04-17-1972 PacketPresent
Mr. Irvi]
Mr. Leo
Mr. JoRu
Mr. CoJ.}
Mro E.Me~
The prob]
On motio~
the foll¢
basis:
AN
Co(
un]
CO~
Ch(
BE
OF
VIRGINIA: At an adjourned meetin~ of the
Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County, held at the Courthouse on
April 17, 1972 at 5:00 P.M.
Go Horner~ Chairman
yers, Vice-Chairman
fin Apperson
repela
lin O'Neill
Also Present:
Mro Oliver Do Rudy~ Commo Atty.
Mr. MoWoBurnett~ Exec. Sec'y.
Mro John Eo Longmire~AsstoExecoSec'y.
Mr° Michael Ritz, Coo Planner
Mr° hack Spencer, Health Dept.
Mr° Robt. A.Painter, Co. Eng.
Mro David Welchons~Asst. Co° Eng.
Mro JoKoTimmons
Mro John Ho Henson
Mr. Jake Limerick
em of power boats on the SwiftCreek Reservoir was discussed.
of Mro Krepela, seconded by Mro Myers~ it is resolved that
wing ordinance be and it hereby is adopted on an emergency
ORDINANCE to amend and re-ordain Section 13-14 of the
e of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia~ making it
awful to trespass~ throw trash, etc° and/or use internal
bustion engines upon the property of the water works of
sterfietd County and providing certain exceptions.
IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA:
th~
ot~
op(
SUe
im~
pre
bel
pfc
ap~
eas
That Chapter 13, Section 13-14 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, Virginia, be amended and re-ordained to read
as/follows:
It~shall be unlawful for any person not authorized by the
Department to go upon any of the property under the control
of the %~ater Works Department of Chesterfield County~ to
ow or place refuse upon any such property or upon the
ers of any impoundment of the County, to throw trash or
er refuse into the water of any such impoundment~ to
rate any internal combustion engine upon the waters of any
h impoundment, to otherwise trespass upon any such water
oundment or to go upon or otherwise trespass upon the
perry of the County surrounding the filtration ~lan~s
onging to the County on Falling Creek or Swift Creek~
vided, however, that this section insofar as it is
kicable to the water impoundment of Falling Creek and the
ement surrounding it shall not apply to those landowners
who reserve
upon the wa
a~ no inter
that this s
ment at Swi
to the righ
as reserved
with the Cc
against sai
by them or
not apply t
water impou
ment offic~
and/or law
Ayes:~ M~. H
Mr. J.K.Ti~
on the uppe
around Rt.
Upon consi~
it is on mc
the County
proposals ~
main to seI
Ayes~ Mr. ~
On m Sion ¢
that the C¢
sewer conn~
Distticto
Ayes: Mr.
On motion
this Board
recordatio
Ayes: Mr.
Messrso Fr
the possib
Rto360 and
may need s
possible.
property w
investigat
After much
financing
on motion
Board agre
under the
worked out
wealth's A
the right to fish in such impoundment so far as going
:ers of the impoundment to fish is concerned so long
%al combustion engine is used~ and provided further
~ction insofar as it is applicable to the water impound-
Pt Creek and the easement surrounding it shall not apply
~s meserved to those landowners adjoining said impoundment
to them by the provisions of the easement agreement executed
~nty of Chesterfield and/or the order of condemnation entered
~ landowners so long as no internal combustion engine is used
hheir invitees; and provided further that this section shall
p the operation of internal combustion engines upon the
~dments of Falling Creek and/or Swift Creek by law enforce-
~ls or County employees lawfully charged with the maintenance
_nfomeement upon said impoundments.
orner, Mr. Myers, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Krepela and Mr. O'Neill.
mons explains the proposal for constructing a pumping station
r reaches of Falling Creek to pump the sewage from the area
11 and the Railroad to the intersection of Rt. 147 and Rt.60.
eration of all of the many aspects of this construction,
tion of Mr. Krepela, seconded by Mr. Myers~ resolved that
Engineer be requested to prepare contracts covering the
or the installation of a sewerage pumping station and force
ve this general area.
orner, Mr. Myers, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Krepela and Mr. O'Neill.
f Mr. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Apperson, it is resolved
unty Engineer be and he hereby is authorized to allow one
ction at the corner of Lee and Jackson Streets in Matoaca
{orner, Mro Myers, Mr. Apperson, Mr. Krepela and Mr. O'Neill.
)f Mr. Myers, seconded by Mr. Apperson, it is resolved that
agrees to the condemnation of an easement to allow the
of Trueheart Heights, Section 4~ in Chester, Virginia.
~orner, Mr. Myers~ Mr. Apperson, Mr. Krepela and Mr. O'Neill.
~nk, Himmy and Junior Hancock come before the Board to discuss
~lity of obtaining sewers to their property lying south of
state that there is at least 500-acres in this area that
~wers and that they will work with the County in any way
It was pointed out to them that the sewers on the Powell
)uld allow for some extension and that the matter would be
~d further.
discussion by various engineers concerning the possible
)f a sewer program for the Swift Creek Reservoir area, it is
)f Mro Apperson, seconded by Mr. Myers, resolved that this
~s in general as to the principle of revenue bond financing
%ew Constitution.~ provided the engineering problems can be
satisfactorily and this Board further requests the Common-
~torney~ with the County Engineer, and the Executive Secretary
-2-
VI, Rf
VII. Rf
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD
CHESTERFIELD. VIRGINIA
AMD OTXLXTXES DE]PAI~TMEHT
~uam~on of mr Co serve Su~f~ CL~e~ DeveSt Corperac~.
~ss~ of mr eoenoec~ fees.
MtdermCtou of letter dated ~ 3X, 1972 £rem a. ~
mm~ ~r ~tm f~o for ~ ~ ~~.
t~ ~t~~ of bt~ of ~rtl 10, 1972 h m S.
,taw ~tituf of ~qpJ f#tlttteo ou
~e~ oCaL~J~ of mm,era aa Eiiq~land Cree~:
1973 ~ $~ & ~~ ~~ ~r
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA
VIII. If.
0 ¢~0
I:III. ~
XlV. ~
Sprins Rill hbdivilLou end Cla~
y )
Letter o£ April 14, 1972 frou John
re saulur7 eewr ma s~oru dratnqe ~or proposed 8hopp~us
center aC iouU 60 ,md 147.
_Goeaideracf~n 0£ pue~eS scacLou at ~fIlinS Creek and 1o~
60 Co puae ~uCo PoeeJboek Creek at lUmCe :L~7 md 60.
d) Cono~deracAen of request free SaXonmoky and Hubbard for
partie~paCLon ~n severe Co Route 1~7 md 60.
~) R~ev 8~aCua of severe for Old Tram Creek and lCC~rf~k
Sanitary Dis~rteC ~o CoLoulal bf~ mad l~Corsbu~ sy8~.
b) Loquest o~ G~rlmd Tuek~r for ~atldins
of Lee md Jaekoon SLTeOU, Ha~o~a.
ufldoration o£ letter o£ April 11, 1972 froa Elbert H. Holt
eoid~ratio~ 0£ sewer eounoetiea fees for Safety Tram mad
~Ceutf~a
Rev. 3/27,/72
COST ANALYSIS
CONSTRUCTING 3 MGD PLANT AT PROCTORS CREEK
VERSUS
· PUMPING PROCTORS CREEK FLOW TO PALLING CREEK PLANT
GEN RAL ASSUMPTIONS:
1. Estimates and alternate schemes assume that decision will he
base on short term considerations only. Therefore, costs past 1982 were
not q msidered. Long range considerations are shown in the Cheste~field
Sewlr Study.
2. In order to have a fair comparison it was assumed that any
alte, ~ate scheme to Phase I of the Chesterfield Sewer Study must provide
serv ce to all of the land area that Phase I indicates to be served.
Falli
at a
need,
3. Should the Proctors Creek flow be pumped to Falling C~eek the
~g Creek plant would have to be increased to 9 MGD capacity by 1976
;ost of $1,000,000. In the original plant there would be no increase
:d to the Falling Creek plant until 1982.
-!-
mate I ,-.,
Assume pumping to Falling Creek plant is to be a permanent situation.
· efore, take shortest distance from Proctors to Falling Creek with force
1/gravity line combination using two pumping stations.
Cost
Item Increa se
1
2
3
'4
5
*6
7
Alt~
The
ma
CK.
PLAMT
$247,000.
120,000
300,000
165,000
200,000
.400,000
. 250,000.
$1,682,000
*Delete 36":gravity trunk from Phase I
and replace Vctth 18.". gravity.
7500 '%' 3:. '('~"')
, 24" G~:t,~,
-'S
~LLWOOD
60.O0 ~..F. Q
13 F..LLWOO ID
,a4..T ERt, I~TE OP.
ADDiTIONAl- SEWER.~
MC~D
Zl#
G il, Avl'r)'
Altenate II ,~.
Assume pumping to Falling Creek is to be a permanent situation.
Pure ) entire Proctors Creek flow using~one pumping station at Proctors
Cre~ k. '"
CK.
:J'AMES
'Item Cost
1 $826,000
2 300,000
*3 770,000,
$.1,896,000
'16,000 1.f~, 36" sewer from
'Phase I plan. ·
~ w_.LL. WOQD
'"2/:,500 1,.. F.
24"
BELLWOO~
L. AaOO ~4
"ADDIT JONA~.
ul
- 3 -
~L~.WOOD
Ake:
aton
date
hate III '"
Assume pumping situation is temporary and install 24" force main
alignment of 36" trunk of Phase I to be used as gravity line ar future
.LING, CK.
PLANT
Item Cost
1
2
3
'4
5
6
$247,000
120,000
300,000
433,000
400,000
250~000
$1,750,000
*Delete 36" gravity trunk from Phase I
and replace with 24" force main and
18" gravity.
~J'AM E S
~3ELLWOOD
L A~O0 ~
P H~',~E, '~
ALTE RNA%'E 5 F..WF-. R
18000
Z,*"'.SM.
.15ooo ~.F.
18" ~P,'AVlTYTM
( F. M.' F LOW s.
?--.~RA, VJ,%Y_: SC)UTI.I)
Zt"
J I
PROCTORS
PLANT/
(PUMP, 5TA. ) _'-F..5
-4-
SUl~
Alte
bec~
the
THE
MARY:
Alternate I of the three pumping schemes is the cheapest, however,
hate III is only $68,000 or 4% more and would be the logical choice
use it provides for conversion of the force main to gravity flow should
[ecision be made to install a plant at Proctors Creek in the future·
~FORE:
Capital Improvement Costs
A. Two plants:
1. 36" trunk sewer
2. 3 MGD plant Proctors Creek
B. One Plant:
$ 770,000
1,300,000
$2,070,000
1. pumping costs
$1,750,000
By having one plant (Falling Creek) capital savings =
$320,000 @ 5%, 4 years (to 1976) =
In 1976 add 3 MGD capacity to Falling Creek plant
)0,000 @ 5%, 6 years (to 1982)=
;refore total capital cost would be increased by $805,000
if one plant is used instead of two.
Operating Costs
A. Two plants:
$7,700/yr.
Operate 3 MGD plant l0 years
$66,000/yr. (plus depreciation)
Operate 6 MGD plant l0 years
$114,000/yr.' (plus depreciation)
10 years depreciation on sewer lines
77,000
920,000
· 1,680,000
$1,750,000
$ 320,0~0
$ 40O,000
$1,000,000
- 400,000
$ 600,000
$ 805,000
$2,677,000
-5-
B. One plant:
1. 10 years depreciation on sewer lines
@ $12,000/yr. $ 120,000
2. Operate 2, 3 MGD pumps 10 years
@ $30,000/yr. each (plus depreciation) 710,000
3. Operate 6 MGD plant 4 years
@ $114,000/yr. (plus depreciation) 672,000
4. Operate 9 MGD plant 6 years
@ $153,000/yr. (plus depreciation) 1,362,000
Therefore total operating costs would be increased by
$187,000 if one plant is used instead of
Total increased costs for having one plant instead of
~wo= $ 805,000
+ 187, 000
$ 992,000
$2,864:,000
Board
Chest~
Chest~
Gentle
Chest,
Smith
ville,
to ArtJ
Act, f
meetir
on att
unders
to rep
be pa:
pos iti~
with
issua
Board
with
SWIFT CREEK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
April 14, 1972
)f Supervisors
rfield County
rfield Courthouse, Virginia
hen:
Swift Greek Development Corporation, a joint venture of
rfield Land & Timber Corp., of Richmond, Virginia, and Reynolds,
& Hills, Architects-Engineers-Planners, Incorporated, of Jackson-
Florida, proposes that the County issue revenue bonds pursuant
31e VII, Section 10(b) of the Revised Constitution & Public Finance
ir the sanitary improvements as outlined and discussed at the
~ of the Board of Supervisors on this date and as further delineated
~ched drawings with backup engineemng cost estimates. It is
pood that the full faith and credit of the County will not be pledged
.ay the obligation. The principal and interest on the bonds shall
d solely from revenue generated by the aforementioned improvements.
We ask that you agree to this concept so that we will be in a
~n to discuss the feasibility and conditions of such revenue bonds
.~nders or underwriters. It is understood that all details of the
ce of any such bonds would be subject to the approval of the
of Supervisors once we have reached some tentative arrangement
~e lenders or underwriters.
Board
your
We a~
CHES'
By. ,
Df Supervisors
Page 2
April 14, 1972
If the foregoing is acceptable to the Board, we would appreciate
gning the appropriate space at the bottom of this letter.
Sincerely,
SWIFT CREEK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
E. Angus Powell, Member Board of Directors
'ee to the above:
ERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
411