and operate the water system now owned and main- tained by the County in order to provide an adequate supply of water to the County and to its inhabitants; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County has determined to improve extend and enlarge, such existing water system~ and WHEREAS, at a special election held in the County on May 10, 1966, the following question was submitted to the qualified voters of the County: "Shall the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, contract a debt and issue its bonds in the maximum amount of $4,000,000 for the purpose of extend- ing and adding to the existing water system of said County? The full faith and credit of the County will not be pledged to the payment of Said bonds and interest thereon, but said bonds and the interest thereon will be payable solely from the net revenues from the water system. The Board of Supervisors on behalf of the County of Chesterfield shall covenant with the holders of said bonds that'the County will at all times charge such rates for the use of said water system ao as to insure that the revenues of said system shall be sufficient to pay the cost of operation and maintenance thereof and to pay said bonds and any other indebtedness including interest thereon, incurred in the establishment, acquisition, construction, improvement, extension, addition, operation and maintenanc of said system and to comply with all other covenants and provisions of the resolutions of said Board providing for the issuance of said bonds and other indebtedness." and a majority of such qualified voters voting on said question at said special election voted in favor of the bond issue referred to in said question and the Cir- cuit Court of the County, by an order entered on May 20, 1966, ordered the Board of Supervisors of the County to issue and sell said bonds~ and W/qEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County has, by a resolution entitled "A Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of $750,000 Water Revenu Bonds and $3,070,000 Water Revenue Refunding Bonds Of the County of Chesterfield, Payable from the Net Revenue Derived by the County from the Operation of Its Water System", (hereinafter referred to as "Resolution"), adopted by said Board on March 22, 1962, authorized the issuance of $750,000 Water Revenue Bonds and $3,070,000 Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, for the purpose of ~efunding $3~0,000 aggregate principal amount of Water Revenu~ Bondsdated January 1, 1957 and of improving, extending and enlarging the water system of the County,~ all of which bonds are secured equally and ratably by the revenues of the water system as defined in the Resolution~ and WHEREAS, said Board of Supervisors deems it necessary and in the best interests of Chesterfield County to issue additional~onds pursuant to the.provisioE of Article III of the Resolution which additional bonds shall be Additional Bonds as such term is defined therein and as authorized by the Resolution,for the purpose of extending, improving and enlarging the existing Water system of th~ County, which extensions, improvements and enlarging shall become part of the wager system as such term is defined in the Resolution; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize the issuance of said Additional Bonds the Board of Supervisors must adopt a resolution (hereinafter referred to as "resolu- tion'') in accordance with Section 314 of the Resolution: NOW, 'THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfie] County, Virginia, as follows: Section 1. The Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County deems it necessary that bonds in the amount of $4,000,000 be issued to finance the cost of extending, improving and enlarging the existing water system of the County includ- ing the construction of transmission mains, storage tanks, pumps, treatment plants reservoirs and distribution lines, and the acquisition and construction of other necessary water system plants, structures, equipment and properties (hereinafter called the "Project"). Section 2. The Board of Supervisors directs that the proceeds of such Additional Bonds be applied as directed in Section 9 hereof. Section 3. Said $4,000,000 Water Revenue Bonds, authorized by Section 1 hereof, shall consist of an issue of eight hundred bonds of the denomination of $5,000 each, numbered from 1 to 800, inclusive, in the order of their maturity, each bearing the designation of "Water Revenue Bond", shall be dated April 1, 1968 and shall be payable in annual installments on April 1, in each year, as follows, viz.: Amount of Amount of Year of Maturity Year of Maturity Maturity Installments Maturity Installments 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 $150 000 250 000 200 000 200000 200 000 200000 200000 200 000 200000 200000 1980 $200,000 1981 200,000 1982 200,000 1983 200,000 1984 200,000 1985 250,000 1986 250,000 1987 250,000 1988 250,000 Section 4. Each of the bonds shall bear interest from its date until County's obligations with respect to the payment of the principal sum of such bond shall be discharged at rates as follows: The bonds maturing on April 1, 1970 to April 1, 1974, at the rate of per annum~ The bonds maturing on April 1, 1975 at the rate of 5.20% per annum~ The bonds maturing on April 1, 1976 to April 1, 1984, at the rate of 4.75% per annum~ and The bonds maturing on April 1, 1985 to April 1, 1988, at the rate of 4.80% per annum. Such interest shall be payable semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds shall not be redeemable prior to their maturities. Section 5. Both principal of and interest on the bonds shall be pa~ble at The'Central National Bank of Richmond, in Richmond, Virginia, or, at the option of the holder, at the principal office of The Chase Manhattan Bank (National AssocJ ation), in the Borough of Manhattan, City and State of New York, in any coin or currency of the United States of America which on the respective dates of payment shall be legal tender for the payment of public and private debts. Section 6. The bonds issued pursuant to this resolution shall be Addi- tional Bonds for the purpose of the Resolution and the provisions of the Resolutior shall apply to said Additional Bonds issued pursuant to this resolution as though said provisions were included and set forth in this resolution, and shall be in thc form prescribed by Section 310 of the Resolution, excepting, however, the in the form of bond as set forth in Section 310 of the Resolution, and any other provisions of said Section or Article which may refer to the redemption of bonds pzior to maturity, th~ date of sa.d bonds and the purpose, ~Uagunt and authorlzatio of said bonds. Section 7. All additionml Ponds issued pursuant to this resolution shal be for all purposes deemed to constitute Additional BQnds, as deflned in the Reso- lution a~d shall he entitled to the pledge of the Reven~es of the Water System mad, by the Resolution, and shall have equal rank with the bonds initially issued pur- suant to said Resolution (hereinafter called "Ponds"). The Additional Bonds iss~e~ pursuant to this re~olutlon and any coupons for interest thereon, shall be entitle~ to the security and benefit of such pledge and of the provisions of the Resolution 1. A copy of this resolution certified by the Clerk of the Board of he has ascertained that all payments required by Section 606 (2) of the Resolution to be paid into the Debt Service Fund prior to the certificate: (8) the aggregate ~ount which must be paid from the 294. the Net Revenues of the County for each of the last two completed Fiscal Years, and (c) the sum obtained by dividing by two the aggre- by dividing by two the aggregate of the Net Revenues for the two pre, ceding Fiscal Years. as shown in the certificate referred to in Sub division {2) of this Section, will be at least 140~ of the maximum agrregate amount which must be paid from the Revenue Fund for deb% service on the outstanding Bonds and Additional Bonds in the next said subdivision (2). 5. A certificate signed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors showin the name or names of the purchaser or purchasers of the Additional Bonds and the price required to be paid therefor by such purchaser the county for application in accordance with such resolution or 7. A written opinion of Counsel (who may be Counsel to the County) approvlnq the form of this re~olution and ~tating that ils terms and provisions comply with the requirements od law add of the Resolution and that the certificates and amounts of money so delivered or paid to the County constitute compliance with the conditions hereinabove shall have the sa~e meaning as given to such terms in the Resolution. Section 11. The action of the Board of Supervisors in accepting the bid for the purchase of said $4,000,000 Water Revenue Bonds submitted by Phelps, Penn & Co., New York, ~ew York, and F. W. Cr~igie & CO., Inc., Richmond, Virginia and Associates (herein re£erred to as "purchaser") on July 15, 1968 is hereby ratified and confirmed. The Chairman and the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors are hereby authorized to cause said bonds to be prepared and fo execute said bonds and, when the terms of their hid and upon payment to the County Treasurer of the p~rcha~e price of said bonds. contrary, the ~ditional Bonds hereby authorized shall be executed by a facsimile of the signature of the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and by the manual signature of ~he Clerk of said Board. A ~acsimile of the seal of the County shall be imprinted upon each bond. Section 13. The Clerk of the Board of supervisors is hereby directed with the Circuit Court of the County of Chesterfield in order to comply with the provisions of the Publzc Finance Act of 1958. Section 14. This Resolutmon shall take effect immediately. On motion of Mr. Apperson, seconded by Mr. Purdy, .t is resolved that this Board F ' ' 'Executive Secretary