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