Loading...
09-26-1984 PacketCHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETINGDATE; September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER; SUBJECT: Resolution Recognizing Anthony L. Pullano Upon His Retirement 5oao COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Whereas, Mr. Anthony L, Pullano will retire from the Assessor of Real Estate department, Chesterfield County, on September 1, 1984; and Whereas, Mr. Pullano has provided 10 years of quality service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and Whereas, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors will miss Mr. Pullano's diligent service. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that this Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Mr. Pullano and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for his service to the County. And, Be It Further Resolved, that a copy of this Resolution be presented to Mr. Pullano and that this Resolution be permanently re- corded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Mr. Pullano will be present. ATTACHMENTS: YES r-I NO ~ PREPARED BY;, Robert B. Galusha Personnel Director SIGNATURE: "" '"COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AG E NDA MEETING DATE: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER' 5.mo SUBJECT: Resolution Recognizing Ms. Bessie V. Richter Upon Her Retirement COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Whereas~ Ms. Bessie V. Richter will retire from the Circuit Court, Chesterfield County, on September 1, 1984; and Whereas, Ms. Richter has provided 12 years of quality service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and Whereas, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors will miss Ms. Richter's diligent service. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that this Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Ms. Richter and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for her service to the County. And, Be It Further Resolved, that a copy of this Resolution be presented to Ms. Richter and that this Resolution be permanently re- corded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Ms. Richter will be present. ATTACHMENTS: YES r-I NO I~ Robert B. Galusha Personnel Director SIGNATURE: "/ 'tOU~TY ADMINISTRATOR CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: Consideration of a Petition for Public Water the Omaha, Carswell, and Kingsdale Road Area. in COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: See Report on "Testing of Individual Wells and the Source of Contamination" under Utilities Section "Reports" SUMMARY OFINFORMATION: At the regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors on February 22, 1984, the Board authorized the Utility Department to survey the Omaha, Carswell, and Kingsdale Road area to determine the number of residents that would connect to public water and to have the Health Department survey the wells in the area. The Health Department survey of the wells in the area shows that five (5) of the eleven (11) wells tested showed contamination. At the Board of Supervisors meetings on May 23, 1984 and July 11, 1984, this matter was deferred until additional contracts have been received. As of this date, we have received ten (10) signed contracts from the sixteen (16) residents surveyed which amounts to 62.5% of the residents. (11/16 = 68.75% - 12/16 = 75%) The cost to extend public water into the area is estimated to be $40,000. This project is not included in the 6-year Capital Improvement Program; therefore, funds planned for other improvements to the system will have to be temporarily allocated to this project· This will result eventually in additional Bonds being sold with accompanying service charge in~eases.~ PREPARED BY:.~"~/';~.~ ~// ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO [] SIGNATURE:_ ~/--~~ '/' COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 0 Page 2 September 26, 1984 If the Board wishes to proceed with this project, an appropriation of $40,000 is needed to design and construct the project. Appropriate $40,000 from 563 surplus to 380-1-64414-4393. District: Bermuda 0 4 · :! ELLWOOD :,EE: AI'IACHE D 0 RALI; DIS'[ ~D / / / / / '~ 1 / ! I ~ I I I I · 0~o Y" 0 _LE-.~N D_ _ C o/'4-Y-Fh.A C TS VI~I/LIi ~-¥ M A P CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA September 26, 1984 MEETING DATE' ITEM NUMBEr:i 9 on. SUBJECT: Request of the Christmas Mother Committee for the 1984 Christmas Mother Program COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION The Chesterfield-Colonial Heights Christmas Mother Committee has requested permission to address the Board to ask for support with this year's program. Mrs. Dorothy Armstrong, this year's Christmas Mother will make a short presentation at the Board meeting. She has been an active member of the community for a number of years. Following are a few of her many activities: Member of the Christmas Committee since its beginning in 1972. Past president of the Chesterfield County PTA Council · Past chairman of the Chesterfield County Youth Services Commission Rachel Holmes, Chairman, and Beverley B. DowDey, Coordinator, may also be present. Christmas This program has been very successful over the years in bringing Christmas to the needy children and the elderly of Chesterfield County and Colonial Heights. ATTACHMENTS: YES n NO 31~ Elmer C. Ho~ge, Jr. Assistant County Administrator SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 0 ? Agenda Item September 26, 1984 Page 2 Mrs. Armstrong will request permission to ask County employees to sponsor families or children. She will also ask the Board to donate $2,500 for this year's program. This amount has been budgeded. The Board donated $2,500 last year from the contingency fund. Employee support throughout the departments has been excellent in the past and staff recommends support of the program again this year. CHRISll~AS HOTHER: Mrs. L. Emery Armstrong CHAII~IAN: Mrs. Preston T. Holmes COORDINATOR Beverley DowDey BER~tUDA DISTRICT: Miss Lucy Corr Mr. Clifford West Mrs. Leo Myers Mrs. Herbert M. Brock Mr. Oliver D. Rudy Mrs. Garland N. Jeter Mr. Thomas B. McGuire Mrs. James D. Clark Mrs. Ronald L. Womack CLOVER HILL DISTRICT: Mrs. Edward O. Buzzell Mrs. Walter C. Link DALE DISI~ICT: Mrs. Alexander B. Sadler Mrs. R. Garry Soyars Mrs. B. B. Taylor, Jr. Mrs. Howard W. Worrell NATDACA DISTRICT: Mrs. DeWitt Scudder Mrs. Isaac Ridley Mrs. Henry Sledd MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT: Mrs. Charles H. Elmore Mary Gay Hutcherson Mrs. Alfred W. Rogers Mrs. L. Bradford Armstrong COLONIAL HEIGItTS: Mr. James Pond Mr. Dean Williams Mrs. W. W. Williams Mrs. Richard A. Ericson Mrs. Carl A. Sizemore CHESTERFIELD-COLONIAL HEIGHTS CHRISTMAS COMMITTEE P. O. BOX 27 " CHESTERFIELD. VIRGINIA 23832 To Our Friends and Neighbors: It is a little difficult to think of Christmas before the "frost is on the pumpkin". However, this letter comes to you at this time with the hope that you as an individual, your business or company, your club or church group will be able to include the work of the Christmas Committee in your plans for Christmas giving. Our committee attempts to make certain that no child in our community will be without gifts on Christmas morning, and that no family will be hungry on Christmas Day. This year we hope to bring Christmas happiness to over 3,500 less fortunate children and adults in Chesterfield and Colonial Heights. We cannot do this without your support. There are several ways you or your group might join us in this effort: 1. Sponsor a family, providing gifts and food for a Christmas dinner. 2. Sponsor a foster child, shopping for him or her as you would for a member of your own family. 3. Make up food baskets; purchase toys and clothing for children or gifts for teenagers. 4. Donate money to be used by the Christmas Committee to purchase food for the elderly, gifts for nursing home patients, and food, clothing and toys for families not sponsored. 5. Donate new and like-new toys and clothing. Children's clothing is especially needed. Everyday living expenses continue to increase each year causing more requests for special help at Christmas time. We hope you will want to share in creating Christmas joy for those who lack the resources to provide for themselves. Please contact Beverley DowDey, Christmas Coordinator, at 748-1183 starting October 15 from 9:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. and November and December from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. In the spirit of Christmas joy, Dorothy~rmstrong Christmas Mother, 1984 THE CHESTERFIELD COLONIAL HEIGHTS CHRISTMAS MOTHER Invites YOU to help us decorate this tree So that NO ONE in Chesterfield or Colonial Heights Will wake up on Christmas morning Without a reason to Rejoice in this Season of Peace and Joy.' You can be Santa Claus: 100 Foster Children will need help this year If you sponsor a Foster Child for Christmas You will know his first name, his sizes and needs in clothing And his special Christmas Wish 1000 Families will need your help in 1984 You will be given each child's first name, Size in clothing And his special Christmas Wish Donations can help us shop for 2000 people This Christmas Many Old Folks, Teenagers, and Families Will not be sponsored by anyone Your Donations can provide for their Christmas Needs You can help 3200 needy people this year Please sponsor a FAMILY or a CHILD Or send a CHECK payable to The Chesterfield-Colonial Heights Christmas Mother Fund THE CHRISTMAS COMMITTEE P. O. Box 27 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Mrs. Dorothy Armstrong Christmas Mother Beverley DowDey Christmas Coordinator Telephone: 748-1183 Foster Children Sponsored '~ATISTICS ON CHRIS~P~RA~v~ 1981 1982 1983 34 32 28 Foster Children ~ed with a check 71 51 36 Families Sponsored 222 '256 326 Agency known families not sponsored 115 0 Number of. adults receiving food and gifts 85 --' 113' 112 Older Adults Sponsored 14 26 40 Nothing hc~e Patients ~renembered' with gifts 65 81 92 Famil i es self referred 224 290 452 Children invited to Chesherfield Jaycee Party Number of Cb{laren spons?red Number of groups and individuals who participated (no money) 60 80 163 537 730 .385 393 978 (sponsored) 1,056(unsponsared) 483 N~Tt~r of Schc01S Donating food 29 28 27 Approsimate Number of Persons Assisted byProgram 2600 2700 3200 CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF' SUPERVISORS AG E NDA MEETING DATE:,, September 26r 1984 ITEM NUMBER* 9.B. SUBJECT: Request for Permission to Enter into an Agreement with the Virginia Center for Performing Arts COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Virginia Center for Performing Arts (VCPA) approached the Board during the budget process for an appropriation to provide services to the County and the Board budgeted $20,000 for this purpose. VCPA has now finalized their 1984/85 schedule of performances and attached is a copy for the Board's information. Meetings have been held with VCPA, School and County staff to plan a program whereby Chesterfield students in the drama and literature classes can attend performances during the year. Attachment II is a proposed program that exposes the students to a variety of performances. VCPA has agreed to substitute other performances of equal value if the schools prefer to do so. The School Administration is very pleased with the program and considers it to be of great benefit to the students. They have prepared a distribution schedule to involve students throughout all junior and senior high schools. Continued on next page ATTACHMENTS: YES !~ NO [] Elmer C. Hodge Assistant County Administrator SIGNATURE: September 26, 1984 Agen ~ Item Request for Permission to Enter into an Agreement with the Virginia Center for Performing Arts Page 2. Permission is requested to enter into an agreement with VCPA whereby in exchange for $20,000, students of the Chesterfield School System will be permitted to attend theatre performances at no charge. Selection and scheduling of performances will take place between the School Adminis- tration and the VCPA. Because several of the more desirable perfor- mances are scheduled within the next few weeks, it is important to gain Board approval as quickly as possible. Approval should be given contingent upon completion of a contract by the County Attorney's Office. Although normally the purchase of this service would require compliance with the Procurement Act, the Purchasing Department has determined that the VCPA is the sole source for providing access to the listed performances. (ATTACHMENT I) Gig Gi~ Sophisticated Ladie~ Sophisticated ladies 7 Brides for ? Brothms ' 7 Brides for 7 Brothem Oliver! 'night Mother 'night Mother The Old Vic: Candida The Old Vic: Macbeth The Old Vic: Macbeth The Old Vic: Candida Torch Song Trilogy Torch Song Trilogy Brighton Beach Memoirs Brighton Beach Memdrs Gewandhaus Orchestra Rotterdam Philharmonic Bucharest Philharmonic The Mazowsze Royal Ballet of Flandem Ballet Folclorico de Mexico Minnie Pearl: Grand Old Country Robin and Linda Williams The Mantovani Orchestra Presemation Hall Jazz Band Flying Karamazov Brothers Flying Karamazov Brothers Big Band Cavalcade '85 Riverboat Ragtime Revue Gilbert & Sullivan: The Mikado Texas Opera: Barber of Seville ' The Chinese Magic Revue SWING HAPPENINGS Jumpin' Jazz/Swingin' Singin' Jitterbug Jazz: Original Swing Cab Galloway: Big Band Jazz ~ TIM____KE SI, IB$CRIPTION PRICE Orchestra & Loge Oct 1 8 PM $16.08 Oct 2 8 PM 16.08 Nov 23 8 PM 16.08 Nov 24 8 PM 16.08 Mar 9 8PM 12.68 Mar 10 3 PM 12.68 Apr 21 3 PM 11.83 First Dress Second Dress Circle Cirde $14.38 $12.68 14.38 12.68 14.38 12.68 14.38 12.68 10.98 9.28 10.98 9.28 10.13 8.43 Nov 27 8 PM 11.98 i.0.28 Nov 28 8 PM 11.98 10.28 Dec 1 3 PM 11.98 i0.28 Dec 1 8 PM 11.98 10.28 Dec 2 3 PM 11.98 10.28 Dec 2 8 PM 11.98 10.28 Jan 8 8 PM 14.53 12.83 Jan 9 8 PM 14.53 12.83 Feb 12 8 PM 14.53 1.2.83 Feb 13 8 PM 14.53 1.2.83 Oct 18 8 PM 21.33 17.08 Feb 28 8 PM 19.63 16.23 Mar 5 8PM 17.68 14.53, Jan 23 8 PM 12.83 11.13 Feb 22 8 PM 11.55 9.85 Mar 26 8 PM 11.55 9.85 Oct 14 3 PM 12.83 11.13 Nov 10 8 PM 10.28 8.58 Jan 31 8 PM 1.3.68 11.98 Feb 4 8 PM 11.13 9.43 Feb 9 8 PM 1.2.83 11.13 Feb 10 3 PM i2.83 11.13 Mar 1 8PM 11.98 10.28 Mar 17 3 PM 10.28 8.58 Mar 24 3 PM 12.83 11.13 Apr 15 8 PM 15.80 14.10 May 12 3 PM 10.28 8.58 Oct 12 Jan 19 Mar 8 8.58 8.58 8.58 8.58 8.58 8.58 11.13 11.13 11.13 11.13 12.83 14.53 12.83 9.43 8.58 8.58 9.43 6.88 10.28 7.73 9.43 9.43 8.58 6.88 9.43 12.40 6.88 8 PM 10.70 9.00 7.30 8 PM 10,70 9.00 7.30 8 PM 10.70 9.00 7.30 1. Subtotal 2. Number of Subscribers: x Subtotal = TOTAL 3. Minus 5% Discount for Broadway/Great Theatre Combo 4. Broadway/Great Theatre Combo with Discount 5. Minus 10% Discount on 19 PLUS CLUB ONLY 6. 19 PLUS CLUB TOTAL WITH DISCOUNT 7. Plus total Holiday Happenin's 8. Plus Handling Charge 9. Optional Tax Deductible Contribution 10. Total Cost 011 0 0 0 .~q ,..-I 0 CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE: September 26, 1984 SUBJECT: Airport Restaurant Lease ITEM NUMBER: 9oCo COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: JJC Corporation has elected to exercise the option in the current lease which provides for an additional five year lease for the Airport Restaurant. The present lease provides for a base rate of $650 per month plus a graduated percent of gross receipts which resulted in total payments of $13,341 in fiscal year 1983-84. Negotiations between the County staff and JJC have resulted in an agreement which would almost double the lease income over the present rate. Further, JJC has offered to purchase the restaurant equipment at book value with payments spread over five years. This would relieve the County of responsibility for maintenance of this equipment which has cost an average of $4,665 annually over the past three years. The negotiated agreement represents a significant improvement over the current lease and is recommended as being in the best interest of the County. Therefore, it is requested that the County Administrator be authorized to execute a five year contract with JJC Corporation at a fixed rate of $26,000 per year for the restaurant and basement lounge area and sale of the restaurant equipment at a price of $21,000. ATTACHMENTS' YES ~ NO [] William H. Howell' Di~rector of General Services SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMI NISTRATOR CHESTERFIELD COUNTY AIRPORT RESTAURANT LEASE AGREEMENT THIS LEASE AGREEMENT, made this 1984, by and between the COUNTY OF day of , CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as "Lessor" and JJC CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation, herein- after referred to as "Lessee." WI TNES SETH : That for and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein made by the Lessee, the Lessor leases unto Lessee, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, all that space within the Chesterfield County Airport Administration Building as shown on Appendix A, a copy of which is attached and incorporated herein, containing' 2258 square feet for general restaurant use; 305? square feet for banquet facilities in the basement of such building'; and 2300 square feet of unfinished space in the basement of the building. It shall be the g'eneral duty of Lessee to operate a high quality, full service restaurant including provision for banquets and private parties in accordance with applicable federal and state laws, and all applicable ordinances of the County of Chesterfield and regulations of the Airport Manag'er. The Lessee shall operate the restau- rant conducted on the leased premises for the use by and benefit of the public. The Lessee shall make available to the public ail facilities and services under this lease without discrimination and the Lessee shall refrain from imposing discriminatory or unreasonable fees or charges. Both parties recognize that the Lessee shall have the right and respon- sibility to provide complete food services and tobacco products necessary to serve the needs of the users of the Airport and the Chesterfield County Industrial Park. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit or limit the right of non-profit org'anizations or promoters of large g'roup activities using the Airport from providing limited food service for periods of short duration. Provided, however, that any group permitted by the Lessor to use the Airport must first negotiate in good faith with the Lessee to determine whether the Lessee can provide the desired food service at a reasonable price. This lease shall be subject to the following additional terms and conditions: 1. The term of this lease shall be for five (5) years commencing on October 19, 1984 at 8:00 a.m., and ending at 7:59 p.m. on October 18, 1989. 2. A. Lessee agrees to pay to the Lessor for the lease period monthly payments of $2,166.66. Ail such rental payments are payable no later than the 5th day preceeding the month for which such rental installment is applicable. B. The Lessee shall submit, if requested by the County, to the Lessor monthly unaudited financial statements no later than the 7th day of the succeeding month and annual audited financial statements no later than February i of each year. 3. Improvements to the premises may be made or installed by the Lessee, but shall remain the Lessor's upon expiration or termination of the lease. All capital improvements shall be deemed to be a part of the realty. All such improvements shall be first approved in writing by the Lessor. Lessee, upon termination of this lease without default, shall have the right to remove all equipment and property owned by it, and Lessee shall not be responsible for any damages to the leased premises as a result of such removal, unless they are caused by its negligence. Lessor, at its election, shall have the right to remove such property for and on behalf of the Lessee if the Lessee fails to remove such equipment within five (5) days of termination and if such election is made, the expense of removal shall be borne by the Lessee. 4. Lessee shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain the leased premises, including the public bathrooms on the first floor on weekends, -2- 015 and the basement of the Terminal Building used by patrons of the restau- rant, in a presentable condition consistent with good business practice and equal in appearance and character to other similar restaurant facilities in Chesterfield County. Lessee shall repair all damages to such premises caused by its employees, patrons or its operation thereon and shall main- tain and repair all equipment therein. Lessor, in its discretion, shall be the sole judge of the quality of maintenance; which judgment shall be exercised in a reasonable manner, upon written notice by Lessor to Lessee, Lessee shall be required to perform whatever reasonable mainte- nance Lessor deems necessary. If such maintenance is not undertaken by Lessee within ten (10) days after receipt of written notice, Lessor shall have the right to enter upon the leased premises and perform the necessary maintenance, the cost of which shall be borne by Lessee. 5. Lessee mey shall purchase the equipment set forth in Appendix B by paying to the Lessor, in addition to the lease payments described in paragraph 2, the amount of $350.00 per month commencing on the date of this Agreement. The total amount to be paid to the Lessor is $21,000. Monthly purchase payments shall be made on the same date as lease pay- , ments. Title to the equipment shall remain in the Lessor until the full purchase price of $21,000 is paid as provided herein. 6. Lessor agrees to permit the erection of signs upon the premises and the Airport property by the Lessee at its expense, the design, location and height of which shall first be approved by the Lessor. 7. Lessor at its own expense, shall obtain and carry throughout the term of this lease ful! and adequate fire insurance upon improvements and other capital fixtures located on the leased premises. If the leased premises are damaged so that they are rendered untenantable, by fire, the elements, unavoidable accident or other casualty, Lessor shall give Lessee written notice within sixty (60) days after the occurrence of such damage advising the Lessee whether or not Lessor elects to repair such damage. if Lessor elects not to repair such damage, as specified in such notice, -3- and the basement of the Terminal Building used by patrons of the restau- rant, in a presentable condition consistent with good business practice and equal in appearance and character to other similar restaurant facilities in Chesterfield County. Lessee shall repair all damages to such premises caused by its employees, patrons or its operation thereon and shall main- tain and repair all equipment therein. Lessor, in its discretion, shall be the sole judge of the quality of maintenance; which judgment shall be exercised in a reasonable manner, upon written notice by Lessor to Lessee, Lessee shall be required to perform whatever reasonable mainte- nance Lessor deems necessary. If such maintenance is not undertaken by Lessee within ten (10) days after receipt of written notice, Lessor shall have the right to enter upon the leased premises and perform the necessary maintenance, the cost of which shall be borne by Lessee. 5. Lessee ~y~purchase the equipment set forth in Appendix B by paying to the Lessor, in addition to the lease payments described in paragraph 2, the amount of $350.00 per month commencing on the date of this Agreement. The total amount to be paid to the Lessor is $21,000. Monthly purchase payments shall be made on the same date as lease pay- ments. Title to the equipment shall remain in the Lessor until the full purchase price of $21,000 is paid as provided herein. 6. Lessor agrees to permit the erection of signs upon the premises and the Airport property by the Lessee at its expense, the design, location and height of which shall first be approved by the Lessor. 7. Lessor at its own expense, shall obtain and carry throughout the term of this lease full and adequate fire insurance upon improvements and other capital fixtures located on the leased premises. If the leased premises are damaged so that they are rendered untenantable, by fire, the elements, unavoidable accident or other casualty, Lessor shall give Lessee written notice within sixty (60) days after the occurrence of such damage advising the Lessee whether or not Lessor elects to repair such damage. if Lessor elects not to repair such damage, as specified in such notice, -3- ~_~ i then this lease shall terminate as of the date of such damage, in which event Lessor shall reimburse Lessee a prorata portion of the rent paid in advance by Lessee. Lessee shall, at its own expense, obtain and carry public liability insurance naming the Lessor as co-insured, covering injuries or damages to persons and property using the leased facilities in an amount not less than $500,000 single limit comprehensive coverage. Authenticated copies of all such policies shall be delivered to Lessor prior to beginning operations hereunder. Ail renewal or cancellation notices shall be sent to Lessor sixty (60) days prior to renewal or cancellation. The Lessee will indemnify, keep and hold the Lessor free and harmless from all liability on account injury or damage to itself and to other persons, firms, corporations and property arising out of any negligent or wrongful acts, failure to act or responsibilities of the Lessee arising under this lease. In the event that suit or other proceeding shall be brought against the Lessor, at law or in equity, either independently or jointly with Lessee on account thereof, Lessee will defend the Lessor in such suit or proceeding at the cost of the Lessee. In the event of a final judgment being obtained against the Lessor, either independently or jointly with the Lessee, the Lessee will pay such judgment or comply with such decree with all costs and expenses of whatsoever nature and hold the County of Chesterfield harmless therefrom. 8. Lessee covenants that it shall: A. Pay the rent monthly; B. Keep and maintain an adequate set of books and records for the operation of the restaurant facility and implement such accounting procedures as Lessor may, from time to time, direct in writing; C. Permit, during regular business hours and at reasonable times, an audit of its books and records; D. Secure and keep current all necessary health, sanitation and Alcoholic Beverage Control permits required by law, and all other -4- (} ] ,¢~ licenses and permits as may be necessary or required by law for the operation of the restaurant facility; E. Keep clean the restroom facilities used by the restaurant patrons, the kitchen and dining areas at all times during the hours of operation of the restaurant facility; F. Comply with all requirements of the Chesterfield County Fire Prevention Code; and G. Conduct an aggressive advertising campaign to encourage increased use of the Airport Restaurant to include at a minimum media advertising and community contacts. Such plan shall be submitted to the County periodically, but no less frequently than annually, for its approval prior to December i of each year. H. Furnish, maintain and keep in good working order those items of property set forth in Appendix B attached hereto and made a part hereof, which property shall remain the property of the Lessor until purchased by the Lessee as provided in this Agreement. 9. A. Lessor covenants that it shall furnish without additional cost to Lessee, the necessary electric, water and sewer utilities and shall provide regular trash collection; B. Lessee, its agents, servants, employees, guests and invitees shall have the privilege, in common with others, to the use of the public portions of the Administration Building and Airport property subject to the general rules of the Lessor and the Federal Aviation Administration or any successor agency as now in force or as hereafter maybe made applicable; and C. The Lessor will keep in good running order the heating and air-conditioning system, water pipes, water, gas and electric fixtures except light bulbs; replace all plate glass broken during the tenancy, unstop all water fixtures that may become choked and repair all water pipes and plumbing that may burst. If such maintenance is not under- taken by Lessor with reasonable dispatch after being notified in writing of -5- the need thereof, then Lessee shall have the right to perform the necessary maintenance, the cost of which shall be borne by the Lessor. Lessor shall make such repairs and alterations to and replacements of the structure, roof and exterior of the Terminal Building as shall be reasonably necessary and keep the same in good repair; provided, how- ever, that if the need for such repairs is occasioned by the negligent or willful act of Lessee, its agents, employees or invitees, such repairs may be made by Lessor upon written notice to Lessee if Lessee chooses not to commence performance of such repairs within seven (7) days of such notice. In the event Lessor makes such repairs occasioned by the negli- gent or willful act of Lessee, its agents, employees or invitees, all costs and expenses incurred by Lessor relative to such repairs shall be con- sidered additional rent hereunder, and shall be paid promptly by Lessee to Lessor. Notwithstanding anything in the ibregoing to the contrary, Lessor shall have no liability for damage or injury to person or property or loss of profits as a result of failure to make any such repairs or replacement. Lessee shall not be entitled to any reduction in rent or any claim for damages by reason of any inconvenience, annoyance, injury to or impair- ment of its operation of the leased premises arising out of any repairs or replacements made by Lessor pursuant to this paragraph. 10. In the event that Lessee shall at any time be in arrears of the rental fee or in case Lessee shall be in violation of any provision of this lease, then in any such event this lease and all rights may, at the option of Lessor, be terminated by Lessor upon giving written notice of violation and at least five (5) days to cure such default, if possible. Such notice shall indicate that failure to cure such default to the satisfaction of the Lessor shall automatically terminate this lease and that Lessee must vacate the premises and Lessor may thereupon reenter and retake possession of the leased premises. 11. Upon the breach of any covenant herein contained, or the repu- diation of the lease by the Lessee, or the failure of the Lessee to move in --6-- 01.9 the premises at the beginning of the term, or the abandonment or vacation of the premises by the Lessee, or the Lessee's being adjudicated a bank- rupt, or the appointment of a Receive or Trustee of the Lessee's property, the total rent payments herein provided for, whether accrued or not, shall immediately become due and payable, and the Lessor shall have the right to enter the premises at once, by force or otherwise, without being liable to any prosecution therefor, and to distrain for rent, and also to re-rent the premises as agent for the Lessee for the unexpired portion of the term and receive the rent therefor; or the Lessor may, at its option, imme- diately terminate this lease; providing that neither terminating this lease under this clause nor recovering possession of the premises shall deprive the Lessor of any other action or remedy against the Lessee for posses- sion, for rent, or for damage. 12. The Lessor shall have the right to enter the premises during reasonable business hours in order to examine the same, or to make such repairs or alterations as it may desire for the safety or preservation of the building, or to exhibit such premises to prospective lessees or purchasers. 13. Lessee may sublease the premises or assign the lease only with the written consent of Lessor, which shall not be unreasonably withheld; and any attempted assignment without Lessor's consent shall be void and of no force or effect. 14. Lessee shall surrender possession of the leased premises to Lessor at the expiration thereof, in good order and condition, reasonable wear and tear and damage by the elements or acts of third parties excepted. 15. The Lessor and Lessee agree that this lease constitutes the entire Agreement, understanding, and representations, express or implied, between the parties. This lease supersedes all prior written or oral agreements or proposals between the parties. 16. Ail notices required under this lease shall be deemed to be duly given if sent by either party to the Lessor at County Administrator, P. O. --7-- Box 40, Chesterfield, Virginia, 23832 and to Lessee at its office at 7511 Airfield Drive, Chesterfield, Virginia, 23832, or at such other place as either party shall designate in writing hereafter. 17. If Lessor decides to lease the premises after the expiration of the lease term under this lease, Lessor shall endeavor to solict proposals from potential lessees no later than six (6) months prior to the expiration of this lease. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Lessee has caused its name to be sub- scribed hereunder by its President and Secretary, and the Lessor, County of Chesterfield, Virginia, has caused its name to be subscribed hereunto by its duly authorized representative pursuant to a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 26, 1984. COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA Approved as to form: By: Steven L. Micas County Attorney JJC CORPORATION Attest: By: President ii Secretary -8- CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER* 9.D. Consideration of Adoption of a Board Policy Relating to Individual Board Members' Involvement in the Zoning Process COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION In conjunction with the policy statements adopted by the Board in January, 1984, several Board members have suggested that it would be desirable to draft a uniform policy governing individual Board members' involvement in the zoning process. Mr. Daniel requested that this item be placed on the agenda. PREPARED BY;, ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO [] SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE BOARD CONCERNING THE PROPER INVOLVEMENT OF BOARD MEMBERS IN THE ZONING PROCESS Chesterfield County, as a rapidly growing and urbanizing locality, will be experiencing increased property development to meet the expanding residential, commercial and industrial needs of its citizens. As development momentum accelerates~, greater pressure will be placed on individual members of tile Board of Supervisors to become involved in all aspects of the zoning process. At the same time, it is of paramount importance that 'the Board recognize and respect the administrative and advisory functions of County staff and the Planning Commission in the zoning process. It is particularly critical that members of the Board of Supervisors, under- standing the legislativ~ and POlicy-making function of the Board, do not interfere or become involved in zoning issues until such issues are properly beibre the governing body. Both before and after the filing of a zoning application, staff members of the County Planning Department meet with developers to insure conibrmance with County ordinances and policies. Through this process, the County staff endeavors to promote overall zoning and planning policies adopted by the Board. After staff review, the Planning Commission, as an independent advisory body established pursuant to Section 15.1-427, Code of Vir[~ni~, 1950, as amended, considers the application in a public hearing, and makes a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, based on t)~e comments and concerns of the developer, County staff, and the public and on the overall zoning policies and practices of the County. Involvement ol' Board members in either of these initial phases of the zoning process tends to limit the ability of County staff to successfully negotiate and resolve developer concerns, and of the Planning Commission to make meaningful recomm'endations to the Board. Premature involvement can also unnecessarily create delay, uncertainty and instability in the orderly processing of applications which tends to affect public confidence in the zoning and application review process. Furthermore, involvement of Board members in a zoning case prior to a decision by the Planning Commission, is inconsistent with the clear policy statements, adopted in January, 1984, not to interfere in the administrative activities of the County administration and staff but instead to dedicate its efforts toward the formulation of general legislation and policy. Therefore, be it resolved by the Board that it shall be Board policy that no individual member of the Board shall~ involved in a zoning case until the Planning Commission has made its recommendation on the case. Prior to action by the Planning Commission, members of the Board shall not discuss the particulars of the zoning Case with the developer nor attempt to direct the activities or decisions of County employees or Planning Commission members concerning the outcome of the case. Members of the Board ahall not direct the activities of any County staff member relating to a zoning case before the Board except when acting as a Board consistent with general law and County regulations. CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 APPOINTMENTS Landfill Committee ITEM NUMBER: 9.E.1. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Mrs. Girone nominated Mrs. Cynthia Green to the Landfill Commit- tee to fill the vacancy created by Ms. Melody Gray at the.Septem- ber 12, 1984 meeting. The term of office would be effective immediately and would expire March 13, 1986. The formal appoint- ment should be made at this meeting. PREPARED BY; ATTACHMENTS: YES [] SIGNATURE: CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: September 26, 1984 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS Museum Committee ITEM NUMBER: 9 .E.2. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION The Board nominated Mr. Cary Adams to the Museum Committee at the September 12, 1984 meeting. The Board should formally appoint Mr. Adams at this meeting. The term is effective immediately and is at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors. PREPARED BY; ATTACHMENTS: YES F! NO ID/ SIGNATURE: ' ~COONTY ADMINISTRATOR CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER' APPOINTMENTS Richmond Metropolitan Authority 9 .E.3. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Mr. Mark Smith's term will expire at the end of September. He is eligible for reappointment, has indicated a desire to do so if the Board wishes and the Richmond Metropolitan Authority indi- cates he is an active member. The County is allowed two at-large representatives to this Authority and Mr. Read Goode is the other representative. The term of office for this one vacancy would be effective immediate- ly and would expire September 30, 1988. The Board should nomi- nate at this meeting with formal appointment at the October 10, 1984 meeting. For the Board's information, Mr. Smith is completing his first term on the Richmond Metropolitan Authority, he is a retired Army officer, is currently employed at Fort Lee as a logistics ser- vices officer, has lived in Brandermill for five years and he has an interest in transportation as his job includes these kinds of responsibilities. PREPARED BY;, ATTACHMENTS: YES ~' NO [] ~COUNTY ADMI NI STRATOR RICHMOND METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY The Richmond Metropolitan Authority (RMA) was established in 1966 by a special act of the General Assembly (very similar to the Chesterfield County Toll Road Authority). The main purpose of the RMA is to build, maintain and operate toll roads, bridges, etc. or anything of a transportation nature. They can and do operate a parking deck in the City of Richmond as well. They were involved in the Parham Express Bus but have since terminated involvement since it was a success and it has been taken over by the County of Henrico and City of Richmond. There is a membership of 11 on the Board of Directors of the RMA which includes 6 from the City of Richmond, 2 from Chesterfield County, 2 from Henrico County and 1 ex-officio member from the Highway Department appointed by the Highway Commission. They meet once a month on the third Tuesday at 2:00 p.m. at the Mutual Building at 9th and Main streets in the City. The meet- ings usually last approximatley 1-2 hours. Each member is paid $50 for any part of a day for which they spend handling Authority business. The RMA Board of Directors establishes policy for the Authority for which Mr. George Cheadle is the General Manager. Currently the Authority operates the Powhite Parkway, the Downtown Ex- pressway, the Second Street Parking Deck and the Nickel Bridge. More recently the RMA has been given the responsibility of the operation of the Parker Field Project. CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER' 9.I.2. UTILITY PUBLIC HEARING: Conveyance of a variable width right of way to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION In order to have East Avenue constructed, the County must convey the variable width right of way to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Staff recommends that the Board authorize conveyance of the right of way to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and authorize the Chairman of the Board and County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. District: Bermuda Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO i-I SIGNATURE: DM I NI STRATOR 3CLIFFSIDE DR 7 BUCCANNEER D~--~" / \ 4LEEWARD D~ 8 SEAHORSE DR ~ / ~EST '~t HUNDRED ' : ( BERM1 , ~ o, ! /V',A P. ,% 43 ~ '' cr Pog¢ 43 , ! ! ! % ~ / · / ( / / / / / / CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9.F. Part Time Position for the Museum Committee COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION The Chesterfield County Museum, Inc. has requested funding for a part time position to work at the museum and also organize and coordinate their volunteer effort. The request is for $8,000 annually for this purpose. If approved by the Board, this action will require a transfer of $8,000 from the contingency account for the donation to the Museum Committee. ATTACHMENTS: YES [] ~.ane B. amsey, ,D~ector Budget & Accounting CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AG E NDA MEETING DATE' September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9.G.1. SUBgECT: Authorization to Enter into Contract For Design of 'Data Processing Building and Funding for Services COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff is pursuing implementation of the three public buildings which were approved in the Capital Improvements Program. At this meeting, the Board is asked to award the contract for architectural services for the Data Processing building. On October 10th the Board will be asked to approve the design contract for the Human Services Building; the contract for the Courts Building will be presented to the Board in November. ATTACHMENTS: YES E] NO 1~ The Data Processing building is planned to provide 12,000 square feet to meet the current and near term (1990) needs of the Data Processing Department. In addition to the design and bid documents typically required in Standard Architectural Contracts, the architect will evaluate the suitability of the site and will survey and forecast Data Processing Department space needs. Further, the architect will provide a site plan and building preliminary designs for future addi- tions to the building which may be required over the coming thirty year period. In this way, the County will be able to reserve land for expansion and will assure that the building designed for current needs will be planned to accommodate future additions. We expect tospring be in 1986.a position to occupy the Data Proces~lng~ilding by early PREPARED BY;..;k~\~ _',,,. J ef~y B. Mu zz~--'--"- Asst. Co. Administrator for Development 035/pb SIGNATURE: , {i~'~ ~ Y ADMINISTRATOR Agenda Item - Design of Data Processing Building September 26, 1984 Staff received seven proposals for design services and interviewed four firms. We have successfully negotiated a scope of work and fee with Torrence, Dreelin, Farthing and Buford. We believe that this firm will best meet the design requirements of this project. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Supervisors authorize the County Administrator to enter into contract with Torrence, Dreelin, Farthing & Buford for the scope of services for design of the Data Processing building negotiated by staff at a price not to exceed $65,000, plus up to $15,000 in additional services related to land survey, printing and geo-technical survey and other design expenses. Budget and Accountinq Comments: The Capital Improvement Program includes $208,600 for architectural costs and lease purchase payments for the Data Processing building. This funding needs to be transferred from the undesignated capital projects account to the Data Processing building account. Budget & Accountin~partment CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE' September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: $1,/B,JECT: Street Light Installation Cost Approval 9.G.2. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION BERMUDA DISTRICT: Location approved January 11, 1984 Chester Station Drive and Costline Circle Cost to Install Light - $1,167.00 Location approved June 13, 1984 Enon Church P. oad & Rivermont Road Cost to Install Light - $1,695.00 CLOVER HILL DISTRICT: Location approved July 11, 1984 Hybla Road and Melissa Mill Road Cost to Install Light - $1,782.00 MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT: Location approved June 13, 1984 9504 Iredell Road Cost to Install Light'- $704.00 ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO [] Ri~a-r~ M/~cElfish, P.E. Director Environmental Engineering SIGNATURE: / COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR '.,;3 , , O3? Vepco VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND I~qW~EF~ ~C)M,~ANY 11,200 IRON BRIDGE RO,A,t~ CHESTER, VIRGINIA 23831 . ..,, /'-~ ~ August 14, 1984 Chesterfield County P. O. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Attention: Mr Calvin L. Viar Re: Chester Station Dr. and Coastline Circle Dear Mr. Viar: The engineering has been completed to provide a streetlight at the above referenced address. The light will have to be installed with underground conductor to the pole. The cost to Chesterfield County for the installation will be $1,167.00. This price is contingent to Vepco obtaining an easement from the property owner. If this cost is approved, please notify me to continue with the job at this price. Sincerely, Harold W. Dunkel Customer Service Supervisor cc: Mr. T. W. Whitlow Vepco VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY 11,200 IRON BRIDGE ROAD CHESTER, VIRGINIA 23831 Mr. Calvin L. Viar Environmental Engineering Chesterfield County P. O. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 August 29, 1984 Re: Streetlight request at Enon Church and Rivermont - Est. # 07-10424-00 Dear Mr. Viar: Thank you for your letter of June 19, 1984. We have completed our estimate to install 8,000 Lumen H.P.S. Luminar. The cost to you for the installation of the streetlight with overhead wiring is $1,695.00, described as follows: Total Cost of Job Less revenue credit at 4:1 ratio Cost to Chesterfield County $2,116.00 421.00 $1,695.00 This cost shall be effective for ninety days from the date of this letter. If we do not receive your authorization to proceed with this work within the ninety day period, we will consider this to be your request to cancel this project. If you require this work to be performed at a later date, new request for service will be necessary and a new cost will be sub- mitted to you. Sincerely, / /~/ ~/Graham H. Cecil Service Representative cc: Mr. Harold W. Dunkel Vepco VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY 9121 Midlothian Tpk. Richmond, Virginia 23235 Mr. Calvin L. Viar Principal Engineer Assistant Environmental Engineering Chesterfield County P. O. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 August 22, 1984 Dear Mr. Viar: The cost for installing the outdoor lighting you requested at Hybla Road and Melissa Mill Road is $1,782. This was calculated by applying four years of revenue to the cost of Vepco to install the necessary facilities. We will proceed with construction upon receipt of a letter authorizing Vepco to bill the County of Chester- field for the installation cost. Please keep in mind that this cost is good for 60 days only. If you have any questions, please contact me at 320-7811, extension 2031. Sincerely, / . Tom Wimer Customer Service Rep. TW/prd Vepco VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY 9121Hidlothian Pike P. 0. Box 3133 Bon Air, Virginia 23235 Mr. Richard M. McE1fish Director, Environmental Engineering Department Chesterfield County Chesterfield, Virg!nia 23832 Dear Mr. McElfish: August 28, 1984 The cost for installing the outdoor lighting you requested at 9504 Iredell is $704,00 This was calculated by applying four years of revenue to the cost to Vepco of installing the facilities. We will proceed with construction upon receipt o'f a letter authorizing Vepco to bill the County of Chesterfield for the install- ation cost. If you have any questions, please contact me at 320-7811. Yours truly, M. E. Wi tt Customer Service Supervisor cc: Larry Bates CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE: September 26, 1984 SUBJECT: Street Light Requests ITEM NUMBER; 9 .G.3. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OFINFORMATION: CLOVER HILL DISTRICT Intersection of Kempwood Dr. and Sussex Dr. DALE DISTRICT 3704 Harvette Drive Intersection of Able Rd. and Ghent Dr. MATOACA DISTRICT Ferndale Avenue at Church Parking Lot 2500 Arrowfield Road at entrance Between 3411 and 3413 Watson Street ATTACHMENTS: YES E] NO [] Richard' M./~cEl~ish, P.E. Director -- Environmental Engineering SIGNATURE: ' ~0'I~NTY ADMINISTRATOR 0 3 8 STREET LIGHT REQUEST Clover Hill District DATE OF REQUEST Aug~nf 2Or 19R~ NAME OF REQUESTOR Russell Haines ADDRESS 4211 Sussex Drive TAX MAP 50-4 PHONE NUMBER - HOME WORK REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF AND Suss~× Drlv~ - Kempwood Drive REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. .PLACED IT IS REQUESTED TO BE PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE # AH 47 OR SET POLE COMMENTS meets criteria existing pole VEPCO will install at no cost to county ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch) O33 CHES:~ER'FIELD 39-16 COUNTY 4 13 '2 "' o 15 6~po~ 7 15 Dr, 3O 3,2 '29 33 '// 34 II DATE OF REQUEST NAME OF REQUESTOR ADDRESS STREET LIGHT REQUEST · Dale District July 28, 1984 JameS E. Campbell 3704 Harvette Drive TAX MAP 67-1 PHONE NUMBER - HOME WORK REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF AND . REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE .PLACED 3704 Harvette Drive PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE # OR SET POLE COMMENTS Size 5000 H.P.S.V. Does not meet criteria X Pole will have to be set, underground wires ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch) 042 043 We, the residents of the 3700 block of Harvette Drive in Chesterfield County, are forming a Neighborhood Watch Program, and would like to have a street light installed near the end of Harvette Drive, where the street ends and the woods begins. Late at night cars park here because it is so dark. There have been re~orts of vandalism, gas stolen from cars, and beer cans in the street. 719' 7 30 6 26 14 ME~DOVIOAL£ SEC. D ('(~)~EADOWDALE SEC.H (~O&KVIE~/ SEC ~ OAKVIEW SEC 2 DALEBLUFF I~ANOR SEC. 67-5 DALE DISTRICT STREET LIGHT REQUEST Dale District DATE OF REQUEST September 6, 1984 TAX MAP NAME OF REQUESTOR Bel-lake Hills Civic AssQc, ADDRESS 40-6 PHONE NUMBER - HOME WORK REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF Able Road AND Ghent Drive . REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE .PLACED PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE # 174-G COMMENTS meets criteria Existing Pole OR SET POLE Size 5000 H. P.S.V. ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch) 046 / PAR A-I / 16 25 24 15 12 40-2 65 7 31 53 14 55 59 40-10 (~EV. dosr, r~ ,~:x:x, cs F..ST. Pt. AT'-t. CT4 r..a23:~-z~ DALE~ ~, HOLLY RIOG[SF-C..4 ,.'~r40~' L~.~E. I".LLe~ SE.'..D CLOVER HILL TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PETITION We the citizens and home owners of subdivision, Northlake Hills, hereby request the installation of a street light at the inter- section of Able Road and Ghent Drive. This is a blind corner, which poses a safety hazard and, also, illegal parking occurs there with the result of trash accumulation. THEREFORE FOR 1. Safety 2. Sanitation 3. Decency We request the installation of a street light at this intersection. Thanking you for your consideration. Members, Bel-Lake Hills Civic Association STREET LIGHT REQUEST Matoaca Dis%rict DATE OF REQUEST August 2, 1984 TAX MAP NAME OF REQUESTOR Rev. R. Roland Powell, Pastor 186-3 ADDRESS 6409 River Road PHONE NUMBER - HOME 590- 2301 WORK REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF AND · REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE .PLACED Ferndale Avenue at Church Parking Lot L.A. 5806 PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE # T._ ~ K~]R OR SET POLE COMMENTS Size: 5000 H.P.S.V. Requesting 2 Lights Does not Meet criteria ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch) 04!) C HE S TER F'IELD'~ COUNTY 51 ~24 ~5 Rt, 36 4~ 65H I 651o 6512 4O 396 6(~ ioo River~.. Motoacu ~ptiCt Church 120 ~5 64 ~5 ~2 9 o ~4 ~5 o ~ 4~ II EVERY MEMBER, MINISTER R. ROLAND POWELL, pASTOR ~Sa~oa~a Bap~s! ~hur~h 6409 RIVER ROAD P. O. BOX 6035 ~ama{a, ~g~ia 2~8~3-0635 (804} 590-2949 DON W. SAWYER, ASSOCIATE PASTOR ADMINI~TRATORIMINISTER OF EDUCATION HOME 590"230~ KERRY J. BOYCE, MINIVER OF MUSIC AND YOUTH HOME ~26-5831 STREET LIGHT REQUEST 'Matoaca District DATE OF REQUEST July 30, 1984 TAX MAP NAME OF REQUESTOR William E. Evans LTC - USA - Ret. ADDRESS 909 E. Westover Avenue (Colonial Heights) 163-11 PHONE NUMBER - HOME 526-6259 WORK REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE .PLACED 2500 Arrowfield Road at entrance PLRASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE FI-66 OR SET POLE COMMENTS Size 5000 H.P.S.V. Does not meet criteria There is an existing pole. This is the main entrance ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch) ROPER MILITARY ESTATE OF THE SOUTHSIDE VIRGINIA CHAPTER THE RETIRED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 2222 PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA 23503 Mr. Dick ~cElfish Environmemtal Engineering Section County of Chesterfield, Virginia Chesterfield Couz~house, Va. Dear Er. Nc Elfish: This organization owns and operates The Roper Military Estate, a retirement community for retired officers of the Armed Forces and their families, at 2500 Arrowfield Road (Route 1133) just north of Swift Creek Mill Playhouse. Arrowfield Road has no illumination along its entire length. Our residents, plus groups of fifty or more elderly retirees meeting at night, are required to turn into our private road in complete darkness and to exit under the same dangerous cir- cumstances. Ouzentrance area is large enough to permit two or three cars to park within the estate without beeing seen prior to turning into our road. This entrance area, because of the darkness and its seclusion, has become a favored nighttime parking place for carloads of young people who ignore our "Private Property - No Trespassing" signs. On at least three occasions this year, these individuals have vandalized our entrance, uprooting and ~estroying our mailboxes and even uprooting our estate roadsign and throwing it into the woods. Our elderly residents are justifiably nervous when entering or leaving our grounds because of the hazards posed by parked strangers whose purpose and intentions are unknown. In view of the possibility that a major criminal incident could occur because of the conditions described, it is urgently requested that a dusk-to-~awn lamp be installed on an ex~sting utility pole located opposite the entrance. The entrance is over a thousand feet from the nearest source of electricity on the estate and t~ cost of installing an underground cable from that point to the entrance is beyond our financial capability. We believe, therefore, that a County- installed lamp on the existing utility pole is the best and lowest cost solution to this hazardous situation. Ne will be pleased to share the installation cost with the County if such is requested. Your assistance and cooperation is urgently requested. Yours very truly, ~ILLIA~ E. EVANS LTC-USA-Ret. President 909 E. Westover Ave. Colonial Heights, Va. 23834 526-6259 cc: The Hon. Jesse J. ~ayes ,00 ~ , 'Nd '~/ 17301 STREET LIGHT REQUEST Matoaca District DATE OF REQUEST August 20, 1984 TAX MAP NAME OF REQUESTOR Maurice and Mollie Godley ADDRESS 3413 Watson Street 182-9 PHONE NUMBER - HOME WORK REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE .PLACED Between 3411 & 3413 Watson Street PI.EASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE # TI 84 OR SET POLE COMMENTS Does not meet criteria. There is an existing pole. There are some apartments across the street. This light would help. Size: 5000 H.P.S.V. ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch) 14 4/80 SEN CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER' 9.G.4. SUB,JECT: Rt. 360 at Walmsley Boulevard/Extension of right turn lane COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The right turn lane from eastbound Rt. 360 to Walmsley Boulevard is approximately 100' in length. When stopped by the traffic signal, eastbound Rt. 360 traffic regularly backs up past the end of the turn lane. Motorists desiring to make a right turn onto Walmsley are illegally driving on the shoulder of Rt. 360 in order to get to the right turn lane. As per Mr. Applegate's request, Tranportation staff met with VDH&T staff to review the site. It was determined that the existing right turn lane could be extended approximately 100'. The estimated cost of the extension is $7,000.00. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board appropriate $7,000.00 from the Clover Hill District 3¢ Road Fund for the extension of the turn lane and that the Board adopt a resolution requesting VDH&T to extend the turn lane on an accounts receivable basis. ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO [] PREPARED BY;, Director Transportation SIGNATURE: '//"~OUN'~Y ADMIN! STRATOR 0 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY: At the regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors held at the Courthouse on September 26, 1984 at 9:00 a.m. Whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors is interested in the extension of the existing right turn lane on the eastbound lane of Rt. 360 at Walmsley Boulevard. Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors appropriates $7,000.00 from the Clover Hill District 3¢ Road Fund for the extension of the right turn lane on the eastbound lane of Rt. 360 at Walmsley Boulevard. And further, be it resolved that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to extend the turn lane on an accounts receivable basis. Vote: Certified By: Joan S. Dolezal, Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors .0 2 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE: .... September ,26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: ,, SUB41~CT: Restriction of Through Truck Traffic/Kingsdale Road 9.G.5. (Route 149! COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Mr. Garland Dodd, Bermuda District Supervisor, has received requests from the citizens to prohibit through truck traffic on Kingsdale Road (Route 1495) between Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1) and Chester Road (Route 145) (see attached map). If through truck traffic is prohibited on Kingsdale, the closest alternate route would be Perrymont Road and Normandale Avenue. Normandale's cross-section and alignment make it unacceptable for truck traffic. The next closest and recommended alternate route would be Jefferson Davis and Chester Road. This route is approxi- mately 1.3 miles longer. Kingsdale Road has an acceptable cross-section and alignment, and provides a direct route from Jefferson Davis Highway to Chester Road. Therefore, staff does not recommend approval of the restriction of through truck traffic on Kingsdale. Before the Highway Department will consider a request for the Dro- hibition, the County must hold a public hearing on the question. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that, if the Board is interested in pursuing this matter, that Oct. 24, 1984 be set for the public hearing date on this request and that the Board authorize the advertisement for that hearing. PREPARED BY~I /f~/~ ¢/'~''~ R.~. McCracken Director ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO [] Transportation SIGNATURE: ~.u~ /~ ~. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR EVELAKE RD CT. / / I ILADES ST / R TRtC..TtOI, IllllNIIllll HEMLOCK LUGATE RD DEWBERRY ST MOORES CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD Of SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETIN(~ DATE: SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9.G.6. Funding for Transportation planning to complete revision of the Chesterfield Plan for Land Use and Transportation COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: BACKGROUND The Board of Supervisors has directed Administration to revise the County's Plan for Land Use and Transportation. The Board has adopted revised Plans for the Jahnke/Chippenham Area, the Turner Road Area, and the Eastern Area. Plans for the Powhite Parkway/Route 288 Extension Area, and the Central Planning Area are being prepared by consultants. Because of high cost for consultant services, and in order to obtain a Plan that is more sensitive to County needs, the Planning Department proposed alternatives to the Board for revision of the Plan for the remaining areas of Chesterfield (Western Area, Southern Area, and the balance of the Northern Area). The alternative which the Board selected was a combined approach using County staff with transportation planning assistance to be provided by consultants. It was estimated that $30,000 for consultant services.would be required. ATTACHMENTS: YES '1~ NO [] PREPARED B~ /S.t~nley/"~/. Balderson, Jr. Direc~of Planning COUNTY ADMI NI STRATOR The Planning Department is dedicated to an effort that will result in a revised Plan by September 1985. A schedule for completion of Plan revision is attached. The schedule requires transportation planning activities to be performed at separate times during the coming year. There are distinct differences between the areas to be studied. These factors combine to suggest that we may select different consultants with different scopes for each study area. Because the time frame for the Plan is tight and because the consultants will be working as an adjunct to Planning Staff we will be likely to procure services for a specific but flexible scope of work and pay for services on an actual time basis with a not to exceed contract amount. Further because the consultant selection process combined with the time required to gain Board approval on contracts serves to divert staff time from planning work to administrative work, staff is requesting that the County Administrator be authorized to enter into these incremental contracts on behalf of the Board of Supervisors. The total (cumulative) amount of the contracts is not expected to exceed $30,000. As well, staff will explore opportunities to curtail the lengthy consultant selection process. RECOMMENDATION That the Board of Supervisors authorize the County Administrator to enter into contract(s) for transportation consulting services required to complete the Plan amendment and that the Board appropriate $30,000 to be used to procure transportation planning services. AGENII/SEP51/dem Budget & Accounting Comments: If the Board approves this request, the $30,000 should be appropriated from the General Fund-Fund Balance since funding is not available within the contingency account. '~ane B. Ra~-ey, Di~.ector Budget & Accountfhg CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE:i September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9 .G.7.a. SUBJECT: Resolution confirming the proceedings of the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield approving the issuance of revenue bonds to Carbonic Industries Corporation. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION On September 19, 1984, the Chesterfield Industrial Development Authority held a public hearing to cQnsider industrial development revenue bond financing in the amount of $2,000,000 for Carbonic Industries Corporation. The Authority approved the issuance of the bonds and the Board needs to confirm the issuance by the adoption of the attached resolution. The resolution certifying the Authority's action was prepared by Jack Spain, bond counsel for the CIDA. The applicant plans to acquire, construct and equip a carbon dioxide liquefaction plant of approximately 5,000 square feet to be located at 1201Bellwood Road. ATTACHMENTS: YES El NO [] PREPARED BY;~~ George S. Woodall, Director Department of Economic Development SIGNATURE: '~ / '~6UNTY ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the Authority), has considered the ap- plication of Carbonic Industries Corporation (the Company) for the issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000 (the Bonds) to as- sist in the financing of the Company's acquisition, construc- tion and equipping of a carbon dioxide liquefaction plant fa- cility (the Project) to be located at 1201Bellwood Road, in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on September 19, 1984; and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board of Su- pervisors (the Board) of the County of Chesterfield (the Coun- ty), to approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with Sec- tion 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the Code); and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with respect to the Project have been filed with the Board; and -1- BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUN- TY OF CHESTERFIELD: 1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Indus- trial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield, for the benefit of the Company, to the extent required by Section 103(k), to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as re- quired by Section 103(k), does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Company, but, as re- quired by Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the inter- est thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and moneys pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County nor the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 3. The Bonds shall not be issued unless they shall have received an allocation of the State Ceiling (as defined) in Executive Order Number 50 of the Governor of the Common- wealth of Virginia, dated August 1, 1984), and nothing in this resolution shall be construed as any assurance that such allocation will be available or, if available, will be made. -2- This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. -3- Transmittal Letter to Board of Supervisors September 19, 1984 Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield P. O. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield Proposed Financinq for Carbonic Industries Corporation Carbonic Industries Corporation (the Company) has re- quested that the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the Authority), assist the Company in financ- ing the acquisition, construction and equipping of a carbon dioxide liquefaction plant facility (the Project) in Chesterfield County, Virginia, by the issuance of its industri- al development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000 (the Bonds). As set forth in the resolution of the Authority at- tached hereto (the Resolution), the Authority has agreed to do so. The Authority has conducted a public hearing with respect to its proposed financing of the Project and has recommended that you approve the issuance of the Bonds as required by Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the Code). Attached hereto is (1) a certificate evidencing the conduct of the public hearing and the action taken by the Au- thority, (2) the "Fiscal Impact Statement" and (3) the form of resolution suggested by counsel to evidence your approval. Ch'al rm~n Develop~nt Authority of the Co~fnty of Chesterfield -2- Carbonic Industries Corporation CERTIFICATE The undersigned Secretary of the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the Authority), hereby certifies as follows: 1. A regular meeting of the Authority was duly called and held on September 19, 1984, at 3:30 o'clock p.m. in the Board Room of the Chesterfield County Airport Terminal Build- ing, Chesterfield County, Virginia. The meeting was open to the public, and persons of differing views were given an oppor- tunity to be heard. At such meeting all of the Directors of the Authority were present or absent throughout as follows: PRESENT: W. F. Seymour, III C. C. Duke J. A. Spencer K. W. Ramsey J. T. Steger G. W. Fenchuk J. E. Ryan ABSENT: None 2. The Chairman announced the commencement of a public hearing on the application of Carbonic Industries Corporation (the Company) and that a notice of the hearing was published once a week for two consecutive weeks, the first publication being not more than 28 days nor less than 14 days prior to the hearing in newspapers having general circulation in Chesterfield County, Virginia (the Notice). A copy of the Notice and certificate of publication of such Notice has been filed with the records of the Authority and are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. The following individuals appeared and addressed the Authority: J. A. Toepke David Fike John T. Winn, III A reasonably detailed summary of their statements to- gether with the fiscal impact statement required by the Indus- trial Development Revenue Bond Act are attached hereto as Ex- hibits B and C. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true, correct and complete copy of a resolution (the Resolution) adopted at such meeting of the Authority by a majority of the Directors present at such meeting, with the ayes and nays being recorded in the minutes of such meeting as follows: Director Vote W. F. Seymour Aye C. C. Duke Aye J. A. Spencer Aye K. W. Ramsey Aye J. T. Steger Aye G. W. Fenchuk Aye J. E. Ryan Aye -2- The Resolution constitutes all formal action taken by the Au- thority at such meeting relating to matters referred to in the Resolution. The Resolution has not been repealed, revoked, re- scinded or amended and is in full force and effect on the date hereof. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Authority this (SEAL) 19 day of September , 1984. ~~du/~s t r~ Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield -3- Carbonic Industries Corporation Inclu~lrlet C~m'l~m'mlloa (t~, RICHMOND NI~WSPAPERS. INC. Publisher of THE RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH Richmond, Va .... ~.;,.~. .... ~ 2 ,.. 2. ?'.,.~ ........ This is to certify that the attached ...... ':..J:i.~-"~3.~..-'..L~- .................... was published in The Richmond Times-Dispatch, a newspaper published in the City of Richmond, State of Virginia. rh~ first insertion being given .......................................................... " ~ ' N State of Vir~nia, City ~~ij: I GERALDINE J .'HNS ~ TITLE Exhibit B J.A. Toepke, David Fike and John T. Winn, IIIappeared on behalf of the Company. They reviewed the information set forth in the application of the Company attached hereto. .--. ~ OF CHESTERFIELD ... .,,E)USTRIAL L"EVELOP~DFr ~q"HORI~ PLICATIQ't FOR L [D AUI'FDRIZATIOH OF. APPLICANT: Carbo~ic Ind,ustries Corporation ~DRESS: 3340 Rosebud' Road, P. O. Box 960,' Loganville, Georgia 30249 ~ITACT REPRESENTATIVE: John A. Toepke TELEPHONE NLIMBER:404-979-0250 PROPOSED LOCATION: 1201 Bellwood Road, Richmond, Virginia 23237 : No IS REZONING REQUIRED: PRESENT LOCATION: (IF MORE THAN ONE, See attached list LIST ON SEPARATE PAGE) in Annual Report .... IS APPLICANT OWNER OF LAND? No IF NOT.. FURNISH COPY OF 'OPTION, T~RF~ACT, TYPE OF INDUSTRY: Carbon Dioxide liq'ue'fa'ction pi~nt ..... Refer 'to letter of 7/19/84 signed & returned 8/2/84 PRODUCTS PRODUCED: Liquid Carbon Dioxide WILL THIS PROJECT RESULT IN A NI~ PRODUCT LINE: IF YES, I~ PRODUCT: [~LIVBER OF F~LOYEES AT NEM LOCATION (ESTIMATED): i5 TYPE_ OF BUILDING TO BE CONSTRUCTED: (I~r. SCRIBE CONSTRUCTION, SQUARE FOOTAGE, AMOL~ FOR EACH OPERATICN SUCH AS MANUFACTURING, STORAGE, OFFICE, ETC, :) 5,000 square ft. metal bu£1ding for manufa~tur'~'ng and product'.on · · 1,900,000 ' (IF NOT le,~, ESTIMATE) ~c~E: STATE POLUTION SEPARATELY, "" EXPLAIN ~MOU'~ OF BOND AUlltORIZATION REQUESTED: AssI OF LOAN pROCF r : ~,iSTRUCTI ON ~CHITECT/"ENGINEER ~CHINERY/EQUIPMENT  .~TIMATED VALUE OF L~D A~D BUILDING FOR COI.~FY REAL TATE PL~F..S ;',HEN c.O~"~I.E'i'E 'Zoo,o6o .... ' "' zsi~' ,ooo .... 1,300 ,ooo i70,000 50,000 $1,900,000 DESCRIPTION OF PURPOSE ~.,~ WHICH I~OND P~'V-r. NUE ~ILL BE lOS. Finance building and equipment BO~D RATING OF APPLICANT BY BANK REFERENCETrust Company Bank of Gwinaett County, LAwrenceville, Ga., ·John B. Frank D & B 4Al CREDIT RATING EXPLAIN HOW FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITYWILLENABLEAPPLICANTTO LOCATE OR REMAIN IN CHESTERFIELD COUDrIY: Will make continued 0p~ratfons ec'ono~icall~' f~aSible ....... BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED BY COUNTY: Continued employment, purchase of goods and ~ervices locally, new 'carbon dioxide source for industry Is APPLIC. A~A SUBSIDIARY OF ANY CO, ANY: No IF YES, GIVE NAME: ADDRESS: TELER-~E NUMBER: ~ OF APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: Mr. AD~S: 707 East Main Street, P. O. Jack H'[ Jpain, Jr. -'Hunton & Williams Box l~'3~','Richmond, virginia ~32~2 TmFPH E NU ER: 804L788-84~4 NA~E OF BOND COII'GEL IF. SIRED: Mr. Sac~ 'H~ Spain·~'~r. - Hunton'a Williams A[~| 707 East Main·street,"P~ 6."Box'i~'~5,"R{c~nd',' v{r~inia 232'12 TF~ FP~E NL~R: 804-788-8434 NA~ OF ARO~ITECT OR ENGINEER (IF RETAINED): Warre~'~f ~lscis AD[~RESS: R.D. #1, Box 1~4', M6unt"Vision~ N~w"?6~k'i~8'io .................... TELEPHONE N~R: 607,293-6i87 NA~ OF CC~R (IF RETAINED): A ' lo6aT "co6E facto ~ "E o · 6'e" se 16ct 6d TELEMO~E N~ER: IF YES TO EI'i'HER PRECEDING QUESTION, PLF.~E EXPLAIN IN DETAIL: ~.-IE~ WAS APPLICANT FORMED? (DATE) ~iori'~ February, 1965 OTHER REMARKS: December, 1971 ~/ILL THE PROJECT BE LEASED TO A~Y OTHER ORGXCNIZATIdN?. NAMES OH ALL ORGANIZATIONS EXPECTED TO' USE AT LEAST 10~, OH THE PROdECT SPACE OR TAKE AT LEAST 10% OF THE PROJECT'S OUTPUT, None PLEASE ENCLOSE A COPY OF YOUR LATEST ANNUAL REPORT, BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT FOR LAST COMPLETE YEAR OF OPERATIONS, COMPLETE 'EXHIBITS A AND B ATTACHED HERETO, IT Is UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED BY THE APPLICANT THAT ALL COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS APPLICATION'WILL BE PAID BY THE APPLICANT, EITHER FROM THE PROCEEDS OF INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS WHICH MIGHT BE APPROVED FOR THE PROJECT BY THE AUTHORITYj OR IN THE EVENT SUCH ASSISTANCE IS NOT APPROVED OR FORTHCOMING THE APPLICANT AGREES TO PAY ALL COSTS FROM ITS OWN RE- SOURCES, SUCH COSTS, IN ADDITION TO THE COSTS OF THE APPLICANTj SHALL INCLUDEj BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TOt THE EXPENSES OF THE AUTHORITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE STUDY AND PROCESSING OF THIS APPLICATION'~ AND THE COST FOR AN INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS~ THE COST FOR AN INDE- PENDENT LEGAL ~OUNSEL~ IF ANY~ TO PROTECT THE ~UTHORITY AND COSTS OF PUBLICATION, AN APPLICATION FEE AND DEPOSIT AGAINST LEGAL FEES, EACH IN THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500,00), AS WELI..A~ A...DEPOSIT AGAINST PUBLICATION COSTS OF ~250, FOR A TOTAL OF $125U,UU PAYABLE TO THE AUTHORITY, MUST ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT HEREBY REQUESTS THAT THE CHAIRMAN OR VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE AUTHORITY, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY S RESOLUTION, CAUSE THE PUBLICATION ~OF A NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THIS APPLICATION, /HE APPLICANT AGREES TO PAY ALL COSTS RELATING TO PUBLICATION, THE APPLICANT FURTHER REPRESENTS THAT IT UNDERSTANDS THE CONDITIONS OF THIS APPLICATION, THAT THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF APPROVAL AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS AND INFORMATION FURNISHED WITH THIS APPLICATI.ON OR ON SUPPORTING PAPERS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO ITS BEST KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, THIS APPLICATION APPROVED BY THE John A. Toepke OF THE (AUTHORIZED AGENT) Carbonic Industries Corporation .. · :. · (OFFICIAL NAME OF APPLICANT) WHOSE MAILING ADDRESS IS 3340 Rosebud Road, P. O. Box 960~ Losanville, Ga. 3024q THIS'"-~"Stt~" .:, DAY OF ....... ~-'p~;~'~;'~' ....... ~"',, 19 ~',' , ., ,.,; ~. ..,.. .............. /. .... ~... .- ........... WITNESS ._ ./" (SEAL) '-_ /John A. Toepke TI TLEVice President/Treasurer DATE September 5 ~ 1984 ADDRESS REPLY TO- MR. W. F. SEYMOUR, CHAIRMAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ]}EPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC JJEVELOPHENT P.O. ]}ox 40, CHESTERFIELD, VA 23832 E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS ~. COMPANY WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19898 MATERIAI..q AND I..OGi~rlG$ DEPARTMENT July 19, 1984 RECEIVED JUL 2 ;57 Aas'd ............ Mr. D. Fike Administration Manager Carbonic Industries Corporation 3340 Rosebud Road P. O. Box 960 Loganville, GA 30249 Dear Dave, CARBONIC PURCHASE OF DU PONT JAMES RIVER CO2 To confirm our July 18, 1984 discussion and continue the dialogue between our companies, listed below is a summary of the concepts agreed on for Carbonic's purchase of James River's C02: MARKET ® Carbonic's targeting CO2 for the food processing market. REAL ESTATE ® Carbonic estimates to need 2-3 fenced-in acres. This is to be a separate exhibit of the agreement negotiated by our Real Estate Division. FACILITY ® Similar to Carbonic's (Monsanto) Decatur, AL site. · Carbonic to install truck scale. INVESTMENT/STARTUP · Carbonic estimates $2MM capital investment (comprised of existing and new equipment purchases). · Estimate six (6) to nine (9) months to commercial startup (estimated 4/1/85). QUANTITY-CRUDE CO2 · Du Pont estimates 70 tons/day average with a range of 60/90 tons/day. - 2 - COMMITMENT · Carbonic commits to taking all James River CO2 emissions. SHORTFALL · Carbonic will discuss shortfall provision should they be unable to take all CO2 emission. As it is currently vented into atmosphere, an accounting method and monitoring device will be developed to obtain reasonable estimate of vented CO2. OPERATION - TWO (2) ALTERNATIVES A) Automated plant with Du Pont's James River personnel monitoring gauges based on Carbonic establishing operation parameters. B) Carbonic moving existing Virginia location to James River and monitoring gauges with their personnel. PERSONNEL · Carbonic chooses to emply non-union personnel and may move existing trucking operation (8 drivers) to James River. TITLE · Title to transfer at fence separating two (2) companies, or should Carbonic'S install a pipeline title shall pass at Carbonic pipeline connection with Du Pont. PERIOD OF AGREEMENT · Ten (10) year agreement with options for renewal. period to be determined. Option PRICE/ESCALATION · Carbonic agrees to estimated $15/ton finished product and to establishing an index for price adjustments. TERMINATION · Should Du Pont terminate prior to end of first five (5) years, Du Pont would pay Carbonic's balance of the undepreciated asset account or have the option of purchasing all facilities at a pre-agreed sale price. · Should Carbonic terminate or be in default, Du Pont would pay no termination fee. UTILITIES · If possible, to tie into Du Pont's utilities at James River. CRUDE CO2 ® Chemical analysis of the current CO2 emission is J. G. Kelly's 6/26/84 letter (copy attached). similar to SAFETY · Carbonic safety standards to be similar to Du Pont's James River plant. SAMPLE ANALYSIS/TECHNICAL DISCUSSIONS · Du Pont agrees to Carbonic's request for permission to take independent sample to verify J. G. Kelly's 6/26/84 letter. PERMITS · All applicable permits to be obtained by Carbonic independent of Du Pont. However, Du Pont will assist. The above items summarize the essence of a very productive meeting. If I have omitted or misstated our discussion, comment. Otherwise, Please acknowledge receipt and agreement of the above by signing the "Wilm. M&L Dept. Copy" and return it to my attention. Very truly yours, R. 0 SENIOR PURCHASING AGENT CONTRACTING SECTION ACKNOWLEDGED: CARB~ INDUSTRIES CORPORATION DATE: 8- = o S ~- * Refer to Dave Fike's letter of AuEust 2, 1984. RJD/es Attachment E. I. ou PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY WILMINGTON,, DELAWARE 19898 TEXTILE FIBERS DEPARTMENT JUN 2 8 1984 June 26, 1984 Mr. Dave Fike Carbonic Industries Corp. 3340 Rosebud Road P. O. Box 960 Loganville, GA 30249 Dear Mr. Fike, Following is a chemical analysis of our CO2 stream being generated at our Richmond facility. % CO2 97.02% Combined NO 2.52% H20 0.46% Methane 5.05 ppm Total Organic Carbon 5.0 ppm Based.on our conversation today, and assuming acceptance of the above specs, it would appear a very beneficial relationship between Carbonic and Du Pont could be pursued and we would be willing to proceed via a trip by your personnel to Richmond around mid July. Please feel free to contact either myself or Mr. DeStefano if questions should arise. Sincerely, J. G. Kelly cc: .R.J. OeStefano-Brandywine L. L. Turner-Louviers R. E. Oevish-James River T. V. Robertson-Richmond R. E. Kendall-Louviers JGK/mes EXHIBIT C FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT September 5, 1984 Date Carbonic Industries Corporation Applicant Carbon Dioxide Liquefaction Plant Facility 1201 Bellwood Road, Richmond, Virginia 23237 E. I. Du Pont - James River Plant Maximum amount of financing sought Estimated taxable value of the facility's real property to be constructed in the municipality 1,900,000 1,520,000 Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates 14,896~ Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates Estimated merchants' capital tax per year using present tax rates N/A Estimated dollar value per year of goods and services that will be purchased locally 681,000 Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis 15 Average annual salary per employee 23,300 Author~,~y Chairman Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield Name of Authority EXHIBIT D Carbonic Industries Corporation RESOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD WHEREAS, there have been described to the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the Au- thority), the plans of Carbonic Industries Corporation (the Company) to acquire, construct and equip a carbon dixoide liq- uefaction plant facility (the Project) in Chesterfield County, Virginia (the County); and WHEREAS, the Company in its appearance before the Au- thority and in its application has described the benefits to the County and has requested the Authority to agree to issue its industrial development revenue bonds under the Virginia Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act (the Act) in such amounts as may be necessary to finance costs to be incurred in acquiring, constructing and equipping the Project; and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held as required by Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the Code); BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD: 1. It is hereby found and determined that the location of the Project for the Company in the County will bring addi- tional revenues and employment into the County and will promote the industrial development and economy of the County, benefit its inhabitants, increase their commerce and promote their safety, health, welfare, convenience and prosperity. 2. To induce the Company to locate the Project in the County, the Authority hereby agrees to assist the Company to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project by undertaking the issuance of its industrial develop- ment revenue bonds therefor in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000 upon terms and conditions to be mutually agreed upon between the Authority and the Company. The Project shall be leased or sold by the Authority to the Company pursuant to a lease or installment sale agreement which will provide payments to the Authority sufficient to pay the principal of and premi- um, if any, and interest on the bonds and to pay all other ex- penses in connection with the maintenance of the Project. The bonds shall be issued in form and pursuant to terms to be set by the Authority, and the payment of the bonds shall be secured by an assignment, for the benefit of the holders thereof, of the Authority's rights to payments under the lease or install- ment sale agreement and may be additionally secured by a mort- gage of the Project. 3. It having been represented to the Authority that it is necessary to proceed immediately with the acquisition, con- struction and equipping of the Project, the Authority hereby agrees that the Company may proceed with plans for the Project, -2- enter into contracts for acquisition, construction and equip- ping and take such other steps as it may deem appropriate in connection therewith, provided that nothing herein shall be deemed to authorize the Company to obligate the Authority with- out its consent in each instance to the payment of any moneys or the performance of any acts in connection with the Project. The Authority agrees that the Company may be reimbursed from the proceeds of the bonds for all costs so incurred by it. The Authority also agrees, if requested, to issue its notes to ob- tain interim financing for the Project on terms to be mutually agreed upon, such notes to be guaranteed or otherwise secured by the Company as required by the lender and the Authority. 4. The Authority shall accept from or on behalf of the Company conveyance of such land in the County on which the Project is to be located. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to accept and have recorded a proper deed or deeds in connection with such conveyance. If for any reason the bonds are not issued, it is understood that the Authority shall convey such property to the Company or to such other person as the Company may request, without cost other than the expense of preparation and recordation of such deed or deeds of conveyance. -3- 5. The Authority hereby agrees to the recommendation of the Company that Messrs. Hunton & Williams, Richmond, Vir- ginia, be appointed as bond counsel and hereby appoints such firm to supervise the proceedings and approve the issuance of the bonds. 6. All costs and expenses in connection with the fi- nancing and the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project, including the fees and expenses of bond counsel, coun- sel for the Authority and the agent or underwriter for the sale of the bonds, shall be paid from the proceeds of the bonds. If for any reason such bonds are not issued, it is understood that all such expenses shall be paid by the Company and that the Au- thority shall have no responsibility therefor. 7. In adopting this resolution the Authority intends to take "official action" toward the issuance of the bonds within the meaning of regulations issued by the Internal Reve- nue Code of 1954, as amended. 8. The Authority shall perform such other acts and adopt such further resolutions as may be required to implement its undertakings as hereinabove set forth, and if requested by the Company, it will make application to the Internal Revenue Service for such tax rulings as may be necessary in the opinion of bond counsel. To that end, the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Authority is authorized to execute an appropriate power of -4- attorney naming counsel selected by the Company for such pur- poses. 9. Unless this resolution is extended by the Authori- ty, the bonds authorized hereunder shall be issued within two (2) years from the date hereof. 10. The Authority hereby recommends that the Board of Supervisors of the County approve the issuance of the Bonds. 11. The Authority reserves the right to recommend the allocation or to allocate (if such power is delegated to the Authority) amounts available under any "private activity bond limit," as provided by Section 103(n) of the Code, to projects other than the Project. 12. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. -5- Carbonic Industries Corporation CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION 1. A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield (the Board) was held on 1984, at which meeting the following duly elected members were present or absent: PRESENT: ABSENT: Such members constituted all of the members of the Board on the date of such meeting. 2. Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at such meeting by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: 3. The resolution referred to above has not been re- pealed, revoked, rescinded or amended but is in full force and effect on this date and constitutes the only resolution adopted by the Board relating to the issuance by the Authority of its industrial development revenue bonds for the benefit of Carbonic Industries Corporation. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Board of Supervi- sors of the County of Chesterfield, this day of , 1984. (SEAL) Clerk, Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield -2- CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE:September 26; 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9.G.7.b. SUBJECT: Resolution confirming the proceedings of the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield approving the issuance of revenue bonds to Alvin Wilson Hodges. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On September 19, 1984, the Chesterfield Industrial Development Authority held a public hearing to consider industrial development revenue bond financing in the amount of $1,500,000 for Alvin Wilson Hodges. The Authority approved the issuance of the bonds and the Board needs to confirm the issuance by the adoption of the attached resolution. The resolution certifying the Authority"s action was reviewed by Jack Spain, bond counsel for the CIDA. The applicant plans to acquire, construct and equip a manufacturing and warehouse facility of approximately 40,000 square feet for lease to J. M. Fry Company and Southern Printing Ink Corporation. The facility will be located in the southwest quadrant formed by the intersection of Walmsley Boulevard and the Seaboard System Railroad. ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO [] George S. Woodall, Director Department of Economic Development SIG NAT URE: _ ~/" 'COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR A RESOLUTION Approving the action taken by the Industrial Development Authority of The County of Chesterfield in the adoption-of a resolution providing for authorization of issuance of bonds in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000.00, for and on behalf of Alvin Wilson Hodges for lease to J. M. Fry Company and Southern Printing Ink Corp. for the acquisition, construction and equipping of an ink manufacturing facility to be located in the southwest quadrant formed by the intersection of Walmsley Boulevard and Seaboard Railroad Line in Chesterfield County, Virginia. Patron - Approved as to form andlegality by County Attorney WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of The County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "Authority"), has been empowered by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, to act as an Industrial Development Authority on behalf of the County of Chesterfield, as provided in Section 15.1-1378 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended; WHEREAS, the Authority has considered the application of Alvin Wilson Hodges requesting the issuance of the Authority' industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000.00 (the "Bonds") to assist in the acquisition, construction and equipping of an ink S manufacturing facility (the "Project"), located in the southwest quadrant formed by the intersection of Walmsley Boulevard and Seaboard Railroad Line in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on September 19, 1984; WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution recommending the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing, and a Fiscal Impact Statement are attached to the draft of this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD: 1. The Board of Supervisors approves the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000.00 by the Authority for the benefit of Alvin Wilson Hodges for lease to J. M. Fry Company and Southern Printing Ink Corp., as required by Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Project or Alvin Wilson Hodges, J. M. Fry Company or Southern Printing Ink Corp. Further, neither the Commonwealth, nor the County of Chesterfield, nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the - 2 - bond principal or the interest thereon or other costs incident to issuance except from the revenues and moneys pledged therefor and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth nor the County of Chesterfield is pledged to the payment of the principal of such bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto. 3. The Bonds will not be issued unless the Company receives an allocation from the State ceiling, and nothing in this resolution shall be construed as any assurance that such allocation will be available, or, if available, will be made. - 3 - lAMES W. GORDON, IR. DELMAR L. BROWN FRED J, BEKNHARDT. IK. WILLIAM H. }'IOOFNAGLE, HAMILL D. JONES, IR, CAKY A. RALSTON ROBERT l, KLOETI CONARO B. MATTOX, DAKVIN E. SATFEKWHITE STUART W. BLAIN LAW OFFICES FLORANCE.GORDON AND BROWN 815 MUTUAL BUILDING RICHMOND,VIRGINIA 23219 September 19, 1984 IKICHARD FLORANCE 1902 - 1980 WALKER FLORANCE Directors, Industrial Development Authority of The County of Chesterfield Board Room, Chesterfield County Airport Terminal Building Chesterfield, Virginia Re: Industrial Development Bond Application of Alvin Wilson Hodges for Lease to J. M. Fry Co. and Southern Printing Ink Corp. Gentlemen: Alvin Wilson Hodges ("Hodges") is applYing for Industrial Development Bond financing with The Industrial Development Authority of The County of Chesterfield ("Authority"), the proceeds of which will be used to acquire four acres of land in the southwest quadrant formed by the intersection of Waimsley Boulevard and Seaboard Railroad Line in Chesterfield County, Virginia and construct thereon and equip an ink manufacturing facility of approximately 40,000 square feet. Hodges intends to lease the improved property to two occupants, J. M. Fry Co. and Southern Printing Ink Corp. Currently, each of these corporations is located in the City of Richmond and is housed in a separate physical plant. Hodges seeks to relocate in Chesterfield County and to build one manufacturing facility to house both corporations. Fifty per cent of the new facility will be used for manufacturing; forty per cent will be used for warehouse and storage space; and, ten per cent will be used for office space. Hodges seeks a bond authorization for an amount up to 1.5 million dollars, of which approximately $160,000.00 would be used to acquire the land; $890,000.00 would be used for construction; $350,000.00 would be used for machinery and equipment; and, $100,000.00 would be used for financing and miscellaneous expenses. Approximately fifty employees will work at the new facility, which will increase the work force and the tax base of Chesterfield Count~. This project may not be economically feasible without the Authority s assistance, in as much as the debt service on the cost of the same at conventional/taxable rates would be significantly higher. Directors, Industrial Development Authority of The County of Chesterfield Page 2 September 19, 1984 Please find the following documents enclosed for your review: 1. Certificate of Public Hearing with Exhibits ~A - Certified Notice of Publication B - Fiscal Impact Statement C - Inducement Resolution of The Authority. Certificate and Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of The County of Chesterfield. Industrial Development Authority of The County of Chesterfield Application for Bond Authorization. Respectfully submitted, ALVIN WILSON HODGES CC: CC: Jack Spain, Jr., Esq. Hunton & Williams P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23212 Edward C. Trope, Jr., Esq. Sands, Anderson, Marks & Miller P. O. Box 1998 Richmond, VA 23216 CERTIFICATE The undersigned Secretary of the Industr-ial Development Authority of The County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "Authority") hereby certifies as follows: 1. A regular meeting of the Authority was duly called and held on September 19, 1984, at 3:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the Chesterfield County Airport Terminal Building, in Chesterfield, Virginia, pursuant to proper notice given to each Director of the Authority prior to such meeting. The meeting was open to the public. The time of the meeting and the place at which the meeting was held provided a reasonable opportunity for persons of differing views to appear and be heard. 2. The Chairman announced the co~m~encement of a public hearing on the application of Alvin Wilson Hodges for lease to J. M. Fry Company and Southern Printing Ink Corp. (the "Applicant") and that a notice of the hearing was published once a week for two successive weeks in the Richmond Times Dispatch, a newspaper having general circulation in Chesterfield, Virginia (the "Notice"), with the second publication appearing not less than six days nor more than twnety-one days prior to the hearing date. A copy of the Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. The following individuals appeared on behalf of the applicant: Alvin Wilson Hodges, Conard B. Mattox, III and Stuart W. Blain. These individuals described the project to be constructed and equipped by the Applicant. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true, correct and complete copy of a resolution (the "Resolution") adopted at such meeting of the Authority by a majority of the Directors present at such meeting. The Resolution constitutes all formal action taken by the Authority at such meeting relating to matters referred to in the Resolution. The Resolution has not been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended and is in full force and effect on the date hereof. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a copy of the Fiscal Impact Statement required by Section 15.1-1378.2 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Authority, this 19th day of September, 1984. Development Authority of The County of Chesterfield, Virginia - 2 - Exhibits: A - Certified Notice of Publication B - Fiscal Impact Statement C - Inducement Resolution of the Authority - 3 - J. M. Fry Company NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVEL- OPMENT BOND FIHANCING BY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF! CHESTERFIELD du~r~ ~ Au~x~ ~ In~ on ~h~ ~:~k~ o~ AMn Wi~ ~ Hod~ for ~ ~o ~. M. Fryi 1~ {~on:lo¢t Avem#l, Ric:hmond, v~d m~d ~d Rallroed LMm in ~ County, Vlrgtn~ wtll bt payable ~miely from ny m~ ~ therefor. Any 13er- the bond~ o~ the kxmtlon po~ of the propoeed project m~y aiN~llr I~ he heard. A c~ of at the Coumy Office of Development, 7734 WhlteDInei RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. Publisher of THE RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH t~ , !,~, ! ,~,-, , Richmond, Va ....... ;...~ ......................... This is to certi[y that t~e attached ............ ~...7~,' ........................... was published in The Richmond Times-Dispatch, a newspaper published in the City of Richmond, State of Vir~nia. ~ . i~ 1~~/ Th;~;st i~se;tion bein; ~ven .............. ~..,; ..... : ................................. Swan to ~s~iked b~fqre me ~ . ............. - ~ ~ No~?~ Public ~c~6/nt~ JOH~SON// ~ta~e of Vir~nia, City of Richmond' u ............ ~ my com~is~a~,e~r~ ; - ', ~ ,;':' . ....................................................... TITLE FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT August 31, 1984 -Date ALVIN WILSON HODGES Applicant J. M. Fry Company/Southern Printing Ink Corp. Facility e Maximum amount of financing sought Estimated taxable value of the facility' real property to be constructed in the municipality Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates Estimated merchants' capital tax per year using present tax rates Estimated dollar value per year of goods and services that will be purchased locally Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis 8. Average annual salary per employee $ 1.5 million $ 1.5 million $ 14,700 (.98/$100) $ 900 $ Not Applicable $ 375~000 $ 50 $ 25,000(estimated) A~th~/~t y C~R-irman Industrial Development Authority of County of Chesterfield Name of Authority IND~TRIAL DEVELOF;f.£NT AI~RITY APPLI~TIQ'.t FOR BO"D Alvin Wilson Hodges for lease to J. M. Fry Company and Southern OF. APPLIr_.A~i': PrtntinR Ink Corp. ~)DRESS: 830 Hull Street, Richmond~ Virginia 23224 [CNTACT REPRESENTATIVE: Same TELEPHONE NLI'I~ER: (804)231-0277 PROPOSED PLGCATI~4: 4 acres in the southwest quadrant formed by the intersection of Walmslev Boulevard and Seaboard Railroad Line. in Chesterffeld County, Virginia CURRENT ZONING: Is REZONING 8EQUIRED: No PRESENT LOCATION: (.]F I~DRE THAN ONE, LIST ON SEPAP~TE PAGE) 830 Hull Street/1408 Gordon Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23224 - (Attpched) IS APPLICAZ~I' OWNER OF LAND9 Letter of Intent IF NOT, FU~IISH COPY OF OPTION, OR CONTRAC]', TYPE OF INDUSTRY: Manufacturing. AppIicant is buIld~n~ ~ new physical plant which he will lease to the two occupants, J. M. Fry Company and Southern Printing Ink Corp. PRODUCTS PRODUCED: PrintinR ink of most all type~. WILL THIS PROJECT RESULT IN A NEW PRODUCT LINE: No IF YES, NAFE PRODUCT: NLDBER OF EMPLOYEES AT NEW LOCATION (ESTIMATED): 5O TYPE_ OF BUILDING TO BE CONS~: (DESCRIBE COD~TRUCTION, SQUARE FOOTAGE, AMOL~CT FOR EACH OPERATION SUCH AS ~UFACTURING, STORAGE, OFFICE, ETC, :) Concrete block approx~,,~tety 4o,ooo s~uare feet; SOX of buildin§' to be' ~s'~'~ '[or ~nu~acturing; AOZ ~or warehouse and storage space; and 10% for office spa~'eL A~FF CF BOND ALFFHORIZATIC~I REQUESTED: ASSIGNFENT OF LOAN PROCEEDS: (IF NOT KNOWN, ESTIMATE) I~OTE: STATE FC4_UTION Cr'zrrRo~ ExPEr~ TURES SEPARATELY. $ 1.5 mfllion ~SRUCTIQN ARCHITECT/ENGINEER ?iHR CH INERY/EQUIPFc~FF EING ~.XPENSE '! z6o,'ooo. ..890,000. (Includes Architect/En~ine6r) 350,000. 100,000 TIMATED V~L~ OF LAND A'aD BUILDING FOR COUNTY REAL TAlE PbRPC~r.~S ~;HF,'; ,~-~Dt~-TE $ 1.5 million ' ~SCalPTION OF PURPOSE FOR ht.~CH ]30,ND RE-~UE WILL BE USED: ,rchase o£ land and construction of manufacturing facility thereon; purchase of equipment; installation of undO'r= ground tanks for storage of solvents. ' ~SRDRATING OF APPLICA~ Not Applicable ~y ~NK REFERENCE Southern Bank, Sovran Bank ~ED[T ~TING Excellent EXPLAIN HOW F[NANClALASSISTANCE. F,':~3M [ND.,ISTRI,a,L. AUll~ORITYWI[.L ENABLE APPLICAJ~ TO LOC. ATE O~ P~-MA[N IN [HESTERFIELDCo[~ffy, Favorable interest rate and high percentage of ftnancin~ make acquisition, construction ~nd ope'ratibn o'f'fa~ility feasible. BSNEFITS TO .BE DERIVED BY [OUNTY: Increased tax base and increased work force. iS AFPLICANT A Str3SIDIARY OF ANY COVlPANY: IF YES, GIVE NA/,1E: ~ODRESS: TELEPHONE NL~ER: ~[~EOF APF~_ICANT'S ATIDRNEY: Douglas ~.'Ru~er,' Jr.', Sands, Anderson, Marks & Miller ADDRESS: 629 E. Ma~ street, 1Lich&ond, ~'~ir~a ~3~19 " ~ TELEPHONE ~tU~ER: 648-1636 NAM~ OF BOND O~X~EL DESIRED: Conard. B. Mattox, Iii, Florance, Cordon and Brown ~RESS: 815 MutuaZ B~i~di~g,'Righmo~"~ir~i~i~'"~32'i9 "' -. TELEPHONE NL~ER: 643-~3.~i ............. ~ OF ~C~Zll~C~ OR ENGZNEER ( )' Nelson '~it~' Construction Management' Corp. AODRESS: Richmond, Virgi~'~ .................................. TELEPHONE NLPBER: .... Tentative Cavn cT0a ~D~ESS: Richmond, Vfrginia' Nelson - White Construction Management Cor~p. ~ELEF~E ~U~ER: '' ' HAS APPLI~ EVER DE~ BANKF:UPTCY: IF YES TO EITHER PRECEDING QUESTION, PLEASE EXPLAIN IN D~-I'AIL: Southern Printing Ink Corp. - formed Ln 1952 by applicant STA~ IN ~[~ [N~R~T~: _ Virginia ~ L~G ~ m~t~ ~E B~[NESS ltl VI~INIA? 32 years ~ER ~AR~: ' ~/ILL THE PR. OJECT BE LEASED TO ANY OTHER ORGA-NIZATI(~N.9 Yes. To J. M. Fry Company; Southern Printing Ink Corp. NAMES OF ALL ORGANIZATIONS EXPECTED TO USE AT LEAST ~07, OF THE PROJECT SPACE OR TAKE AT LEAST ~07, OF THE PROJECT'S OUTPUT. J. M. Fry Company; 'Southern Printing Ink Corp. PLEASE ENCLOSE A COPY OF YOUR LATEST AfiNUAL REPORTj BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT FOR LAST COMPLETE YEAR OF OPERATIONS. COMPLETE'EXHIBITS A AND B ATTACHED HERETO. IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED BY THE APPLICANT THAT ALL COSTS IN CONNECTIO~ WITH THIS APPLICATION WILL BE PAID BY THE APPLICANT, EITHER FROM THE PROCEEDS OF INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS WHICH MIGHT BE APPROVED FOR THE PROJECT BY THE AUTHORITY, OR IN THE'EVENT SUCH ASSISTANCE IS NOT APPROVED OR FORTHCOMING THE APPLICANT AGREES TO PAY ALL COSTS FROM ITS OWN RE- SOURCES. SUCH COSTS, IN ADDITION TO THE COSTS OF THE APPL]CANT, SHALL INCLUDE, BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO, THE EXPENSES OF THE ~UTHORITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE STUDY AND PROCESSING OF THIS APPLICATION~ AND THE COST FOR AN INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS~ THE COST FOR AN INDE- PENDENT LEGAL ~OUNSEL, IF ANY, TO PROTECT THE AUTHORITY AND coSTS OF PUBLICATION. AN APPLICATION FEE AND DEPOSIT AGAINST LEGAL FEES, EACH IN THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00), AS WELI..A~ A DEPOSIT AGAINST.PUBLICATION COSTS OF ~250. FOR A TOTAL OF $125U.UU" PAYABLE TO THE ~UTHORITY, MUST ACCOMPANY THIS APPL.ICATION. HE APPLICANT HEREBY REQUESTS THAT THE CHAIRMAN OR VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE UTHORI~Y, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY'S RESOLUTION, CAUSE THE PUBLICATION ~ OF A NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THIS APPLICATION. /HE APPLICANT AGREES TO PAY ALL COSTS RELATING TO PUBLICATION. THE APPLICANT FURTHER REPRESENTS THAT-IT UNDERSTANDS THE CONDITIONS OF THIS APPLICATION, THAT THERE IS NO .GUARANTEE OF APPROVAL AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS AND INFORMATION FURNISHED WITH. THIS APPLICATI.ON OR ON SUPPORTING PAPERS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO ITS BEST KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. THIS APPLICATION APPROVED BY THE A~r~ .' .... for (AUTHORIZED AGENT) _ Alvin Wilson ltocl§e$ ................................................................... .. (OFFICIAL NAME OF APpl'i~,~N1Z) WHOSE MAILING ADDRESS'IS '~30'~ ....................... : .................. ; ..... ""'" ull Street, Rzchmond, Vmr§znma~'2'3'27~' THIS ¥is~'.."~'~', DAY ~F "' i'"'~~: ....................... '1Q "~¥':"~' ' - - AL) ~ATE .J' r ADDRESS REPLY TO - ~R. ~. F. SEYMOUR, ~HAIRMAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPHENT AUTHORITY - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 609 E sT GRACE STREET, qTH FLOOR RlCUMOND, VIRGINIA 23219 P..O. Bo~ 1555, Suitt 920 1001 F.. MMn Stre. tt ~ Vir~nin 23219 804-780-2878 AUgust 30, 1984 Mr. Jack Hughes C. Porter Vaughan, Inc. 4912 Augusta Avenue Richmond, VA 23220 Dear Jack: We hereby accept your contract for the purchase of four (4) acres of land on ~&~lmsley Boulevard under the following terms and conditions: (1) Final approval and execution of the contract will be after our attorney has reviewed the contract. Such review shall take place the week of September 3, 1984. (2) Included in the four (4) acres that you will be purchasing will be a strip fifty (50) feet wide of the buffer strip on the west boundary line and. a strip twenty-five (25) feet wide along the north boundary line. Sincerely, RO~ D~E~P~NT COS~Y A. K~P ROG AKR/pfb ACCEPTED BY: RESOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, there have been described to the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the Authority), the plans of Alvin Wilson Hodges to acquire, construct and equip a manufacturing facility (the Facility) in the County of Chesterfield (the County) to be leased to J. M. Fry Company and Southern Printing Ink Corp. (the Company); and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held as required by Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended; and WHEREAS, the Company in its appearance before the Authority and in its application filed with the Authority has described the benefits to the County and has requested the Authority to agree to issue its industrial development revenue bonds under the Virginia Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act (the Act) in such amounts as may be necessary to finance the cost of acquiring, constructing and equipping the Facility; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA: 1. It is hereby found and determined that the location of a manufacturing facility in the County will bring additional revenues and employment into the County and will promote the industrial development and economy of the County, benefit its inhabitants, increase their commerce and promote their safety, health, welfare, convenience and prosperity. 2. To induce the Company to locate the Facility in the County, the Authority hereby ~grees to assist the Company to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Facility by undertaking the issuance of its industrial development revenue bonds therefor in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000 upon terms and conditions to be mutually agreed upon between the Authority and the Company including the acquisition of the land at the southwest quadrant formed by the intersection of Walmsley Boulevard and Seaboard Railroad Line. The Facility shall be leased or sold by the Authority to the Company pursuant to a lease or installment sale agreement which will provide payments to the Authority sufficient to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the bonds and to pay all other expenses in connection with the maintenance of the Facility. The bonds shall be issued in form and pursuant to terms to be set by the Authority and the payment of the bonds shall be secured by an assignment for the benefit of the holders thereof, of the Authority's rights to payments under the lease or installment sale agreement and may be additionally secured by a mortgage of the Facility. 3. It having been represented to the Authority that it is necessary to proceed immediately with the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Facility, the Authority - 2 - hereby agrees that the Company may proceed with plans for the Facility, enter into contracts for acquisition, construction and equipping and take such other steps as it may deem appropriate in co~Lnection therewith, provided that nothing herein shall be deemed to authorize the Company to obligate the Authority without its consent in each instance to the payment of any moneys or the performance of any acts in connection with the Facility. The Authority agrees that the Company may be reimbursed from the proceeds of the bonds for all costs so incurred by it. The Authority also agrees, if requested, to issue its notes to obtain interim financing for the Facility on terms to be mutually agreed upon, such notes to be guaranteed or otherwise secured by the Company as required by the lender and the Authority. 4. The Authority shall accept from or on behalf of the Company conveyance of such land in the County on which the Facility is located. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to accept and have recorded a proper deed or deeds in connection with such conveyance. If for any reason the bonds are not issued, it is understood that the Authority shall convey such property to the Company or to such other person as the Company may request, without cost other than the expense of preparation and recordation of such deed or deeds of conveyance. 5. The Company having requested the appointment of Messrs. Florance, Gordon and Brown, Richmond, Virginia, as - 3 - bond counsel in connection with the issuance of the bonds and Messrs. Florance, Gordon and Brown having filed with the Authority a disclosure pursuant to Virginia Code Sections 2.1-S49(a)(2) and (b)(5), being part of the Virginia Conflict of Interests Act, of certain members and associates of such firm, and spouses of members or associates, who serve governmental agencies other than the Authority, and an agreement to retain Messrs. Florance, Gordon and Brown being a contract for legal services which, in the judgment of the Authority, in the public interest should not be acquired through competitive bidding, the Authority hereby appoints Messrs. Florance, Gordon and Brown as bond counsel to supervise the proceedings and approve the issuance of the bonds. 6. The Authority agrees, if requested, to accept the recommendation of the Company with respect to the appointment of an agent or underwriter for the sale of bonds pursuant to terms to be mutually agreed upon. 7. The Chairman or the Vice Chairman of the Authority and Messrs. Florance, Gordon and Brown as bond counsel are hereby authorized to institute a proceeding on the Authority's behalf in the Circuit Court of the County of Chesterfield to provide for the judicial validation of the bonds pursuant to Article 6, Chapter 5, Title 15.1, of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (Sections 15.1-213 et seq.), and, in connection therewith, to take whatever further action, ~ 4 - including the taking of an appeal, that they deem necessary or desirable in order to provide for validation of the bonds. 8. All costs and expenses in connection with the financing and the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Fa~cility, including the fees and expenses of bond counsel and the agent or underwriter for the sale of the bonds, shall be paid from the proceeds of the bonds. If for any reason such bonds are not issued, it is understood that all such expenses shall be paid by the Company and that the Authority shall have no responsibility therefor. 9. The Company shall pay as an expense of the Facility any and all costs and expenses incurred by the Authority in connection therewith including, but not limited to, the expenses of the Authority in connection with the study and processing of this application, and the cost of an independent financial analysis, and the cost of an independent legal counsel to protect the Authority. 10. In adopting this resolution the Authority intends to take "official action" toward the issuance of the bonds within the meaning of regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. 11. The Authority hereby recommends that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield approve the issuance of the bonds. - 5 - 12. The Authority reserves the right to recommend the allocation or to allocate (if such power is delegated to the Authority) amounts available under any "private activity bond limit," as provided by Section 103(n) of the Code, to facilities other than t~e Facilit.y~ 13. Unless this resolution is extended by the Authority, the bonds authorized hereunder shall be issued within two (2) years from the date hereof. 14. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. - 6 - CERTIFICATE I, Joan S. Dolezal, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, hereby certify that attached hereto is a true, correct and complete copy of a resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION Approving the action taken by the Industrial Development Authority of The County of Chesterfield in the adoption of a resolution providing for authorization of issuance of bonds in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000.00, for and on behalf of Alvin Wilson Hodges for lease to J. M. Fry Company and Southern Printing Ink Corp. for the acquisition, construction and equipping of an ink manufacturing facility to be located in the southwest quadrant formed by the intersection of Walmsley Boulevard and Seaboard Railroad Line in Chesterfield County, Virginia", adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, at a duly called meeting on at which a quorum was present and acted throughout. In witness whereof, I have set my hand and seal of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia this day of , 1984. Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: September 26~ 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9 .G.7 .c. SUBJECT: Resolution confirming the proceedings of the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield approving the issuance of pollution control revenue refunding bonds to Philip Morr~s Incorporated. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION On August 28~ 1984, the Chesterfield Industrial Development Authority held a public hearing to consider pollution control revenue refunding bond financing in the amount of $5,500,000 for Philip Morris Incorporated. The Authority approved the issuance of the bonds and the Board needs to con- firm the issuance by the adoption of the attached resolution. The resolu- tion certifying the Authority's action was prepared by Jack Spain, bond counsel for the CIDA. The applicant's Pollution Control Revenue Bonds, Series of 1975, were issued to finance, in part, the cost of acquiring, constructing, and installing certain air and water pollution control and solid waste and sewage disposal facilities at the Company's manufacturing plants located at 3601 Commerce Road, Richmond, Virginia and at 4100 Bermuda Hundred Road, Chester, Virginia. ATTACHMENTS: YES :E] NO [] George S. Woodall, Director Department of Economic Development SIGNATURE: /C~JNTY ADMI NI STRATOR RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the Authority) , has considered the ap- plication of Philip Morris Incorporated (the Company) for the refunding of the Authority's $5,500,000 Pollution Control Reve- nue Bonds (Philip Morris Incorporated Project), Series of 1975 (the Pollution Control Bonds) issued to finance, in part, the cost of acquiring, constructing and installing certain air and water pollution control and solid waste and sewage disposal fa- cilities (the Pollution Control Project) at the Company's manufacturing plants located at 3601 Commerce Road, in the City of Richmond, Virginia and at 4100 Bermuda Hundred Road in Chester, Chesterfield County, Virginia (the County) and has held a public hearing thereon on August 28, 1984; and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board of Su- pervisors (the Board) of the County, to approve the issuance of the refunding of the Pollution Control Bonds to comply with Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the Code) and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Act; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the refunding of the Pollution Control Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a record of the public -1- hearing and "fiscal impact statements" with respect to the Project have been filed with the Board; and BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUN- TY OF CHESTERFIELD: 1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, approves the issuance of the refunding of the Pollution Control Bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield, for the benefit of the Company, to the extent required by Section 103(k), to permit the Author- ity to assist in the refinancing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the refunding of the Pollution Control Bonds, as required by Section 103(k), does not constitute an endorsement of the refunding of the Pol- lution Control Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Company, but, as required by Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the refunding of the Pollution Control Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the refunding of the Pollution Con- trol Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and moneys pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County nor the Authority shall be pledged thereto. -2- 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. -3- Transmittal Letter to Board of Supervisors September 4, 1984 Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield P.O. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield Proposed Refinancing of Outstanding Bonds for Philip Morris Incorporated Philip Morris Incorporated (the Company) has requested that the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the Authority), assist the Company in the refund- ing of the Authority's $5,500,000 Pollution Control Revenue Bonds (Philip Morris Incorporated Project), Series of 1975 (the Pollution Control Bonds) issued to finance, in part, the cost of acquiring, constructing and installing certain air and water pollution control and solid waste and sewage disposal facili- ties (the Pollution Control Project) at the Company's manufacturing plants located at 3601 Commerce Road in the City of Richmond and at 4100 Bermuda Hundred Road in Chesterfield CoUnty, Virginia, by undertaking the issuance of its pollution control revenue refunding bonds in an amount not to exceed $5,5OO,OOO. As set forth in the resolution of the Authority at- tached hereto (the Resolution), the Authority has agreed to do so. The Authority has conducted a public hearing with respect to its proposed refinancing of the Project and has recommended that you approve the issuance of the Pollution Control Revenue Bonds as required by Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the Code) and Section 15.1-1378 of the Act. Attached hereto is (1) a certificate evidencing the conduct of the public hearing and the action taken by the Au- thority, (2) "Fiscal Impact Statements" and (3) the form of resolution suggested by counsel to evidence your approval. Ch v lopj~e~t Auth~ity of County~f Chesterfield the -2- Philip Morris Incorporated CERTIFICATE The undersigned Secretary of the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the Authority), hereby certifies as follows: 1. A regular meeting of the Authority was duly called and held on August 28, 1984, at 3:30 o'clock p.m. in the Board Room of Chesterfield County Airport Terminal Building, Chesterfield, Virginia. The meeting was open to the public, and persons of differing views were given an opportunity to be heard. At such meeting all of the Directors of the Authority were present or absent throughout as follows: PRESENT: William F. Seymour, III Curtis C. Duke Thomas Steger James A. Spencer Knox W. Ramsey Gary W. Fenchuk ABSENT: J. Edward.Ryan 2. The Chairman announced the commencement of a public hearing on the application of Philip Morris Incorporated (the Company) and that a notice of the hearing was published once a week for two consecutive weeks, the first publication being not more than 28 days nor less than 14 days prior to the hearing in newspapers having general circulation in Chesterfield County, Virginia (the Notice). A copy of the Notice and certificate of publication of such Notice has been filed with the records of the Authority and are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. The following individuals appeared and addressed the Authority: Park A. Dodd, Manager of Property Plant and Equipment, Philip Morris Incorporated Jack Spain, Jr., Hunton & Williams, bond counsel A reasonably detailed summary of their statements to- gether with the fiscal impact statements required by the Indus- trial Development Revenue Bond Act are attached hereto as Ex- hibits B and C. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true, correct and complete copy of a resolution (the Resolution) adopted at such meeting of the Authority by a majority of the Directors present at such meeting, with the ayes and nays being recorded in the minutes of such meeting as follows: Director Vote William F. Seymour, III Curtis C. Duke Thomas Steger James A. Spencer Knox Wo Ramsey Gary W. Fenchuk Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye The Resolution constitutes all formal action taken by the Au- thority at such meeting relating to matters referred to in the Resolution. The Resolution has not been repealed, revoked, re- scinded or amended and is in full force and effect on the date hereof. -2- WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Authority this day of Ye~, ~8~. Secretary; ~n~dustrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (SEAL) -3- Exhibit A Philip Morris Incorporated NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVEL- OPMENT BONO FINANCING BY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ; AUTHORITYOF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD Notice is hereby given that the In- dustrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the Authority), will hold a public hear- lng on the application of Philip Morris Incorporated (the Company) whose principal place of business is located at 120 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017 fo~ the Authority to Issue. pursuant to the Virginia Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act (the Act), its pollution control revenue refunding bonds in an · amount not to exceed $5,500,000 to assist the Company in refunding an equal amount of the~ Chestedield County, Virginia. Pol- lution Control Revenue Bonds (Philip Morris Incorporated Project}, Series of 1975 (the 'Pollutio~ Control ~onds') Issued to finance, In part, the cost ol' acquiring, constructing and install- lng certain air and water pollution control and solid waste and sew- age disposal facilities (the · Pollution Control Project") at the Philip Morris Incorporated manu- facturing plants at 4100 Bermuda Hundred Road, Chester, Virginia 23831, and at 3601 Commerce Road. Ricllmond, Virginia 23261 (the 'Park 500 Plant" and the 'Richmond Plant'). The public, hearing, which may be continued or adjourned, will be held at 3:30i O'ClOCk p.m. On August 28, 1984, before the Authority, in the Board, Room of Chesterfield County Air-i port Terminal Building, Chester- field, Virginia. As required by the Act, the bonds will not pledge the credit or the taxing power of Ches- terfield County or the Authority but will De payable solely from revenues derived from the Compa- ny and pledged therefor. Any per- son interested in the issuance of the bonds or the location or pur- pose ot the proposed project may appear and be heard. A copy of the Company's application may be inspected at the Authority~s office at the County Office of Economic Develooment, 7734 Whiteptne Road, Chesterl'iald Airpark, Ches- terfield, Virginia during business hours. - Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield By: W. F. Seymour, III Chairman_ RICitMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. Publisher of THE RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH l{ichmond, ~,'o '" ~ ~no, This is to certify' that the attached .... ' ..... ~ "~" ~' '"~ was published in The lliellmond Times-l)ispatch, a newspaper published in the City of Richmond, State of Virginia. The first insertion being given.. /;'~. ~!:~ 19~4 this /~.: ; .... ~ ~J'.'-;' ..... // Notary Public ~[8,,~[~; ~";~, ~ ;.: ' State of Vff~nia, City of Richmond: ................... TITLE Exhibit B Park A. Dodd appeared on behalf of the Company. He re- viewed the information set forth in the application of the Com- pany attached hereto. Jack Spain, Jr. explained that the bonds would not count against the State Ceiling. --' ~ OF CHESTERFIELD INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMEiC AUTHORITY APPLICATIQ't FOR [~iD AUTHORIZATIa't [~ME OF. APPLICANT: Philip'Mor.ris Incorporated ~DRESS: 120 Park Avenue, New York, New York. 10017' CONTACT REPRESENTATIVE: Eric Dalrymple TELEPH~4E NIlflBER: 212/880-3140 4100 Bermuda Hundred Road, Chester, Virginia' 23831 PROPOSED LOCATION: 3601 Commerce Roadt Richmond Virginia 2926% : CURRENT ZONING: n/a IS REZONING REQUIRED: n/a PRESENT LOCATION: (IF MORE THAN ONE, LIST ON SEPARATE PAGE) Same as proposed location Is APPLICANI' O~ER OF LAND,9 yes IF NOT, FURNISH COPY OF ,OPTION, OR CONTRACT, TYPE OF INDUSTRY: Cigarette manufacturing 'i~'aCst~Y] " PRODUCTS PRODUCED: Refined leaf (raw ma~eria1' u~ed 'in Cigarbtte making) WILL THIS PROJECT RESULT IN A NEW PRODUCT LINE: no IF YES, NAME PRODUCT: Hourly:. . . 27.0 N~BER OF EMPLOYEES ATX~ LOCATION (ESTIMATED): Salaried: 188 TYPE_ OF BUILDING TO BE CONSTRUCTED: (DESCRIBE CONSTRUCTION, SQUARE FOOTAGE, AMOLNT FOR EACH OPERATION SUCH AS ~NUFACTURING, SIORAGE, OFFICE, ETC. :) Refunding of pollution control bond'j' ~sSued to'finance facilities descri'bed ~DL~r OF BON~) AUTHORIZATION REQUESTED: $ 5~ 500 ,D'00'"Re'{un'~Ji~g"~0r~'d' 'I~' Assi C~'ENT OF LOAN PROCJ:~: (IF NOT KNC~m, ESTIMATE) [~71'E: STATE F~3LUTION Qxrm_ EX~F~I~Lr~S SEPARATELY, CH ITECT/ENGINEER CHINERY/~QUI W~=_NT ~ING ~XPENS E ,Refunding of_up to $5,500,~00 · .Poliution Control'B'~nds £ssued to..ginance Cacilities descr,ibed in Exhibit A. ' EXPLAIn TIMAIED V.aLLFE Of LADD ~ID BUILDING FOR COLIhrFy REAL TATE ~-F_S I,',HF,"; C..O:,'PLEll~ $ 963,600' ~ESCRIPTION OF PURPOSE FOR WHICH ~OND REVENUE WILL BE USED: Refunding the Chesterfield County, Virginia, Pollution Control Revenue Bonds (Philip ~Morris Incorporated Project), Series of 1975 DOND RATING OF APPLICANT A BY Moody's Investors Servi'ces BANK ~FERENCE United Virqinia Bank, Sovran Bank, N.A. and central CRcfIY RATING 5 A 1 ~ . Fidelity Ban~ EXPLAIN HOW FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM INDUSTRIAL AUII~ORITY WILL ENABLE APPLICANT TO LOCATE OR REMAIN IN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY: RcfundinK of Bonds will e~able Company to finance' facilities o~er their use~ui' lives' " ~ BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED BY COUNTY: Original Indenture. Refunding'permitted bY State Act and Is APPLICANT A SUBSIDIARY OF ANY COMPANY: IF YES, GIVE NA~E: No ,aDDRESS: TELEPHONE NUPBER: NA~ OF APPLICANT'S A1-FORNEY: ~-SS: 100 Park Avenue. 10th Floo~'i-~e~ York, New York TELEPH~E NLMBER: 212-309-1060 NAFE OF BOND COUNSEL DESIRED: Hunton & Williams Donald D, .Fried,.Esq. Conboy, Hewitt~ O'Brien & Boardman 1'0017 707 E. Main St., Richmond', Virginia 2~219 TELEPHONE NLM~ER: 804'}78'828434 ............ ~ OF ARCHITECT OR ~NGINEER (IF RETAINED)': n/a TELEPHONE NL~BER: NA~E OF C~CTOR (IF RETAINED): ......... HAS APPLICANT EVER DEFAULTED ON A ~AN: no HAS APPLICANT EVER I~CLARED BANKRUPTCY: no IF YES TO EITHER PRECEDING QUESTION, PLEASE EXPLAIN IN DETAIL: ~HEN WAS APPLICANT FORME3? (])ATE) STATE IN WHIQ-i INCORPORATED; V:i_r~;:i_nia Uc~ LONG HAS APPLIC. A~ ]3ONE BUSINESS IN VIRGINIA? OTHER REHARKS: February 21, 1919 65 ye%rs ~ILL THE PROJECT BE LEASED TO ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION? No NAMES OF ALL ORGANIZATIONS EXPECTED TO USE AT LEAST 10~ OF THE PROJECT SPACE OR TAKE AT LEAS/ 10~ OF THE PROJECT'S OUTPUT, None PLEASE ENCLOSE A COPY OF YOUR LATEST ANNUAL REPORT, BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT FOR LAST COMPLETE YEAR OF OPERATIONS. COMPLETE EXHIBITS A AND B ATTACHED HERETO, IT is UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED BY THE APPLICANT THAT ALL COSTS IN CONNECTIOH WITH THIS APPLICATION'WILL BE PAID BY THE APPLICANT, EITHER FROM THE PROCEEDS OF INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS WHICH MIGHT BE APPROVED FOR THE PROJECT BY THE AUTHORITY, OR IN THE EVENT SUCH ASSISTANCE IS NOT APPROVED OR FORTHCOMING THE APPLICANT AGREES TO PAY ALL COSTS FROM ITS OWN RE- SOURCES, SUCH COSTSj IN ADDITION TO THE COSTS OF THE APPLICANT, SHALL INCLUDE, BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO, THE EXPENSES OF THE AUTHORITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE STUDY AND PROCESSING OF THIS APPLICATION; AND THE COST FOR AN INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS~ THE COST FOR AN INDE- PENDENT LEGAL ~OUNSEL~ IF ANYj TO PROTECT THE AUTHORITY AND COSTS OF PUBLICATION, AN APPLICATION FEE AND DEPOSIT AGAINST LEGAL FEES, EACH IN THE SUM Of FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500,00)~ AS WELL.A~ A...DEPOSIT AGAINST,PUBLICATION COSTS OF ~?~N FOR A TOTAL OF $~25U,UU PAYABLE TO THE ~UTHORITY~ MUST ACCOMP~-~HIS APPLICATION, HE APPLICANT HEREBY REQUESTS THAT THE CHAIRMAN OR VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE THORI~Y, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY~S RESOLUTION~ CAUSE THE PUBLICATION A NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THIS APPLICATION, IHE APPLICANT AGREES TO PAY ALL COSTS RELATING TO PUBLICATION, THE APPLICANT FURTHER REPRESENTS THAT IT UNDERSTANDS THE CONDITIONS OF- THIS APPLICATION~ THAT THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF APPROVAL AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS AND INFORMATION FURNISHED WITH THIS APPLICATION OR ON SUPPORTING PAPERS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO ITS BEST KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, THIS APPLICATION APPROVED BY THE ~i~' ',~.~z..~]~//~' OF TH= '(AuT_HQR~E2,~ENT)~ ~ ICIAL NAME OF APPLICANT) WHOSE MAILING ADDRESS IS THIS N=ITNESS , DATE ADDRESS REPLY TO- MR, N, F, SEYMOUR, CHAIRMAN ~NDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC UEvE _oPMENT P,0. Box 40, CHESTERFIELD, VA 23832 A EXHIBIT A "0 0 (D 0 CZ) d 0 L. L~ 0 0 d 0 ~J O 0 CD 0 o,~ v 0 J 0 c- O c- O 0 n~ ~ CD Exhibit C FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT August 9, 1984 Date Philip Morris Incorporated Applicant Air and water pollution control and solid waste and sewage disposal facilities Facility 4100 Bermuda Hundred Road Chester, Virginia 23831 1. Maximum amount of financing sought $ 5,500,000 Estimated taxable value of the facility's real property to be constructed in the municipality $ 963,600 Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates $ 9,400 Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates $ 2,600 Estimated merchants' capital tax per year using present tax rates ' $ N/A Estimated dollar value per year of goods and services that will be purchased locally Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis 8. Average annual salary per employee $ 886,235,000* Hourly: 270 Salaried: 188 Hourly: 28,500 SSalaried:35,500 Combined Average:31,400 / / · . ~eym~r, I? y Author_~ Chair~ Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield Name of Authority *Chesterfield County and City of Richmond combined August 9, 1984 FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT Philip Morris Incorporated Applicant Air and water pollution control and solid waste and sewage disposal facilities Facility 3601 Commerce Road Richmond, Virginia 23261 Maximum amount of fin~ncing sought $ 5,500,000 Estimated taxable value of the facility's real property to be constructed in the municipality 2,318,000 Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates $ 34,800 Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates $ 6,600 Estimated merchants' capital tax per year using present tax rates N/A Estimated dollar value per year of goods and services that will be purchased locally $ 886,235,000* Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis Average annual salary per employee Hourly: 3,558 Salaried: 479 Hourly: 25,000 $_Sa!aried:37r500 Combined Average:26,500 /S/ Edward J. McCrea Chairman, Industrial Development Authority of the City of Richmond, VA *City of Richmond and Chesterfield County combined ' HIB[T D Philip Morris Incorporated RESOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD WHEREAS, Philip Morris Incorporated (the Company) in its appearance before the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the Authority) and in its applica- tion has described to the Authority the plans of the Company to refund the Authority's $5,500,000 Pollution Control Revenue Bonds (Philip Morris Incorporated Project), Series of 1975 (the Pollution Control Bonds) issued to finance, in part, the cost of acquiring, constructing and installing certain air and water pollution control and solid waste and sewage disposal facili- ties (the Pollution Control Project) at the Company's manufacturing plants located at 3601 Commerce Road, in the City of Richmond, Virginia and at 4100 Bermuda Hundred Road in Chester, Chesterfield County, Virginia (the County); and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held as required by Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the Code); BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD: 1. It is hereby found and determined that the refund- ing of the Pollution Control Bonds issued to finance the Pollu- tion Control Project, a portion of which is located in the County, will be in furtherance of the purposes of the Virginia Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act (the Act). 2. The Authority hereby agrees to assist the Company in the refunding of the Pollution Control Bonds by undertaking the issuance of its pollution control revenue refunding bonds therefor in an amount not'to exceed $5,500,000 upon terms and conditions to be mutually agreed upon between the Authority and the Company. 3. It having been represented to the Authority that it is necessary to proceed immediately with the refunding of the Pollution Control Bonds, the Authority hereby agrees that the Company may proceed with plans for refunding the Pollution Con- trol Bonds and take such other steps as it may deem appropriate in connection therewith, provided that nothing herein shall be deemed to authorize the Company to obligate the Authority with- out its consent in each instance to the payment of any moneys or the performance of any acts in connection with the Pollution Control Project. The Authority agrees that the Company may be reimbursed from the proceeds of 'the refunding bonds for all costs so incurred by it. 4. The Authority hereby agrees to the recommendation of the Company that Messrs. Hunton & Williams, Richmond, Vir- ginia, be appointed as bond counsel and hereby appoints such firm to supervise the proceedings and approve the issuance of the bonds. -2- 5. The Authority hereby agrees, if requested, to ac- cept the recommendation of the Company with respect to the ap- pointment of an agent or underwriter for the sale of bonds pur- suant to terms to be mutually agreed upon. 6. All costs and expenses in connection with the re- funding of the Pollution Control Bonds, including the fees and expenses of bond counsel, counsel for the Authority and the agent or underwriter for the sale of the bonds shall be paid either from the proceeds of the refunding bonds or by the Com- pany. If for any reason such bonds are not issued, it is un- derstood that all such expenses shall be paid by the Company and that the Authority shall have no responsibility therefor. 7. In adopting this resolution the Authority intends to take "official action" toward the issuance of the refunding bonds within the meaning of regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. 8. The Authority shall perform such other acts and adopt such further resolutions as may be required to implement its undertakings as hereinabove set forth, and if requested by the Company, it will make application to the Internal Revenue Service for such tax rulings as may be necessary in the opinion of bond counsel. To that end, the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Authority is authorized to execute an appropriate power of attorney naming counsel selected by the Company for such purposes. -3- 9. The Authority hereby recommends that the Board of Supervisors of the County approve the issuance of the refunding bonds as required by Section 103(k) of the Code and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Act. 10. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Philip Morris Incorporated CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION 1. A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield (the Board) was held on September 198~, at which meeting the following duly elected members were present or absent: PRESENT: ABSENT: Such members constituted all of the members of the Board on the. date of such meeting. 2. Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at such meeting by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: 3. The resolution referred to above has not been re- pealed, revoked, rescinded or amended but is in full force and effect on this date and constitutes the only resolution adopted by the Board relating to the issuance by the Authority of its pollution control revenue refunding bonds for the benefit of Philip Morris Incorporated. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Board of Supervi- sors of the County of Chesterfield, this day of · 1984. (SEAL) Clerk, Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield -2- CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE' September 26; lgR4 ITEM NUMBER: 9 .G.7 .d. SUBJECT: Resolution confirming the proceedings of the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield approving the plan of financing for pollution control revenue bonds or notes for Virginia Electric and Power Company. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTR: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION' On August 28, 1984, the Chesterfield Industrial Development Authority held a public hearing to consider the approval of a plan of financing certain pollution control bonds and notes in the amount of $60,000,000 for Virginia Electric and Power Company. The Authority approved the plan of financing and the Board needs to confirm the action by the adoption of the attached resolution. The resolution certifying the Authority's action was prepared by Jack Spain, bond counsel for the CIDA. The applicant's'plan of financing involves certain air and water pollution control facilities and sewage and solid waste disposal facilities located at the Chesterfield Power Station, Chesterfield County, Virginia, the Bremo Power Station, Fluvanna County, Virginia, the Chesapeake Energy Center, Chesapeake, Virginia and the Yorktown Power Station in York County, Virginia. ATTACHMENTS: YES ,~3 NO r-I George S, Woodall, Director Department of Economic Development SIGNATURE: .... COUNTY ADMI N1STRATOR RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the "Authority") has considered the request of Virginia Electric and Power Company (the "Company") for the approval of a plan of financing with respect to certain air and water pollution control facilities and sewage and solid waste disposal facilities (collectively, the "Facilities") located at the Company's Chesterfield Power Station in Chesterfield County, Virginia, the Company's Bremo Power Station in Fluvanna County, Virginia, the Company's Yorktown Power Station in York County, Virginia and the Company's Chesapeake Energy Center located in'~he City of Chesapeake, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on August 28, 1984; WHEREAS, Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the "Code"), provides that the governmental units having jurisdiction over the issuer of industrial development bonds and over the area in which any facility financed out of the proceeds of industrial development bonds shall approve the issuance of such bonds; and WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of Chesterfield County, Virginia (the "County"), a portion of the Facilities are to be located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County (the "Board") constitutes the elected legislative body of the County; and WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the plan of financing for the Facilities; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the plan of financing, a record of the public hearing with respect thereto and a copy of the fiscal impact statement with respect to such plan of financing have been filed with the Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, as follows: 1. The Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, approves the plan of financing of the Facilities by the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield to the extent required by Section 103(k) of the Code and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. 2. The approval of the plan of financing of the Facilities as required by Section 103(k) of the Code does not constitute an endorsement to any prospective purchaser of the obligations issued pursuant to such plan of financing of the creditworthiness of the Facilities or the Company, but, as required by Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the bonds, notes or obligations of the Authority shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay such obligations or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and moneys pledged therefor and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the County or the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 3. The maximum aggregate face amount of obligations outstanding at any one time to be issued by the Authority with respect to the Facilities is $60,000,000. The initial owner and operator of the Facilities is Virginia Electric and Power Company, One James River Plaza, Richmond, Virginia. The Facilities will be located at or adjacent to the respective Power Station which they will serve. The Chesterfield Power Station is located at the end of State Route 615 in Chester, Virginia. The Bremo Power Station is located on State Route 656, Bremo Bluff, Virginia. The Yorktown Power Station is located at 338 Waterview Road, York County, Virginia and the Chesapeake Energy Center is located at 2701 Vepco Street, Chesapeake, Virginia. 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. August 28, 1984 Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County Chesterfield County Courthouse Chesterfield, Virginia Re: Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield - Proposed Financing for Virginia Electric ands~ower Company Virginia Electric and Power Company (the "Company") has requested that the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the "Authority") approve a plan of financing with respect to certain air and water pollution control facilities and sewage and solid waste disposal facilities of the Company at its Chesterfield Power Station in Chesterfield County, Virginia, its Bremo Power Station in Fluvanna County, Virginia, its Chesapeake Energy Center in Chesapeake, Virginia and its Yorktown Power Station in York County, Virginia. As set forth in the resolution of the Authority attached hereto (the "Resolution"), the Authority has agreed to assist the Company in financing of such facilities. The Authority has conducted a public hearing with respect to the proposed plan of financing and hereby recommends that you approve the plan of financing as required by Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. Attached hereto is (1) a certificate evidencing the conduct of the public hearing and the action taken by the Authority, (2) a fiscal impact statement as required by Section 15.1-1378.2 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, and (3) the form of resolution suggested by counsel to evidence your approval. Cha ir~an ~ ~'i h~u~'i al ~e've lopment Authority off. he County of Chesterfie2~d CERTIFICATE WITH RESPECT TO PUBLIC HEARING The undersigned Secretary of the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the "Authority"), hereby certifies as follows: 1. A regular meeting of the Authority was duly called and held on August 28, 1984, at 3:30 o'clock p.m. in the Board Room of the Chesterfield County Airport Terminal Building, Chesterfield, Virginia, pursuant to proper notice given to each Director of the Authority prior to such meeting. The meeting was open to the public. The time of the meeting and the place in which the meeting was held provided a reasonable opportunity for persons of differeDt views to appear and be heard. At such meeting, each Director of the Authority was present or absent throughout as follows: PRESENT: William F. Seymour, III Curtis C. Duke Thomas Steger James A. Spencer Knox W. Ramsey Gary W. Fenchuk ABSENT: J. Edward Ryan 2. The Chairman announced the commencement of a public hearing on the application and plan of financing of Virginia Electric and Power Company (the "Company") and that the Chairman of the Authority caused the publication of a notice at least fourteen days prior to the hearing in a newspaper having general circulation in Chesterfield County, Virginia (the "Notice"). The notice was published for two successive weeks, and the hearing was held not less than six days and not more than 21 days after the second publication of the Notice. A copy of the Notice has been filed with the minutes of the Authority and is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 3. The following individual appeared and addressed the Authority: John G. Barrie, Jr., Assistant Treasurer, VEPCO A reasonably detailed summary of the comments expressed at such hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". No one else having appeared to speak on the matter, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed at 5:55 o'clock p.m. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is a true, correct and complete copy of a resolution (the "Resolution") adopted at such meeting of the Authority by a majority of the Directors present at such meeting, with the ayes and nays being recorded in the minutes of such meeting as follows: DIRECTOR VOTE William F. Seymour Curtis C. Duke Thomas Steger James A. Spencer Knox W. Ramsey Gary W. Fenchuk Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye The Resolution constitutes all formal action taken by the Authority at such meeting relative to the matters referred to in the Resolution. The Resolution has not been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended and in full force and effect on the date hereof. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit "D" is a fiscal impac~ statement prepared by the Company pursuant to Section 15.1-1378.2 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. WITNESS my hand and seal of the Authority, this 28th day of August, 1984. ~~ent Authority of the County of Chesterfield [SEAL] Virginia Electric and Power Company NOTICE 0-15 PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED POLLUTION CON-I TROL NOTE FINANCING BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD Notice is hereby given that the In- dustrial Development Authority of the County of Chesteclield (the · Autho~ty'), will hold · public hear- lng on the application and plan financing of Virginia Electric eno Power Company (the ,Company) for the Authority to I~sue, from time to time, pursuant to the Vir- ginia Industrial Development and evenue Bond Act (the 'Act') up to $60,000,000 of its pollution con- trol revenue notes or bonds (the · Notes") to refund certain obligations of the Authority previ- ously issued 1o assist theCompa- ny in acquiring constructing, in- stalling and equipping certain air and water pollution control facili- ties Including electrostatic )reclpitetora and chemcal waste ~ rainfall runoff colleCtion factli !ties, and sewage and solid waste .disposal facilities, including ash handling facilities and ash dispos- al facilities, et or adjacent to (I) the Company's Chesterfield Power. Station, loCated at the end State Route 615, Chester, Virgin- lis, in Chesterfield County, Virginia, i~l) the Company's Eremo Power iStatlo~ located at State Route '656, Bremo Bluff, in Fluvanna , County, Virginia, (iii) the r Company'a Yorktown Power Sta- tion located at 338 Waterviaw Road in York County, Virginia and v) the Company's Portsmouth ewer Station located at 2701 Vepco Street, Chesapeake, Virgin- la. The address of the Authority is 7734 Whitepine Road, Chester- field Alrpark, Chesterfield, Virginia 23225, and the address and pnnci- psi place of business of the Com- lny is Or~ ,lames River Plaza, chmond, Virginia. The public hearng, which may be continued i or adjourned, will be held at 3:30 i o'clock p.m. on August 26, 1984, =, before the Authority in the Board I Room of the Chesterfield County Airport Terminal Building, Chester- . field. Virginia. As required by the Act, the Notes will neither pledge the faith and credit nor the taxing power of Chesterfield County or the Authority, but will be payable solely from the revenues derived from the Company and pledged therefor, Any person Interested in the Issuance of the Notes or the location or nature of the facilities beingfinanced by the Issuance of the Notes may appear and be heard. A copy of the Comparys plan of financing is on file and open for inspection at the County! office of Economic Development, 7734 Whitepine Road, Chester- field Airpark, Chesterfield, Virgin- ia, 23225, during business hours. Industrial Developrnent Authority of the County of Chesterfield William F. Seymour, III, Chairman RICHMOND NE~'SPAPERS, INC. Publisher el THE RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH Rtchmond. % a ..... ,...~ ...... ~ .................. This is to certify that the attached .......... .r;.~.~...:;.n'..:;: .............. was published in The Richmond Times-Dispatch, a newspaper published in the City of Richmond, State of Virginia. ?he first insertion being given .......................................................... State of Virgrnia, City of Richmond: I My commission expire~[~;-; ~, [.~;~'L .... TITLE EXHIBIT STATEMENT BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD RE: REFUNDING OF POLLUTION CONTROL NOTES In October of this year, Vepco's Chesterfield Second Series Commercial Paper Program which was issued through this Authority in 1981 to finance certain pollution control equipment at Chesterfield Power Station, will mature. In anticipation of the Company's need to refund that program, we propose to implement a new tax-exempt commercial paper program through this Authority which will consolidate several outstanding notes into a single program. The new program will refund the Chesterfield Second Series Commercial Paper Program as well as the Chesterfield Third Series Program, issued through this Authority in 1982, a short-term tax-exempt note issued through this Authority in February 1984 and which matures in October of this year, and the outstanding Series of 1978, 6.15% Bonds, also issued by this Authority. The aggregate amount of the new program would be about $60 million, and would be similar to the existing Chesterfield commercial paper programs except that the term of the program would be up to 25 years and, because of Vepco's improved credit rating, the tax-exempt commercial paper will have the rating agency's highest rating without bank letter of credit backing. The proposed long term commercial paper program will have a clear economic advantage over a long term fixed rate tax-exempt bond issue, since tax-exempt commercial paper rates have historically been well below long term rates. As in the existing commercial paper programs, the proceeds from the sale of tax-exempt commercial paper are used to refund the Authority's revolving credit notes which in the case of the proposed financing will be issued to Chemical Bank. The $8 million of outstanding Series of 1978 6.15% Bonds which we propose to refund with a portion of the proceeds from the new program, is presently held by Aetna Life and Casualty. Aetna has proposed the refunding in order to dispose of its tax-exempt investment, and has offered as an incentive to the Company a fixed rate of 5.9% on the new securities, which is 25 basis points less than the rate on the presently outstanding bonds. I will be glad to answer any questions that you have at this time. ~' 03LAI'TY OF CHESTERFIELD INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPF~NT AIJ'THORI~ APPLICATIQ'I FOR BQ:-iD AbTHORIZATILI'I [~E O.F APPLIC. A/~: Virginia Electric and Power'Company J~gDRESS: One James River Plaza, Richmond, VA 23261 CONTACT REPRESEffFATIVE: Linwood R. Robertson TELEPHONE NLt~ER: 771-3764 PROPOSED ~LOCATION: Chesterfield, York, Fluvanna Counties and City of Chesapeake, Virginia CURRENT ZONING: N/A IS REZONING REQUIRED: No PRESENT LOCATION: (IF MDRE THAN ONE, LIST ON SEPARATE PAGE) IS APPLICANT OWNER OF LAND? Yes TYPE OF I~DUSTRY: Electric Utility .... PRODU~S PRODUCED: Electricity ' IF NOT, FURNISH COPY OF OPTION, OR CONTPACT, WILL THIS PROJECT RESULT IN A NEW PRODUCT LINE: No IF YES, NAME PRODUCT: NL~BER OF EMPLOYEES AT NEY/ LOCATION (ESTIMATED): N/A TYPE OF BUILDING TO BE CONSTRUCTED: (~ESCRIBE ODNSTRUCTION, SQUARE FOOTAGE, AMDL~T FOR EACH OPERATION SUO-t AS MANUFACTURING, STORAGE, OFFICE, ETC, None .... · /~DL~FF OF BONE) ALFFHORIZATION REQUESTED: $ ~N~I~,OoO,ooo "' Ass I GN~NT OF LOAN PROCEEDS:. (IF NOT KNOWN, ESTIMATE) ~'~3TE: STATE POLUTION Cr ROL EX E DZTURES SEPARATELY, CH ITECT/ENGINEER CHINERY/EQUI mENT ~ING I~..X~ENS E ° EXPLAIn ~TIMATED V,a~ OF LA/'DD A/~ BUILDING FOR COUNTY REAL TATE PUI~PC~SES ~',HF,'; ,"/..O,'~LETE N/A .~-SCRI'PTION OF PURPOSE FOR WHICH ]30,Nl} REVENUE WiLL BE USED: securities of the Authority Refund existing ]~C~ND RATING OF APPLICANT A+ A1 ]~ANK REFERENCE United Virginia Bank BY Standard & Poor's and Moody's CREDIT RATING Prime EXPLAIN HOg FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM IN]]USTRIAL AUTHORITY WILL ENABLE APPLICANT TO LOCATE OR REJ~AIN IN CHESTERFIELD 03L~: The assistance of the AutlhoritYwill provide ·financing at a lower cost. BE~4EFITS TO BE DERIVED BY 03UNTY: and liquid waste. Reduced pollution and~osal of solid ~S APPLICANT A SUBSIDIARY OF ANY CCtSPANY: Yes IF YES, GIVE NAA1E: Dominion Resourc'es, Inc." ~DDRESS: One James River Plaza, Richmond, VA· 23261 TELEPHONE ~IJ~BER: 771-3764 NA~ OF APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: ADI~SS: Box 26666, 'Richn~nd, David S. B'r011ie'r virginia "23261 TELEPHONE ~ILIVBER.. 771'-4150 ' NAME OF BOND COUNSEL IF_SIRED: King ~ SPalding '('Charl'es H. Battle', ~E)RE~: 2500 Trust company ~o~e~,"Atl J~i~a, Geor~i'a ~030'3 ·i Jr.) TELEPHONE NLIVi3ER: (404) '572-4651 ........ NAPE OF ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER (iF RETAINED): N/A ADDRESS: ' TELEPHONE NLI~ER: NA E OF CTOR (IF RETAINEZ)): ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NLIVBER: HAS APPLICANT EVER DEFAULTED ON A LOAN: No HAS APPLICANT EVER DECLARED BANKRUPTCY: No' ' ..... ]F YES TO EITHER PRECEDING (~JESTION, PLEASE ~IN IN DETAIL: WHEN WAS APPLICANT FORMED? (DATE) 1909 STATE IN WHI~ INCORPORATED: Virginia Ho~ LONG HAS APPLIC. A~ DONE BUSINESS IN VIRGINIA? OTHER .REPARKS: 1909 ~ILL THE PROJECT BE LEASED TO A~Y OTHER ORG~NIZATI6N? No NAMES OF ALL ORGANIZATIONS EXPECTED TO USE AT LEAST 10~ OF THE PROJECT SPACE OR TAKE AT LEAST 10~ OF THE PROJECT'S OUTPUT, Virginia Electric and Power Company PLEASE ENCLOSE A COPY OF YOUR LATEST A~NUAL REPORT, BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT FOR LAST COMPLETE YEAR OF OPERATIONS, COMPLETE 'EXHIBITS A AND B ATTACHED HERETO, IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED BY THE APPLICANT THAT ALL COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS APPLICATION WILL BE PAID BY THE APPLICANT, EITHER FROM THE PROCEEDS OF INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS WHICH MIGHT BE APPROVED FOR THE PROJECT BY THE AUTHORITY, OR IN THE EVENT SUCH ASSISTANCE IS NOT APPROVED OR FORTHCOMING THE APPLICANT AGREES TO PAY ALL COSTS FROM ITS OWN RE- SOURCES, SUCH COSTS, IN ADDITION TO THE COSTS OF THE APPLICANT, SHALL INCLUDE, BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO, THE EXPENSES OF THE AUTHORITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE STUDY AND PROCESSING OF THIS APPLICATION; AND THE COST FOR AN INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS~ THE COST FOR AN INDE- PENDENT LEGAL ~OUNSEL, IF ANY, TO PROTECT THE AUTHORITY AND COSTS OF PUBLICATION, HN APPLICATION FEE AND DEPOSIT AGAINST LEGAL FEES, EACH IN THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500,00), AS WELL A~ A..DEPOSIT AGAINST PUBLICATION COSTS OF 3250 FOR A TOTAL OF $~25U,UU PAYABLE TO THE AUTHORITY, MUST ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATION, HE APPLICANT HEREBY REQUESTS THAT THE CHAIRMAN OR"VIcE-CHAIRMAN OF THE UTHORIYY, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY'S RESOLUTION, CAUSE THE PUDLICATION ~OF A NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THIS APPLICATION. |HE APPLICANT AGREES TO PAY ALL COSTS RELATING TO PUBLICATION. THE APPLICANT FURTHER REPRESENTS THAT-IT UNDERSTANDS THE CONDITIONS OF THIS APPLICATION, THAT THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF APPROVAL AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS AND INFORMATION FURNISHED WITH THIS APPLICATION OR ON SUPPORTING PAPERS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO ITS BEST KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. TH~//~~I ,.~...~ (AUTHORIZED AGENT) · ~/ (OFFICIAL NAME OF APPLICANT) THIS, ,/~-~ .... DAY OF '~~ ........... ~ ...... ]~19 L'~hz"",' DATE ADDRESS REPLY TO- MR. W. F. SEYMOUR., CHAIRMAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 609 EAST GRACE STREET, ZITH FLOOR RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219 RESOLUTION OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD (VIRGINIA) EX'HJBIT C VEPCO WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (Virginia) (the "Authority") for the purpose of considering the application of Virginia Electric and Power Company (the "Company") for the approval of a plan of financing with respect to certain air and water pollution control facilities and sewage and solid waste disposal facilities located at the Company's Chesterfield Power Station in Chesterfield County, Virginia, the Company's Bremo Power Station in Fluvanna County, Virginia, the Company's Chesapeake Energy Center in the City of Chesapeake, Virginia and the Company's Yorktown Power Station in York County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Authority has heard and considered testimony and reviewed all other information submitted with respect to the aforesaid plan of financing and has determined that said plan of financing should be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield, as follows: 1. The plan of financing of the cost of acquiring, constructing, installing and equipping certain air and water pollution control facilities and sewage and solid waste disposal facilities at the Company's Chesterfield Power Station, Chesterfield County, Virginia, the Company's Bremo Power Station in Fluvanna County, Virginia, the Company's Yorktown Power Station in York County, Virginia and the Company's Chesapeake Energy Center in the City of Chesapeake, Virginia, which plan of financing is described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, is hereby approved. 2. The Chairman of the Authority is hereby authorized and directed to (a) notify the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County of the approval by the Authority of the aforesaid plan of financing, (b) recommend that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County approve said plan of financing as required by Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, and (c) provide the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County with evidence of the conduct of this public hearing and such other documents and approvals as may be required by said Board in connection with such approval. 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PLAN OF FINANCING VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER CO~ANY POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES AND SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES The financing of the cost of acquiring, construct- ing and installing certain air and water pollution control facilities and sewage and solid waste disposal facilities hereinafter described (the "Facilities") will be accomplished through the issuance from time to time by the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the "Authority) of its pollution control notes in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $60,000,000. The pollution control notes will be issued from time to time to provide for the refunding of obligations of the AutSority previously issued to finance the cost of the acquisition, construction and installation of the Facilities, and to provide for the refunding of any pollution control notes previously issued by the Authority to refund said obligations. The plan of financing further contemplates that the Company may request the Authority to issue its pollution control revenue bonds to refund such pollution control notes prior to their final maturity and thereby provide long-term financing for the facilities. The facilities include (i) air and water pollution control facilities and sewage and solid waste disposal facilities at the Company's Chesterfield Power Station at the end of State Route 615 in Chester, Virginia, including chemical waste and rainfall runoff collection and disposal facilities and electrostatic precipitators; (ii) air and water pollution control facilities and sewage and solid waste disposal facilities, including ash handling and ash disposal facilities at the Company's Chesterfield Power Station and at its Bremo Power Station located on State Route 656, Bremo Bluff, Virginia; (iii) air and water pollution control facilities and sewage and solid waste disposal facilities at its Yorktown Power Station located at 338 Waterview Road in York County, Virginia and (iv) air and water pollution control facilities and sewage and solid waste disposal facilities at the Company's Portsmouth Power Station located at 2701 Vepco Street, Chesapeake, Virginia. FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT _Auqust 10, 1984 Date V].__~inia Electric and Power C~ Applicant Pollution Control facilities in Chesterfield, York'and Fluvanna Counties and City of Chesapeake - Facility 1. Maximum amount of financing sought 2. Estimated taxable value of the facility's real property to be constructed in the .municipality e Se Se e Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates Estimated merchants' capital tax per year using present tax rates. Estimated dollar value per year of goods and services that will be purchased locally Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis Average annual salary per employee $ 60,000,000 $ * $ * $ * $ * $ * 480* $__~0~23 700. Authority ~airman .... r- _ Industrial Dev~/opment Authority of the County of Chesterfield Name of Authority * Not applicable since these are all refunding of existing securities previously issued by the Chesterfield Authority. _CERTIFICATE OF DEPUTY CLERK I, , Deputy Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia' do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution constitutes a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia on 1984 at a meeting which was duly called and assembled and at which a quorum was present and acting throughout, and that the vote of the Supervisors with respect to such resolution was as follows: NAME OF SUPERVISOR VOTE I further certify that the original'of said resolution appears of record in the minute book of the Board of Supervisor.s ~.of Chesterfield County, Virginia which is in my custody and control, and that said resolution has not been modified, repealed, revoked or rescinded as of the-date hereof. WITNESS my hand and seal of the Board of SuPervisors of . Chesterfield County, Virginia this day of 1984. Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia [SEAL] CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS A6ENDA MEETIN6 DATE:_ September 26~ 1984 ITEM NUMBER' 9.G.7.e. ~UBJECT: Resolution confirming the proceedings of the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield approving the issuance of revenue bonds to Midlothian Associates. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: x,, SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On August 28, 1984, the Chesterfield Industrial Development Authority held a public hearing to consider industrial development revenue bond financing in the amount of $9,500,000 for Midlothian Associates. The Authority approved the issuance of the bonds and the Board needs to confirm the issuance by the adoption of the attached resOlution. The. resOlution certifying the Authority's action was reviewed by Jack Spain, bond counsel for the CIDA. The applicant plans to acquire, construct, and equip a hotel facility consisting of approximately 130,000 square feet to be located 700 feet west of Johnston- Willis Hospital on the north side of Route 60. ATTACHMENTS: YES icl NO [] PREPARED BY: ~ ~'~ George S. Woodall, Director Department of Economic Development SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the "Authority"), has considered the application of Midlothian Associates (the "Company") requesting the issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $9,500,000 (the "Bonds") to assist in the financing of the Company's acquisition, con- struction and equipping of a hotel facility consisting of approximately 130,000 square feet (the "Project") to be located on the Martin Tract, 700 feet west of Johnston-Willis Hospital, on the north side of Route 60, in the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on August 28, 1984; and WHEREAS, Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of industrial development bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of industrial development bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds; and WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "County"); the Project is to be located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County; and WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the Bonds; and WHERe. S, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing, and a Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with the Board; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Company, as required by Section 103(k) and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Virginia Code, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Project or the Company. 3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary Income Tax Regulations Section 5f.103-2(f) (1), this Resolution shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of its adoption. 4. The Bonds shall not be issued unless they shall have received an allocation of the State Ceiling (as defined in Executive Order Number 50 of the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, dated August 1, 1984), and nothing in this resolution shall be construed as any assurance that such allocation will be available or, if available, will be made. 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. August 31, 1984 Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia Chesterfield, Virginia Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield Proposed Financing for Midlothian Associates Midlothian Associates (the "Company") has requested that the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the "Authority"), assist the Company in financing the acquisition, construction and equipping of a hotel facility (the "Project") in the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, by the issuance of its industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $9,500,000 (the "Bonds"). As set forth in the resolution of the Authority attached hereto (the "Resolution"), the Authority has agreed to issue its Bonds as requested. The Authority has conducted a public hearing on the proposed financing of the Project and has recommended that you approve the issuance of the Bonds as required by Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. Attached hereto is (1) a certificate evidencing the conduct of the public hearing and the action taken by the Authority, (2) the Fiscal Impact Statement required pursuant to Virginia Code SectiQn 15.1-1378.2, and (3) the form of resolution suggested by counsel to evidence your approval. Secretary, Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield CERTIFICATE The undersigned Secretary of the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the "Authority") hereby certifies as follows: 1. A meeting of the Authority was duly called and held on August 28, 1984, at 3:30 o'clock p.m. in the Board Room of the Chesterfield County Airport Terminal Building in Chesterfield, Virginia, pursuant to proper notice given to each Director of the Authority prior to such meeting. The meeting was open to the public. The time of the meeting and the place at which the meeting was held provided a reasonable opportunity for persons of differing views to appear and be heard. 2. The Chairman announced the commencement of a public hearing on the application of Midlothian Associates (the "Company") and that a notice of the hearing was published once a week for two successive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "Notice"),.with the second publication appearing not less than seven days nor more than twenty-one days prior to the hearing date. A copy of the Notice has been filed with the minutes of the Authority and is attached hereto as Exhibit A. e Authority: The following individuals appeared and addressed the D. J. Esposito David L. Richardson Be A summary of their statements is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true, correct and complete copy of a resolution (the "Resolution") adopted at such meeting of the Authority by a majority of the Directors present at such meeting. The Resolution constitutes all formal action taken by the Authority at such meeting relating to matters referred to in the Resolution. The Resolution has not been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended and is in full force and effect on the date hereof. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Authority, this ~/~~ day of August, 1984. (SEAL) Secretary,VIn~u'strial Development- Authority of the County of Chesterfield Exhibits: A - Copy of Certified Notice B - Summary of Statements C - Inducement Resolution EXHIBIT A Midlothian Associates NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON~ PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVEL- OPMENT BOND FINANCING BY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD Notice i~ hereby given that the In- dustrial Development Authority of the Co4~ty of Cheeted'tlld (the Authority) will hold a public hear- lng o~ the application and plan of flnencing of Midictl¥ln__.A_sl~c_ .i- Itel, whOl~ ~ldreSl la ~lla Par- tereef~ Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23226 (the Company) for theAu thority to Issue, pursuant to the Virginia Industrial Development end Revenue Bond Act (the Act), up to $10,000,000 of its industrial deveopment revenue bonds to assist the;Company in acq. ulring, constructing and equipping a hotel facility consisting of approxi- mately 130000 square feet to be located on the Mart n Tract, 100 feet west of Johnalon-WIIIIs Hospi- tal, o~ the north Nde of Route bi Che~tertlald County, Virginia. The public hearing, which may b~ co~finued ~ adjourned, will _be , held at 3:30 o'clock p.m. onAu-u- gual 23, lg84 before tha Author- ' ~1~, in tha 8oard Room of Chester* ~ County Airport Termlr!al Building, at Chesterfield, Virginia. As required by the Act, the bonds will not pledge the credit or the taxing power of Chesterfield Coun- ty or the Authority but will be pay* ebte ~olety from revenues derived from the Company and pledges~ therefor. Any person interested in the issuance of the bonds or thaI location or purpose of the posed project may appear and heard, A copy of the Compen~'al application may be In~pecteq et, tl~e Authorltya office at the Court* ty Office o! Economic Dev_alop.- menS, at 7734 Whitepine Chesterfield Airpark, Chesterfield, V rginla during business hours. Industrial Developmant Authority of the County of Chestarflald · By: iN, F. Seymour, III (~ha rmgn RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. Publisher of THE RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH · ' ,,:-, "~1 I0 l{Ichmond, Va ......... .~, ..... ~ ....... , ........... Ti, is is to certify that the attached ............. .L. 2~[.];..~.!2~..'-.2 .......... was published in The Richmond Times-Dispatch, a newspaper published in the City of Richmond, State of Virginia. '' ', I ' 9' le'~/' ,, I ~ 10~ ' The ~tst insertion heine ¢~e. .......................................................... ' Sworn toand subscribed befor~ me / ~ ~,L~",;.. ~'.3". ...... ff otary Public State of Vir~n[a, City of Richmond: TITLE EXHIBIT B TO CERTIFICATE Summary of Statements Messrs. Esposito and Richardson explained that the Project consisted of a 130,000 square foot hotel and convention center to be located near Johnston-Willis Hospital on Midlothian Turnpike. Mr. Esposito stated that he hoped to obtain a Holiday Inn franchise very soon and to begin construction in early 1985. "' CoLt~ OF CHESTERFIELD INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPFE~FF ALFFHORITY APPLICATIO'I FOR BC~D. AUTHORIZATIC~I OF. APPLICANT: l~i~]lnt-hi~n ~neJat-_e~. a V_irginia T,imite~ ~artnership ~iDRE$S: 6718 Patterson Avenue, PO Box 8356, Richmond,' VA 23226 CONTACT REPRESENIATIVE: _D. J. Esposito TELEP~E NU~3ER:288-7283 PROPOSED LOCATIC~.J: The Martin Tract, located 700 feet West of JohnstOn-Willis Road, on the North side of Route 60. ~RREN/ ZONING: Office Business (plus Conditional Use Planned Development to ~ermit use and b,u. lk exceptions.) IS REZON ING REQUI RED, No PRESENT LOCATION: (IF MORE THAN ONE, LIST ON SEPARATE PAGE) N/A IS APPLIC~fF OWNER OF LAND? No TYPE OF I~DUSTRY: Hotel/Restaurant ' PRODUCTS P~DUCED: ' ' WILL THIS PROdECT RESULT IN A NEW PRODUCT LINE: No IF YES, NAME PRODUCT: N~ER OF EMPLOYEES AT NE~ LOCATION (ESTIMATED): 10 O- 120 IF NOT, FURNISH COPY OF OPTION, OR CONTRACT, (Attached). · TYPE_ OF BUILDING TO BE CONSTRUCTED: (]3ESCRIBE CONSTRUCTION, SQUARE FOOTAGE, AMOLIiT FOR EACH OPERATION SUCH AS NANUFACTURING, STORAGE, OFFICE, ETC. :) See Exhibit #1 attached hereto.'" " AMOCI'FF OF BON]D AUTHORIZATION REQUESTED: ,/~;SI~ OF LOAN PROCEEDS: ~Nq~TRUCTi N (IF NOT KNO, tN, ESTIMATE) _ARCHITECT/E~GINEER Furnishings, ~ACH INERY/EQUI PMENT I~k)TE: STATE P~LLFFION FD~HN~ER~ING EXPENSE CONTROL EXPENDITURES $10r000~000.00 (Ten Million Dollars) 200,OpO.O0... 800,000.00 150,000 00 000.00 000,000.00 150,000.00 SEPARA/ELY, ~ ~XPLAIN: Legal, consulting, accounting, Franchise and recording fees ~TIMATE]D V,~UE OF LADD A~ BUILDING FOR COUNTY REAL TAlE PURPCNSES ;','HFN CD,',',DI_ETE $ 8,000,000.00 ~ESCRIPTION OF PURPOSE FOR WHICH BOND REVENUE WILL BE USED: ,Acquisition of land and construction and equipping of 150-210 room motel BOND RATING OF APPLI~ N/A BANK REFERENCE Sovran BY CREDIT RATING EXPLAIN HOW FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM INDUSTRIAL ALrn~ORITY WILL ENABLE APPLICANT TO LOCATE OR REMAIN IN CHESTERFIELD COL~I'Y: 'see Exhib.it~ #2 ~attached hereto. BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED BY COUNTY: See Exhibit #3 attached hereto. Is APPLICANT A SUBSIDIARY OF ANY COMPANY: IF YES, GIVE NA~E: ~DRESS: ' ' No'i ............... ' ............. TELEPHONE NLMBER: NA~E OF APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: David L~ Richarason, Esquire, ~DP~SS: McGuire, Woods & Battle, Ross Building, Richmond, .VA 23219 TFL~PHONE NUMBER: 644-4131 NA~EOFBONDCOUNSELDESIRED: Davi~' L2 Ri6h~dson, EsqUire ~]DRESS: McGuire, Woods & Battle, Ross Building, RiChmond, VA 23219 TELEPHONE NLffBER: 644-4131. .......... ~ OF ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER (IF RETAINED)': ~ _vet retained. A~DRESS: TELEPHONE NL~BER: "' CroR SteA n " e';e o g t ' 0reoratio ~D~SS: 17 South Belmont Avenu~,"R~'chmsnd,"VA" ~32~i ....... TELEPHONE NU~ER: '3 5 9- ~ 0 i ~ ................... HAS APPLICANT EVER DEFAULTED ON A [DAN: No ....... H.~ APPLICANT EVER DECLARED BANKRUPTCY: "l~o IF YES TO EITHER PRECEDING QUESTION, PLEASE EXPLAIN IN D~:-I'AIL: W~IEN WAS APPLICANT FORMED? (DAIE) June 29, 1984 STATE IN W]-II(]-I INCORPORATE]3: N/A , How LONG HAS APPLICANT DONE BUSINESS IN VIRGINIA"? OTHER RF_JqARKS: See E~hibit #4 attached ~/ILL THE PROJECT BE LEASED TO AfiY OTHiR ORGA-NIZATIC~N? No NAMES OF ALL ORGANIZATIONS EXPECTED TO USE AT LEAST 10% OF THE PROJECT SPACE OR TAKE AT LEAST 10% OF THE PROJECT'S OUTPUI., PLEASE ENCLOSE A COPY Of YOUR LATEST ANNUAL REPORT, BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT FOR LAST COMPLETE YEAR OF OPERATIONS, COMPLETE EXHIBITS A AND B ATTACHED HERETO, IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED BY THE APPLICANT THAT ALL COSTS IN CONNECTION WiTH THiS APPLICATION'WILL BE PAiD BY THE APPLICANT, EITHER FROM THE PROCEEDS OF INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS NH]CH MIGHT BE APPROVED FOR THE PROJECT BY THE AUTHORITY, OR iN THE EVENT SUCH ASS]STANCE IS' NOT APPROVED OR FORTHCOMING THE APPLICANT AGREES TO PAY ALL COSTS FROM ITS ONN RE- SOURCES, SUCH COSTS, iN ADDITION TO THE COSTS OF THE APPL]CANT~ SHALL INCLUDE, BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO, THE EXPENSES OF THE AUTHORITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE STUDY AND PROCESSING OF THIS APPLICATION; AND THE COST FOR AN INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS, THE COST FOR AN INDE- PENDENT LEGAL ~OUNSEL, IF ANY, TO PROTECT THE AUTHORITY AND COSTS OF PUBLICATION, AN APPLICATION FEE AND DEPOSIT AGAINST LEGAL FEES, EACH IN THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500,00), AS AGAINST.PUBLICATION COSTS Of ~?~N FO TO THE AUTHORITY, MUST ACCOMP~HIS"A~p~j2~i~,'~jU'UU PAYABLE HE APPLICANT HEREBY REQUESTS THAT THE CHAIRMAN OR VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE UTHORIfY, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY'S RESOLUTION, CAUSE THE PUDLICATION ~OF A NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THIS APPLICATION, /HE APPLICANT AGREES TO PAY ALL COSTS RELATING TO PUBLICATION, THE APPLICANT FURTHER REPRESENTS THAT IT UNDERSTANDS THE CONDITIONS OF THIS APPLICATION, THAT THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF APPROVAL AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS AND INFORMATION FURNISHED WITH THIS APPLICATION OR ON SUPPORTING PAPERS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO ITS BEST KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF, THIS APPLICATION APPROVED BY THE IZED AGENTJ OF THE MIDLOTHIAN AssOCIATES','AV~rgfniA"Li~..Pa. rt.~e, rship ......... [0~FICIAL NAME OF APPLICAN/-~------ WHOSE MAILING ADDRESS IS THIS " ~.~ WITNESS DAY OF BY .................................... (SEAL) ADDRESS REPLY TO- MR, ~/, F, SEYMOUR, CHAIRMAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC JJEVELOPMENT P.0, Dox 40, CHESTERFIELD, V~A, 23832 EXHIBIT C RESOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $9,500,000 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING A HOTEL FACILITY TO BE LOCATED IN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Authority"), is empowered by the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, Chapter 33, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Act"), to issue its revenue bonds for the purpose of inducing the location of industrial and commercial facilities in Virginia and to promote the commerce, safety, health, welfare, convenience or prosperity of citizens of Virginia; WHEREAS, the Authority has received a request from Midlothian Associates, a Virginia limited partnership'(the "Applicant"), requesting that the Authority issue its revenue bonds to assist in financing the acquisition, construction and equipping of a hotel facility (the "Project") to be located in Chesterfield County, Virginia; WHEREAS, such assistance will induce the Applicant to locate the Project in Virginia and thereby benefit the inhabitants of Chesterfield County and the Commonwealth of Virginia, either through the increase of their commerce or through the promotion of their safety, health, welfare, convenience or prosperity; WHEREAS, preliminary plans for the Project have been described to the Authority and a public hearing has been held as required by Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Act; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has represented that the estimated cost of the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project and all expenses of issue will require an issue of revenue bonds in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $10,000,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD: 1. It is hereby found and determined that the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project will be in the public interest and will promote the commerce, safety, health, welfare, convenience or prosperity of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Chesterfield Countyand their citizens. 2. To induce the Applicant to locate the Project in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and particularly in Chesterfield County, the Authority hereby agrees to assist the Applicant to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project for a Holiday Inn or similar franchise approved by the Authority by undertaking the issuance of its industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $9,500,000 upon terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the Authority and the Applicant. The Project shall be leased or sold to the Applicant under a net lease or sale contract with payments sufficient to pay principal of, premium (if any), and interest on the bonds. The bonds will be issued pursuant to documents satisfactory to the Authority, the Applicant and a trustee (or the purchaser of the bonds) which will set forth the form and terms of the bonds and which may mortgage the Project and assign the Authority's rights to payments under the lease or sale contract to the trustee for the benefit of the bondholders (or the purchaser of the bonds). The bonds may be issued in one or more series at one time or from time to time. 3. It having been represented to the Authority that it is necessary to proceed immediately with the acquisition, planning and construction of the Project, the Authority hereby agrees that the Applicant may proceed with plans for the Project, enter into contracts for land, construction, materials and equipment for the Project, and take such other steps as it may deem appropriate in connection therewith, provided, however, that nothing herein shall be deemed to authorize the Applicant to obligate the Authority without its consent in each instance to the payment of any moneys or the performance of any acts in connection with the Project. The Authority agrees that the Applicant may be reimbursed from the proceeds of the bonds for all expenditures and costs so incurred by it, provided such expenditures and costs are properly reimbursable under the Act and applicable Federal laws. 4. The Authority shall accept from or on behalf of the Applicant ~onveyance of parcels of or easements on land in Chesterfield County on which to construct the Project. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized to accept and have recorded a proper deed or deeds in connection with such conveyance. If for any reason the bonds are not issued, it is understood that the Authority shall convey such property or easements to or on behalf of the Applicant without cost other than the expense of preparation and recordation of such deed or deeds of conveyance. 5. At the request of the Applicant, the Authority hereby approves Messrs. McGuire, Woods & Battle, Richmond, Virginia, as Bond Counsel in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. 6. Ail costs and expenses in connection with the financing and the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project, 2 including the fees and expenses of Bond Counsel and Authority Counsel, shall be paid from the proceeds of the bonds. If for any reason such bonds are not issued, it is understood that all such expenses shall be paid by the Applicant and that the Authority shall have no responsibility therefor. 7. In adopting this resolution the Authority intends to take "official action" toward the issuance of the bonds within the meaning of regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. 8. The Authority hereby recommends that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, approve the issuance of the Bonds. 9. The Authority reserves the right to recommend the allocation or to allocate (if such power is delegated to the Authority) amounts available under any "private activity bond limit", as provided by Section 103(n) of the Code, to projects other than the Project. 10. This Resolution shall continue in full force and effect for a period of two (2) years after its adoption unless specifically extended by the Authority or the bonds contemplated by this Resolution are issued. 11. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 3 FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT August 28, 1984 Date Midlothian Associates Applicant Hotel Facility Facility e e Se e Maximum amount of financing sought Estimated taxable value of the facility's real property to be constructed in the municipality Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates Estimated merchants' capital tax per year using present tax rates Estimated dollar value per year of goods and services that will be purchased locally Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis 8. Average annual salary per employee 9,500,000 $ 8,000,000 $ 78,000 $ 72,000 $ 8,000 $ 2,000,000+ 100 $ 9,000 - Aut ho'r i t/~i r-ma-~ Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield Name of Authority CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE; September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER; 9.G.7.f. SUBJECT: Resolution confirming the proceedings of the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield approving the issuance of revenue bonds to San-J International, In¢ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On August 28, 1984, the Chesterfield Industrial Development Authority held a public hearing to consider industrial development revenue bond financing in the amount of $5,000,000 for San-J International, Inc. The Authority approved the issuance of the bonds and the Board needs to confirm the issuance by the adoption of the attached resolution. The resolution certifying the Authority's action was reviewed by Jack Spain, bond counsel for the CIDA. The applicant plans to acquire, construct and equip a food manufacturing facility consisting of approximately 44,000 square feet to be located approximately one quarter of a mile north of the City of Colonial Heights, Virginia on the west side of U. S. Highway 1 in Chesterfield County, Virginia. ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO [] PREPARED BY; George S. Woodall, Director ' Department of Economic Development SIGNATURE: ~2~MI NI STRATOR RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the "Authority"), has considered the application of San-J International, Inc. (the "Company") requesting the issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $5,000,000 (the "Bonds") to assist in the financing of the Company's acquisition, construction and equipping of a food manufacturing facility consisting of approximately 44,000 square feet (the "Project") to be located approximately one quarter of a mile north of the City of Colonial Heights, Virginia on the west side of U.S. Highway 1, in the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on August 28, 1984; and WHEREAS, Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of industrial development'bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of industrial development bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds; and WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "County"); the Project is to be located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County; and WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing, and a Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with the Board; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Company, as required by Section 103(k) and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Virginia Code, to permit the Authority to assist in the 'financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Project or the Company. 3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary Income Tax Regulations Section 5f.103-2(f) (1), this Resolution shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of its adoption. 4. The Bonds shall not be issued unless they shall have received an allocation of the State Ceiling (as defined in Executive Order Number 50 of the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, dated August 1, 1984), and nothing in this resolution shall be construed as any assurance that such allocation will be available or, if available, will be made. 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. August 31, 1984 Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia Chesterfield, Virginia Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield Proposed Financing for San-J International, Inc. San-J International, Inc. (the "Company") has requested that the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the "Authority"), assist the Company in financing the acquisition, construction and equipping of a food manufac- turing facility (the "Project") in the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, by the issuance of its industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $5,000,000 (the "Bonds"). As set forth in the resolution of the Authority attached hereto (the "Resolution"), the Authority has agreed to issue its Bonds as requested. The Authority has conducted a public hearing on the proposed financing of the Project and has recommended that you approve the issuance of the Bonds as required by Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. Attached hereto is (1) a certificate evidencing the conduct of the public hearing and the action taken by the Authority, (2) the Fiscal Impact Statement required pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-1378.2, and (3) the form of resolution suggested by counsel to evidence your approval. Secretary, Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield CERTIFICATE The undersigned Secretary of the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the "Authority") hereby certifies as follows: 1. A meeting of the Authority was duly called and held on August 28, 1984, at 3:30 o'clock p.m. in the Board Room of the Chesterfield County Airport Terminal Building in Chesterfield, Virginia, pursuant to proper notice given to each Director of the Authority prior to such meeting. The meeting was open to the public. The time of the meeting and the place at which the meeting was held provided a reasonable opportunity for persons of differing views to appear and be heard. 2. The Chairman announced the commencement of a public hearing on the application of San-J International, Inc. (the "Company") and that a notice of the hearing was published once a week for two successive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "Notice"),-with the second publication appearing not less than seven days nor more than twenty-one days prior to the hearing date. A copy of the Notice has been filed with the minutes of the Authority and is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. The following individuals appeared and addressed the Authority: Michael Fountain David L. Richardson Be A summary of their statements is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true, correct and complete copy of a resolution (the "Resolution") adopted at such meeting of the Authority by a majority of the Directors present at such meeting. The Resolution constitutes all formal action taken by the Authority at such meeting relating to matters referred to in the Resolution. The Resolution has not been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended and is in full force and effect on the date hereof. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Authority, this 3/~ day of August, 1984. (SEAL) Secretary,~ Industrial Degelopm~n~ Authority of the County of Chesterfield Exhibits: A - Copy of Certified Notice B - Summary of Statements C - Inducement Resolution EXHIBIT A San-J International, Inc. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVEL- OPMENT BOND FINANCING BY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CHF.~TERFIELO NotiCe t~ h~ giwl~t that the In- du~ Deveici~n~t Authority of I me Cou.ty of Ch~f~d (the[ I Authority) will hold a public I In~ ml the appllcatloc and plan ' flnancir~ of San-,I Internetto~al,[ Inc., whose eddreu II 3236 Boole-I yard, Colonial Heights, Virginia- 23834 (the Company) for the AU thority to lesu~, purluent to the Virginia Indultrtal Development end Revanu~ Bond Act (the Act), up to $5,000,000 of itl. Industrial development revenue oonds to esN~t the Company In acquiring, con$tru"ting and equipping a~ood manufl~tur|ng facility consisting .*of edproxlmat~ly 44,000 ~quer.e fee~ to be located ~oproxtmmmy ol~ quarter of l mll~ p.erth..of ~t~ City of Colonial H~ght_a,. o~ the we~t Nde of U. 3. ~gnway 1 in Cheltedlald County, Virginla. i co. Uno,gl or lGjournl~, w~ held at $:30 o'clock p,m. on Au- gust 28. 1984, before the Author- ity, In tl~ Board Room of Chester- i field Co~nty Airporl Terminal Building, at Chesterfield, Virginia. l'Aa requlrec~ by the Act, the bondl ' will not pledge the credit or the i taxing powm' of Chesterfield Coun- ~ ty or the Authority but will be pay- ~ able m:flely from revanu .e~ derived from the Company eno pledge~ ) therefor. Any per~o~ interested in , the issuance of the bonds or the location or purpo'~e of the pro- ' posed project may appear end I~ heard. A copy of the c;ompanys fapplication may be inspected at the AuthorRy'$ office at the Coun- ty Office of Economic Develop- i ment, et 7734 Whitapine Road, Chesterfield Airparko Chesterfield, I Virginia during bulinell hours. Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield · ~- ~ * By: W. F, ~our, I11 Chairman RICIIMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. Publisher o[ THE RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH Aug. 2!, Richmond, Va ..................................... v This is to certify that the attached ........................................... .~... was published in The Richmond Times-Dispatch, a newspaper publisl~d in the City of Richmond, State of Virginia. '. 1! The first insertion being giyen ........... :..°.:....L..: ..... ,.~ .......................... Sworn to and subscribed before me this / Notary Public State of Vir~nia, City of Richmond: My ~ommission expires .... .~ -.. ?, = --- ..,S.?'F,~VI$O?,, ACCTi RF.C. TITLE EXHIBIT B TO CERTIFICATE Summary of Statements Messrs. Fountain and Richardson explained that the Project consisted of a 44,000 square foot food manufacturing facility to be located just North of the City of Colonial Heights behind the Par 3 Motel on U.S. Route 1. The primary product to be produced at the facility is soy sauce to be distributed to various food producers. Mr. Fountain described the production process and indicated that construction would not commence until 1985 at the earliest. He also stated that the project would create numerous jobs and would hopefully need to be expanded in the next several years. -- CObNTY OF CHESTERFIELD ~'~ INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPK£HT AUllaORITY APPLICATIQ'I FOR B .D, Abllq,'0RIZATIC I I~ablE OF APPLIC. A~CF: San-J Thtprnatinn~l Thc_ ~DDRESS: 3236 Boulevard. Cnlnnial H~ighf.:. VA. 23834 CONTACT REPRESENTATIVE: Michael S. Fountain - VP. . TELEPHONE NLIVBER: 520-!513 PROPOSED LGCATIOH: approx. 1/4 mil'es north of Cnlnin~l M~ight~ nm U_S_ Hwy #1, West side. CURRENT ZOf~ING: Industrial IS REZO,qING REQUIRED: no PRESENT LOCATION: (IF KDRE TF[AN ONE, LIST ON SEPXU~ATE PAGE) Adminiqtratiw Qffin~ ar~ presently located in Colonial Heights, VA./ MFG. Location is in kuwa'na, Japan IS APPLICAHT O4NER OF LAND? yes IF NOT, FURNISH COPY OF OPTION, OR CONTRACT, TYPE OF I~LDUSTRY: Food Processing - Tamari Soy Sauce Fermentation PRODUCTS PROOFS: Tamari Soy Sauce WILL THIS PROJECT RESULT IN A NEW PRODLK2T LINE: nn IF YES, NAME PRODUCT: NL~BER OF EMPLOYEES AT NBd LOCATION (ESTIMATED): 25 TYPE OF BUILDING TO BE CONSTRtJ~: (DESCRIBE CONSTRUCTION, SQtJ~E FOOTAGE, AM3LIkrF FOR EACH OPERATION SUCH AS MANUFACTURING, STORAGE, OFFICE, ETC. :)Manufacturi._nq: 24,000 sD. ft. ,roduction area, 8,000 sg. fi;. w~Fehouse, 4~000 sq. ft. office complex. The main building will be me storv of double T pre-cast concrete panels. Ad,iacent to the main buildin.q will be an 8,000 sg.ft. ~ank farm ~onsistin~ of 50 vertical fermenting tanks AMOU~F OF BOND AUTHORIZATION REQUESTED: $ 5 mi 11 i on Ass I GN~ENT OF LOAN PROCEEDS: (IF NOT KIqO,~, ESTIMATE) ~OTE: STATE POLUTION Cr~CFROL EXPEndiTURES SEPARATELY. ~N~D~uCTiON ARCHITECT/ENGINEER oHNER CHINERY/~QUI PMENT ~ING ~.XF'ENS E 0 .. 1.7 miilion .~ million 2.8 million .2 million EXPLAIN TIMATEI)OF LAI, D ,N'~D BUILDING FOR COIJNTY REAL V~UE TATE PURPCQES ;',H~; c~DLETE $ $3.5 million J]ESC2IPTION OF PURPOSE FOR WHICH BO;'JD ~NUE WILL BE USED:' Construction of tamari soy sauce fermentation plant. ~X:)ND RATING OF APPLICANT NA BANK REFERENCE Sovran, Tokai Bank BY CREDIT RATING EXCELLENT EXPLAIN HOW F[NANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROMF.IN]DUS.TR~IAL A.UT).tORITY WI[J- ENABLE APPLICANT TO LOCATE OR REblAIN IN CHESTERFIELD COUDFFY: lnanclai assistance makes it financial vialble to locate production plant in Chesterfield County. B~EFITS TO BE DERIVED BY COUNTY: Tax Revenue, Employment, benefcial economy because of raw materail purchases, housing purchases. effect on local IS APPLICANT A SUBSIDIARY OF ANY COMPANY: IF YES, GIVE NAME: San-jirushi Corporal~ion yes ADDRESS: 40-17 Denenchofu Honcho, 0ota-ku, Tokyo Japan ~ 14~5 TELEPHONE NL~BER: (03) 722-4433 ~aJ~l~ OF APPLICANT'S A1-FORNEY: ADDRESS: Petersburg, VA Eugene Marabie TELEPHONE NLt~ER: 282-5555 NA~ OF BOND COLr~SEL DESIRED: David 'RiChards0n~ Mcgu~re, Woods & Battle. ADDRESS: Ross Building, Richmond,'vA '23219' TELEPHONE NLI~BER: 644-4131 NAPE OF ARCDqITECT OR ENGINEER (IF RETAINED): Kajima corPoration ADDRESS: Shinjuku Mitsui BUilding, 2-i-t'Nsihi-ShinjukU~'Tokyo, ja. pan "i60 TELEPHONE NLMBER: (03) 344:2ill NA~ OF CONTRACTOR (IF RETAINED): none ~,D~ESS: TELEPHONE NL~BER: HAS APPLICANT EVER DEFAULTED ON A LOAN: HAS APPLICANT EVER DECLARED BANKRUPTCY: nO IF YES TO EITHER PRECEDING QUESTION, PLEASE EXPLAIN IN DETAIL: WHEN WAS APPLIC2~NT FOF~J~I},9 (DATE) 1979 STATE IN VtHIG-t INCORPORATED: Delaware ~ LONG HAS APPLICANT DONE BUSINESS I~ VIRGINIA? 5 years OTHER RE_MARKS: San-,iirushi Corp. Kuwana~ Japan was f~unded in 1804. -WILL THE PROJECT BE LEASED TO ANY OTHER ORG~NIZATI(~N? no NAMES OF ALL ORGANIZATIONS EXPECTED TO USE AT LEAST 10% OF THE PROJECT SPACE OR TAKE AT LEAST 10~o OF THE PROJECT'S OUTPUT~ Major Industrial Customers ~hat will take 10% or more of projects output; Stouffer Foods Corp./Campbell Soup Co./ H.J. Heinz ~'o./ Beatrice Foods/ General Mills/ Pillsbury Co, PLEASE ENCLOSE A COPY OF YOUR LATEST ANNUAL REPORTj BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT FOR LAST COMPLETE YEAR OF OPERATIONS, o COMPLETE EXHIBITS A AND B ATTACHED HERETO, IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED BY THE APPLICANT THAT ALL COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS APPLICATION WILL BE PAID BY THE APPLICANT, EITHER FROM THE PROCEEDS OF INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS WHICH MIGHT BE APPROVED FOR THE PROJECT BY THE AUTHORITYj OR IN THE EVENT SUCH ASSISTANCE IS NOT APPROVED OR FORTHCOMING THE APPLICANT AGREES TO PAY ALL COSTS FROM ITS OWN RE- SOURCES, SUCH COSTS, IN ADDITION TO THE COSTS OF THE APPLICANT, SHALL INCLUDE, BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO, THE EXPENSES OF THE AUTHORITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE STUDY AND PROCESSING OF THIS APPLICATION} AND THE COST FOR AN INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS~ THE COST FOR AN INDE- .. PENDENT LEGAL ~OUNSELj IF ANY~ TO PROTECT THE AUTHORITY AND COSTS OF ' PUBLICATION, MN APPLICATION FEE AND DEPOSIT AGAINST LEGAL FEES, EACH IN THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500,00), AS WELI..A$ A..DEPOSIT AGAINST PUBLICATION COSTS OF ~250, FOR A TOTAL OF $125U,UO PAYABLE TO THE AUTHORITY~ MUST ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATION, HE APPliCANT HEREBY REQUESTS THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE UTHORITY, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY~S RESOLUTION, CAUSE THE PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THIS APPLICATION, IHE APPLICANT AGREES TO PAY ALL COSTS RELATING TO PUBLICATION, THE APPLICANT FURTHER REPRESENTS THAT IT UNDERSTANDS THE CONDITIONS OF THIS APPLICATION, THAT THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF APPROVAL AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS AND INFORMATION FURNISHED WITH THIS APPLICATI.ON OR ON SUPPORTING PAPERS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO ITS BEST KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, THIS APPLICATION APPROVED BY THE Michael S: Fountain-' Vice President OF THE (AUTHORIZED AGENT) qmn_.l Tn*~v'n~i-(nnml Inc : ..................... (DFFI-CIAL NAME OF APPLICANT) WHOSE MAILING ADDRESS IS '373F, Rnulevard: Colonial Heiqhts~ VA e_3834 WITNESS BN ................................. (SEAL) TITLE Vice President DATE 7 August 1984 ADDRESS REPLY TO- MR, W. F, SEYMOUR, CHAIRMAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 609 EAST GRACE STREET, 4TH FLOOR RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219 EXHIBIT C RESOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $5,000,000 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING A FOOD MANUFACTURING FACILITY TO BE LOCATED IN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Authority"), is empowered by the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, Chapter 33, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Act"), to issue its revenue bonds for the purpose of inducing the location of industrial and commercial facilities in Virginia and to promote the commerce, safety, health, welfare, convenience or prosperity of citizens of Virginia; WHEREAS, the Authority has received a request from San-J International, Inc. (the "Company"), requesting that the Authority issue its revenue bonds to assist in financing the acquisition, construction and equipping of a food manufacturing facility (the "Project") to be located in Chesterfield-County, Virginia; WHEREAS, such assistance will induce the Company to locate the Project in Virginia and thereby benefit the inhabitants of Chesterfield County and the Commonwealth of Virginia, either through.the increase of their commerce or through the promotion of their safety, health, welfare, convenience or prosperity; WHEREAS, preliminary plans for the Project have been described to the Authority and a public hearing has been held as required by Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Act; and WHEREAS, the Company has represented that the estimated cost of the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project and all expenses of issue will require an issue of revenue bonds in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $5,000,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD: 1. It is hereby found and determined that the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project will be in the public interest and will promote the commerce, safety, health, welfare, convenience or prosperity of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Chesterfield County and their citizens. 2. To induce the Company to locate the Project in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and particularly in Chesterfield County, the Authority hereby agrees to assist the Company to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project by undertaking the issuance of its industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $5,000,000 upon terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the Authority and the Company. The Project shall be leased or sold to the Company under a net lease or sale contract with payments sufficient to pay principal of, premium (if any), and interest on the bonds. The bonds will be issued pursuant to documents satisfactory to the Authority, the Company and a trustee (or the purchaser of the bonds) which will set forth the form and terms of the bonds and which may mortgage the Project and assign the Authority's rights to payments under the lease or sale contract to the trustee for the benefit of the bondholders (or the purchaser of the bonds). The bonds may be issued in one or more series at one time or from time to time. 3. It having been represented to the Authority that it is necessary to proceed immediately with the acquisition, planning and construction of the Project, the Authority hereby agrees that the Company may proceed with plans for the Project, enter into contracts for land, construction, materials and equipment for the Project, and take such other steps as it may deem appropriate in connection therewith, provided, however, that nothing herein shall be deemed to authorize the Company to obligate the Authority without its consent in each instance to the payment of any moneys or the performance of any acts in connection with the Project. The Authority agrees that the Company may be reimbursed from the proceeds of the bonds for all expenditures and costs so incurred by it, provided such expenditures and costs are properly reimbursable under the Act and applicable Federal laws. 4. The Authority shall accept from or on behalf of the Company conveyance of parcels of or easements on land in Chesterfield County on which to construct the Project. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized to accept and have recorded a proper deed or deeds in connection with such conveyance. If for any reason the bonds are not issued, it is understood-that the Authority shall convey such property or easements to or on behalf of the Company without cost other than the expense of preparation and recordation of such deed or deeds of conveyance. 5. At the request of the Company, the Authority hereby approves Messrs. McGuire, Woods & Battle, Richmond, Virginia, as Bond Counsel in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. 6. Ail costs and expenses in connection with the financing and the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project, including the fees and expenses of Bond Counsel and Authority Counsel, shall be paid from the proceeds of the bonds. If for any reason such bonds are no~ issued, it is understood that all such expenses shall be paid by the Company and that the Authority shall have no responsibility therefor. 7. In adopting this resolution the Authority intends to take "official action" toward the issuance of the bonds within the meaning of regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. 8. The Authority hereby recommends that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, approve the issuance of the Bonds. 9. The Authority reserves the right to recommend the allocation or to allocate (if such power is delegated to the Authority) amounts available under any "private activity bond limit", as provided by Section 103(n) of the Code, to projects other than the Project. 10. This Resolution shall continue in full force and effect for a period of two (2) years after its adoption unless specifically extended by the Authority or the bonds contemplated by this resolution are issued. 11. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 3 FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT August 28, Date 1984 San-J International~ Inc. Applicant food manufacturing facility Facility 1. Maximum amount of financing sought 2. Estimated taxable value of the facility's real property to be constructed in the municipality 3. Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates 4. Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates 5. Estimated merchants' capital tax per year using present tax rates 6. Estimated dollar value per year of goods and services that will be purchased locally 7. Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis 8. Average annual salary per employee $ 5,000,000 $ 3~500~000 $ 34,300 $ 10,000 $ N/A $ 1,000,000 20-25 $ 20¢000 Industrial DevelOpment Authority County of Chesterfield Name of Authority of the CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE:g~pt"c, mhc, r ?6. !984 ITEM NUMBER: 9.G.7.g. SUBJECT: Resolution confirming the proceedings of the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield approving the issuance of revenue bonds to Jerry L. Wauford. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENT,C;: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On August 28, 1984, the Chesterfield Industrial Development Authority held a public hearing to consider industrial development revenue bond financing in the amount of $1,250,000 for Jerry L Wauford. The Authority approved the issuance of the bonds and the Board needs to confirm the issuance by the adoption of the attached resolution. The resolution certifying the Authority's action was prepared by Jack Spain bond counsel for the CIDA. ' The applicant plans to acquire, construct, and equip a 50,000 square foot manufacturing facility to be leased to Pre Con, Inc., a firm engaged in the manufacturing, converting, and storage of textile products. The facility will be located at 13600 - 13850 Jefferson Davis Highway. ATTACHMENTS: YES I;[3 NO [] PREPARED BY: :~ ~' Z/~~ George S. Woodall, Bi rector Department of Economic Development SIGNATURE' ~ COUNTY ADMI NI STRATOR RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the Authority) , has considered the ap- plication of Jerry L. Wauford (the Applicant) to be leased to Pre Con, Inc. (the Company) for the issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $1,250,000 (the Bonds) to assist in the financing of the Appli- cant's acquisition, construction and equipping of a manufacturing facility (the Project) to be located at 13600-13850 Jefferson Davis Highway, Bermuda District, in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on August 28, 1984; and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board of Su- pervisors (the Board) of the County of Chesterfield (the Coun- ty), to approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with Sec- tion 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the Code); and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with respect to the Project have been filed with the Board; and -1- BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUN- TY OF CHESTERFIELD: 1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Indus- trial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield, for the benefit of the Applicant, to the extent required by Section 103(k), to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as re- quired by Section 103(k), does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Applicant, but, as re- quired by Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the inter- est thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and moneys pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth, the County nor the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 3. The Bonds shall not be issued unless they shall have received an allocation of the State Ceiling (as defined) in Executive Order Number 50 of the Governor of the Common- wealth of Virginia, dated August 1, 1984), and nothing in this resolution shall be construed as any assurance that such allocation will be available or, if available, will be made. -2- 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. -3- September %, 1984 Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield P. O. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield Proposed Financing for Jerry L. Wauford Jerry L. Wauford (the Applicant) has requested that the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the Authority), assist the Applicant in financing the acquisi- tion, construction and equipping of a manufacturing facility (the Project) in Chesterfield County, Virginia, which will be leased to Pre Con, Inc. (the Company), by the issuance of its industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $1,250,000 (the Bonds). As set forth in the resolution of the Authority at- tached hereto (the Resolution), the Authority has agreed to do so. The Authority has conducted a public hearing with respect to its proposed financing of the Project and has recommended that you approve the issuance of the Bonds as required by Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the Code), and that you allocate to the Bonds $1,250,000 of the private activity bond limit available to Chesterfield Coun- ty, Virginia, under Section 103(n) of the Code and Executive Order Number 50(84) of the Governor of Virginia dated July 31, 1984 (the Order). Attached hereto is (1) a certificate evidencing the conduct of the public hearing and the action taken by the Au- thority, (2) the "Fiscal Impact Statement" and (3) the form of resolution suggested by counsel to evidence your approval. Chai~ma~ o~ I~f~str~ia~ Developme~ Authority of the Cou~t~y of Chesterfield -2- Jerry L. Wauford CERTIFICATE The undersigned Secretary of the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the Authority), hereby certifies as follows: 1. A regular meeting of the Authority was duly called and held on August 28, 198~, at 3:30 o'clock p.m. in the Board Room of the Chesterfield County Airport Terminal Building, Chesterfield County, Virginia. The meeting was open to the public, and persons of differing views were given an opportuni- ty to be heard. At such meeting all of the Directors of the Authority were present or absent throughout as follows: PRESENT: William F. Seymour, III Curtis C. Duke Thomas Steger James A. Spencer Knox W. Ramsey Gary W. Fenchuk ABSENT: J. Edward Ryan 2. The Chairman announced the commencement of a public hearing on the application of Jerry L. Wauford (the Applicant) and that a notice of the hearing was published once a week for two consecutive weeks, the first publication being not more than 28 days nor less than 14 days prior to the hearing in newspapers having general circulation in Chesterfield County, Virginia (the Notice). A copy of the Notice and certificate of publication of such Notice has been filed with the records of the Authority and are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. The following individuals appeared and addressed the Authority: Stuart B. Cary, President of Ashland Realty, Inc. Jerry L. Wauford, Controller of Pre Con, Inc. A reasonably detailed summary of their statements to- gether with the fiscal impact statement required by the Indus- trial Development Revenue Bond Act are attached hereto as Ex- hibits B and C. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true, correct and complete copy of a resolution (the Resolution) adopted at such meeting of the Authority by a majority of the Directors present at such meeting, with the ayes and nays being recorded in the minutes of such meeting as follows: Director William F. Seymour, III Curtis C. Duke Thomas Steger James A. Spencer Knox W. Ramsey Gary W. Fenchuk Vote Aye Aye Aye Abstain Aye Aye The Resolution constitutes all formal action taken by the Au- thority at such meeting relating to matters referred to in the Resolution. The Resolution has not been repealed, revoked, re- scinded or amended and is in full force and effect on the date hereof. -2- WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Authority this (SEAL) Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield -3- , HIBIT A Jerry L. Wauford NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ONI PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVEL- OPMENT BOND FINANCING SYI INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT I AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD Notice Is hereby given that the In- dultrlal Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the Authority) will hold · public hear- lng on the application end plan of llnanolng of: Je~ry L. Wauforcl ,: 15801 Happy Hill Road .. Colonial Heights, VA 23834 lfor the Authority to issue, put.ant to the Vtrglnla Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act (the Act), up to $1,350,000.00 of its industrial development revs* hue bonds to assist the Applicant In acquiring, constructing and equipping a 50,000 sq. ft. manu- facturing facility (the Facility) to be leased to Pre Con, Inc. (the Company) e firm engaged in the manufacturing, converting and storage of textile products, The Company Is controlled by the Ap pllcant. The Facility will be Iocate~ on a 37 acre site at 13600-1385 Jefferson Davis Highway, Bermt de District, Chesterfield Count, Virginia. The public hearing, whl.; may be continued or ed ourne( will be held at 3:30 o'clock p.m. o August 28. 1984, before the Au thorlty, in the Board Boom of Chesterfield County Airport Term - hal Building at Chesterfie d Virgin- la. As required by the Act. the bonds will not pledge the credit or the taxing power of Chesterfield County or the Authority but will be payable solely from revenues derived from the Company and pledges therefor. Any person inter ested In the Issuance of the Bond~ or the location or purpose of the roposed project may appear end e heard. A copy of the Applicant's appllcat on may be In- spected at the Authorlty's off ce at the County office of Economic De- velopment, at 7734 Whitepine Road, Chesterfield AIrpark, Court- house, Chesterfield Virginia dur- Ing business hours. ~ . Industr el Development -. i Authority of the County : · ' of Chesterfield By: William F. Seymour, III Chairman RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. Publisher o[ THE RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH This is to certify that the attached ......... was published in The Richmond Times-Dispatch, a newspaper published in the City of Richmond, State of Virginia. The first insertion being given ....... ,':u&;. ~ ~, ] eO L Sworn to a. nd sub~c.rib~ed, before me I /~ Notary Public State of Vi~nia, City of Richmond: ~ycommissio~expires ...... (~. ~:~.-" ~?~a, Su~,, ~CCTS. ~C. TITLE Exhibit B Stuart B. Cary and Jerry L. Wauford appeared on behalf of the Applicant and the Company. They reviewed the informa- tion set forth in the application of the Applicant attached hereto. COIA'~[Y OF OqESTERFI ELD INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPME~FF AUTHORITY AF ICATIQ'.I FOR :D,,,AU 0RIZATIQ I OF. APPLI CANT: Jerry L.'Wauford ~DRESS: 15801 Happy Hill Rd., Colonial Heigh.ts, VA ·23834 CONTACT R~PRESENTATIVE: Stuart B. Cary 13600-13850 PROPOSED LOCAII~,I: Jefferson Davis HiAhwa.v, CURRENT ZON I NG: M- 1 TELEPHONE NL~ER: 798-6201 Bermuda District~ ChesEerfield County, Virginia · Is REZONING REQUIRED:. no PRESENT LOCATION: (IF MORE THAN ONE, LIST ON SEPARATE PAGE) 15801 Happy Hill Rd,~ Colonial Heights~ VA 23834 IS APPLIC.NfF OWNER OF LAND? no IF NOT, FURNISH COPY OF OPTION, OR CONTRACT, TYPE OF INDUSTRY: Manufacturing,· Converting and` storage of textile products. PRODUCTS PRODUCED: Textile WILL THIS PROJECT RESULT IN A NEW PRODUCT LINE: no IF YES, NAME PRODUCT: NLDBER OF EMPLOYEES AT NEW LOCATION (ESTIMATED): 20 TYPE_ OF BUILDING TO BE CONSTRUCTED: (DESCRIBE CONSTRUCTION, SQUARE FOOTAGE, AMOLNT' FOR EACH OPERATION SUCH AS DV~NUFACTURING, STORAGE, OFFICE, ETC. :) 50 ~ 000 sq. ft. pre-engineered meta'l building ~MOL~;T OF BONED /~JTHORIZATION REQUESTED: $ 17350,000. .ARCHITEcT/ENGINEER ~CHINERY/EQUI PMENT 12INANC. ING EXPENSE OTHER legal & c los lng AssIGNMENT OF LOAN PROCFFnS: (IF NOT KNO,'~, ESTIMATE) ~: ST~ATE POLUTION ROL EXPENDITURES SEPARATELY. * EXPLAIN ~TIMATED V~UE OF LADD A~ BUILDING FOR COUNTY REAL TATE PURPOQES ;',HFN r~¥~LETE 300,.000. 945,Q00. '10.000 lO;OOO: 60,000. 25,000. $ _1,245,000. ' .... ~DESC~PTION OF PURPOSE FOR ta~qICH ]3OND REVENUE WILL BE USED: acquisition onstructzon and eq6ipping of a ~ C ' BOND RAYING OF APPLICANT _ not applicable ~a~K REFERENCE United Virginia Bank, Richmond, _Assist in the 50,000 sq.fto manufacturin~ -. facility. BY VA CREDIT RATING excellant EXPLAIN HOW FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM INITJSTRIAL AUTHORITY WILL ENABLE APPLICANT TO LOCATE OR REMAIN IN ~qESTERFIELD 0DUNIY: will enable us to start the acquisition and construction Of' the facility, ':°B~FITS'/o BE DERIVED BY'CoUNTYi'' .'Tax base will increase and create 20 new jobs. Is AFPLICANT A SUBSIDIARY OF ANY CC~ANY: IF YES, GIVE NABS: ,~DRESS TELEPHONE NWBER: NAPE OF APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: ADDRESS: Suite 5121 38'05 Tuck_= Freaszer and Herbi~ Cutshaw A~'~ 'Richmond, VA. TELEPHONE NL~ER: 353-9491 NA~E OF BOND COUNSEL DESIRED: Hunton & Williams ADDRESS: Richmond, \iA .............................. TELEPHONE NLt~ER: 788-8200 ......... NA~ OF ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER (IF RETAINED): / RESS: .... to be determined TELEPHONE NUMBER: ~ OF CONTRACTOR (IF RETAINED): to be de'~'erm{~ed ...... TEL~E NL~ER: ...................... ['{AS APPLICANT EVER 9EFAULTED ON A LOAN: HAS APPLICANT EVER DEQ-ARE9 BANKRUPTCY: IF YES TO EITHER PRECEDING OJESTION, PLEASE EXPLAIN IN DETAIL: WHEN WAS APPLICANT FORMED? (DA~) Individual STATE IN WHICM INCORPORATED: not applicable Hod LONG HAS APPLICANT DONE BUSINESS IN VIRGINIA? '11' years OTHER REMARKS: Pre Con,.. Inc. (the Company) was incorporated in the State of Virginia on April 12~ 1973. '].~/ILL T. HE-'PRO~JECT BE.LEASED fO A~IY OTHiR ORG/{NIZATI(~N? yes NAMES OF ALL ORGANIZATIONS EXPECTED TO USE AT LEAST 10% OF THE PROJECT SPACE OR TAKE AT LEAST 10% OF THE PROJECT'S OUTPUT, The Facility will be leased to Pre Con, Inc. a Company controlled by the Applicant. PLEASE ENCLOSE A COPY OF YOUR LATEST ANNUAL REPORTj BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT FOR LAST COMPLETE YEAR OF OPERATIONS, COMPLETE EXHIBITS A AND B ATTACHED HERETO, IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED BY THE APPLICANT THAT ALL COSTS IN CONNECTION ~ITH THIS APPLICATION HILL BE PAID BY THE APPLICANTj EITHER FROM THE PROCEEDS OF INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS WHICH MIGHT BE APPROVED FOR THE PROJECT BY THE AUTHORITYj OR IN THE EVENT SUCH ASSISTANCE IS NOT APPROVED OR FORTHCOMING THE APPLICANT AGREES TO PAY ALL COSTS FROM ITS OWN RE- SOURCES, SUCH COSTSj IN ADDITION TO THE COSTS OF THE APPL]CANTj SHALL ]NCLUDE~ BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO~ THE EXPENSES OF THE ~UTHORITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE STUDY AND PROCESSING OF THIS APPLICATION~ AND THE COST FOR AN INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS~ THE COST FOR AN INDE- PENDENT LEGAL ~OUNSEL~ IF ANY~ TO PROTECT THE AUTHORITY AND COSTS OF PUBLICATION, ~N APPLICATION FEE AND DEPOSIT AGAINST LEGAL FEES, EACH 'IN THE SUM'OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00), AS WELL.A~ A...DEPOSIT AGAINST PUBLICATION COSTS OF B250 FOR A TOTAL OF $125U,u0 PAYABLE TO'THE AUTHORITY¢ MUST ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATION. HE APPLICANT HEREBY REQUESTS THAT THE CHAIRMAN OR VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE UTHORI~Y~ PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY~S RESOLUTION~ CAUSE THE PUBLICATION ~OF A NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THIS APPLICATION. /HE APPLICANT AGREES TO PAY ALL COSTS RELATING TO PUBLICATION. THE APPLICANT FURTHER REPRESENTS THAT IT UNDERSTANDS THE CONDITIONS OF THIS APPLICATION, THAT THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF APPROVAL AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS AND INFORMATION FURNISHED WITH THIS APPLICATION OR ON SUPPORTING PAPERS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO ITS BEST KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. THIS APPLICATION APPROVED BY THE ~e~'~'g. .Waufo~d' ' (AUTHORIZED AGENT) OF THE Jerry L. Wauford (OFFICIAL NAME OF APPLICANT) 15801 .Happy Hill Road ~HOSE MAILING ADDRESS IS Colonial Hei~s'~'"~'r'~'i'n'i'~'"~'~ ............ THIS .... 9th D&Y 0~-.~i i Augury ........................ 19 "~ ....... WITNESS _. ~~-~:---3 .... :" BY ~;~P%'~~~SEAL) , p  TITLE ,~ ',' '~ ADDRESS REPLY TO- MR, W, F, SEYMOUR, CHAIRMAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 609 EAST GRACE STREET, qTH FLOOR RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219 CONTRACT OF PURCHASE This CONTRACT OF PURCHASE made as of July 26, 1984 among Joe J. Fielder (herein called "Seller"), and Jerry L. Wauford (herein called "Purchaser"), and Porter Realty Co. and Ashland Realty, Inc. (herein collectively called "Brokers"), provides that Purchaser agrees to buy and Seller agrees to sell the following described real estate, and all improvements thereon, located in the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (all herein called the "property"): 37.83 acres as shown by the plat prepared by Bremner, Youngblood, Sharp, Inc. dated July 20, 1973 marked Exhibit A and made a part of the Contract. 1. The purchase price of the property is SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED THIRTY SEVEN and 19/100 DOLLARS ($7,137.19) per acre and such purchase price shall be paid all in cash at closing unless Seller shall otherwise designate. Seller reserves the right to require Purchaser to deliver at closing another property designated by Seller substantially equal in value to the property (the "exchange parcel"). Upon notice from Seller, the Purchaser shall acquire the exchange parcel and shall thereafter exchange the property for the exchange parcel. The cost of acquisition of the exchange parcel shall be borne by Seller. The parties acknowledge and agree that Purchaser shall not be required to purchase the exchange parcel if (i) title to the exchange parcel is not marketable and free and clear of all encumbrances not otherwise acceptable to Seller, and (ii) the aggregate price to be paid for the exchange parcel, together with all expenses in acquiring the exchange parcel exceeds the purchase price -1- set forth in paragraph 1 hereof. In the event of such an exchange, the parties shall convey their respective properties to the other by general warranty deed with the usual English covenants of title, subject to such matters of record as do not adversely affect the marketability of title. The parties acknowledge and agree that the purchase price is "per acre" and shall be determined based upon the acreage reported by the surveyor pursuant to the survey required by paragraph 13 of this contract. Seller reserves the right, at his sole 6ption, to terminate this contract if the acreage does not yield to Seller at least $260,000. 2. Purchaser has' made ~ deposit o~ THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($3,000.00) by check with Ashland Realty, Inc. as. agent for Seller, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, an~ such deposit shall be held in escrow until the date of settlement and then applied to the purchase price or settlement costs, or returned to Purchaser if the title to the property is not marketable. Title shall be deemed "marketable" if such title ca~ be insured by Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation at its normal and customary rates for property of this nature. 3. In the event Seller shall not designate an exchange parcel, Seller agrees to convey the property to Purchaser by general warranty deed with the usual Enqlish covenants of title and free and clear from all encumbrances, tenancies,, liens (for taxes or otherwise), except as may otherwise be provided above, but subject to applicable easements, restrictive covenants and other matters o~ record not adversely affect the marketability of the property. Seller further agrees to pay the -2- expenses of preparing the deed and of the recordation tax applicable to grantors and agrees to deliver possession of the property to Purchaser at closing. 4. Settlement shall be made at the office of McGuire, Woods & Battle, 1400 Ross Building, Richmondr Virginia 23219 on or before November 15, 1984 or at such other place as the parties may mutually agree. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. 5. AIL taxes shall be prorated as of the date of settlement. 6. All risk of loss or damage to the proper~y by fire, windstorm, casualty, or other cause is assumed by Seller until settlement. In the event of substantial loss or damage to the property before settlement, Purchaser shall have the option of either (i) terminatinq this Contract of Purchase and recovering any deposit made, or (ii) affirminq this Contract of Purchase, in which event Seller shall assign to Purchaser all of Seller's rights under any policy or policies of insurance applicable to the property. Purchaser acknowledges that the existing buildinq on the property is of no value to Purchaser and the damage or destruction of this buildinq prior to closing shall not be deemed a "substantial loss or damage to the property". 7. Purchaser represents that an inspection satisfactory to Purchaser has been made of the property, and Purchase~ agrees to accept the property in its present condition except as may be otherwise provided above. 8. This Contract of Purchase constitutes the entire agreement among the pa~ties and may not be modified or changed except by written instrument executed by all of the parties. -3- 9. This Contract of Purchase shall be construed, interpreted and applied according to the law of Virginia, and it shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, personal representatives, ~successors, and assigns to the parties. 10. This Contract of Purchase is contingent upon the Purchaser receiving an inducement resolution adopted by the Industrial Development Authority having jurisdiction over the property and approval from the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors for the Purchaser's Project (o~ which the property is a part) for the use of Industrial Development Revenue Bond financing; the proceeds of such bonds are to be used to purchase and improve the property. The Purchaser agrees to make application to the County of Chesterfield at its meetinq on August 28, 1984. 11. This Contract o~ Purchase is contingent upon Purchaser receiving financing satisfactory to Purchaser to purchase the property and construct Purchaser's proposed improvements and Purchaser shall have obtained approval o~ Purchaser's plan o~ development for the property from the appropriate governmental authorities of Chesterfield County. Purchaser agrees to use ~ts best efforts to obtain all of the necessary approvals required to permit the construction of the improvements on the property. 12. If, after Purchaser has made a good faith effort to satisfy the conditions in paragraphs 10 and 11 above, the conditions have not been met by Novembe~ 1, 1984, then this Contract of Purchase may be declared null and void by the Purchaser and the deposit of $3,000.00 shall be returned to the Purchaser. If, however, Purchaser has not notified Seller of his failure to satisfy any of the conditions in -4- paragraphs 10 and i1 prior to November 1, 1984, the conditions shall be deemed satisfied and Purchaser and Seller shall proceed to closing on or before November 15, 1984. 13. The acreage quantities called for in the Contract of Purchase are subject to a certified survey acceptable to Seller to be prepared by a licensed engineer or certified land surveyor at Purchaser's expense. The certified plat will be attached to the deed, provided that Seller's title insurance company agrees to insure the new description base~ on the new survey for the benefit of Seller. 14. Purchaser has the right to assign his interest in the Contract of Purchase, p~ovided Purchaser has first given to Seller written notice of such assignment. 15. Purchaser agrees to pay a sales commission as set forth below. Payment to be made as follows at closing: a. To Ashland Realty, Inc. - $10,800.00 b. To Po~ter Realty Company - $10,800.00 Brokers, by their signatures hereto, agree to accept the sales commission set forth herein subject to the terms hereof. 16. Purchaser and Seller each represent to the other that they have not retained any other real estate brokers and that they will each indemnify and hold the other harmless from the claim of any other brokers claiming by or through each of them. -5- WITNESS the following duly authorized signatures and seals: Jerry L. Wauford ~ P~rch~Ser ~ (SEAL) Joe J. Fielder Seller ( SEAL ) Ashland Re a lt/F~c. StUart B. Cary Title: President Porter Realty Co. oDert E. Porter, sr. ,t EX~{IBIT A EXHIBIT C FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT Au~. 9, 198/= Da~e Jerry L, Wauford .Applicant 50,000 sq. ft. Facility 13600-13850 Jefferson Davis Hishway Facility 0 Se Maximum amount of financing sought Estimated taxable value of the facility's real property to be constructed in the .municipality Estimated real property tax Der year using present tax rates ' Estimated personal property tax Der year using, present tax rates ' Estimated merchants' capital tax per year using present tax rates Estimated dollar value per year Of goods and services that will be purchased locally Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis Average annual salary per employee /s/ Willi~~7~ Authorit.y~a~'rman Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield, VA. Name of Authority $ 1,250,000. $ 1.245.000' $ 13,720. $ 5,000.- $ N/A $ 180,000. $ 20 $ 15,000. EXHIBIT Jerry L. Wauford RESOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD WHEREAS, there have been described to the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the Au- thority), the plans of Jerry L. Wauford (the Applicant) to ac- quire, construct and equip a 50,000 square feet manufacturing facility (the Project) to be leased to Pre Con. Inc. (the Com- pany) for the manufacture, conversion and storage of textile products in Chesterfield County, Virginia (the County); and WHEREAS, the Applicant in his appearance before the Au- thority and in his application has described the benefits to the County and has requested the Authority to agree to issue its industrial development revenue bonds under the Virginia Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act (the Act) in such amounts as may be necessary to finance costs to be incurred in acquiring, constructing and equipping the Project; and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held as required by Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the Code); BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD: 1. It is hereby found and determined that the acquisi- tion, construction and equipping of the Project for the Appli- cant in the County will bring additional revenues and employ- ment into the County and will promote the industrial development and economy of the County, benefit its inhabitants, increase their commerce and promote their safety, health, wel- fare, convenience and prosperity. 2. To induce the Applicant to locate the Facility in the County, the Authority hereby agrees to assist the Applicant to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project bY undertaking the issuance of its industrial develop- ment revenue bonds therefor in an amount not to exceed $1,250,000 upon terms and conditions to be mutually agreed upon between the Authority and the Applicant, provided that no more than $100,000 for the purchase of land shall be included. The Project shall be leased or sold by the Authority to the Appli- cant pursuant to a lease or installment sale agreement which will provide payments to the Authority sufficient to pay the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the bonds and to pay all other expenses in connection with the maintenance of the Project. The bonds shall be issued in form and pursuant to terms to be set by the Authority, and the payment of the bonds shall be secured by an assignment, for the benefit of the hold- ers thereof, of the Authority's rights to payments under the lease or installment sale agreement and may be additionally se- cured by a mortgage of the Project. -2- 3. It having been represented to the Authority that it is necessary to proceed immediately with the acquisition, con- struction and equipping of the Project, the Authority hereby agrees that the Applicant may proceed with plans for the Proj- ect, enter into contracts for acquisition, construction and equipping and take such other steps as it may deem appropriate in connection therewith, provided that nothing herein shall be deemed to authorize the Applicant to obligate the Authority without its consent in each instance to the payment of any mon- eys or the performance of any acts in connection with the Proj- ect. The Authority agrees that the Applicant may be reimbursed from the proceeds of the bonds for all costs so incurred by it. The Authority also agrees, if requested, to issue its notes to obtain interim financing for the Project on terms to be mutual- ly agreed upon, such notes to be guaranteed or otherwise se- cured by the Applicant as required by the lender and the Au- thority. 4. The Authority shall accept from or on behalf of the Applicant conveyance of such land in the County which will con- stitute part of the Project. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to accept and have recorded a proper deed or deeds in connection with such conveyance. If for any reason the bonds are not issued, it is understood that the Authority shall convey such property to the Applicant or to -3- such other person as the Applicant may request, without cost other than the expense of preparation and recordation of such deed or deeds of conveyance. 5. The Authority hereby agrees to the recommendation of the Applicant that Messrs. Hunton & Williams, Richmond, Vir- ginia, be appointed as bond counsel and hereby appoints such firm to supervise the proceedings and approve the issuance of the bonds. 6. All costs and expenses in connection with the fi- nancing and the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project, including the fees and expenses of bond counsel, coun- sel for the Authority and the agent or underwriter for the sale of the bonds, shall be paid from the proceeds of the bonds. If for any reason such bonds are not issued, it is understood that all such expenses shall be paid by the Applicant and that the Authority shall have no responsibility therefor. 7. In adopting this resolution the Authority intends to take "official action" toward the issuance of the bonds within the meaning of regulations issued by the Internal Reve- nue Code of 1954, as amended. 8. The Authority shall perform such other acts and adopt such further resolutions as may be required to implement its undertakings as hereinabove set forth, and if requested by the Applicant, it will make application to the Internal Revenue -4- Service for such tax rulings as may be necessary in the opinion of bond counsel. To that end, the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Authority is authorized to execute an appropriate power of attorney naming counsel selected by the Applicant for such pur- poses. 9. Unless this resolution is extended by the Authori- ty, the bonds authorized hereunder shall be issued within two (2) years from the date hereof. 10. The Authority hereby recommends that the Board of Supervisors of the County approve the issuance of the Bonds. 11. The Authority reserves the right to recommend the allocation or to allocate (if such power is delegated to the Authority) amounts available under any "private activity bond limit," as provided by Section 103(n) of the Code, to projects other than the Project. 12. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. -5- Jerry L. Wauford CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION 1. A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield (the Board) was held on September __, 1984, at which meeting the following duly elected members were present or absent: PRESENT: ABSENT: Such members constituted all of the members of the Board on the date of such meeting. 2. Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at such meeting by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: 3. The resolution referred to above has not been re- pealed, revoked, rescinded or amended but is in full force and effect on this date and constitutes the only resolution adopted by the Board relating to the issuance by the Authority of its industrial development revenue bonds for the benefit of Jerry L. Wauford. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Board of Supervi- sors of the County of Chesterfield, this day of , 198~. (SEAL) Clerk, Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield -2- CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE:.ii September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9 .H. SUBJECT: Acceptance of Bid for Powhite Bond Anticipation Notes COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Attached is a copy of the Official Statement for the $22,000,000 bond anticipation notes authorized by the Board in July for the Powhite Project. Bids are scheduled to be received in the State Treasurer's office at 11:00 A.M. on Wednesday, September 26, 1984. County staff will be present for the opening of bids. The bids will be analyzed and called to staff here at the Courthouse at which time the Board will be asked to accept the low bid. Also attached is the resolution which must be adopted in accepting the bid. ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO [] Lane B. Ramsey, ~rector Budget & Accounting SIGNATURE:_ COUNTY ADMI NI STRATOR A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL FOR THE PURCHASE OF $22,000,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES, SERIES OF 1984, OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA; FIXING THE INTEREST RATE TO BE BORNE BY SUCH NOTES AND OTHERWISE APPROVING THE DETAILS OF SUCH NOTES; APPROVING THE FORM OF SUCH NOTES; APPROVING THE FORM OF AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND THE DISTRIBUTION THEREOF; RATIFYING CERTAIN ACTS AND PROCEEDINGS; AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH NOTES BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY: SECTION 1. Findings and Determinations. Pursuant to a resolution adopted by this Board on August 8, 1984, entitled "A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF $22,000,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COST OF HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXTENSION OF THE POWHITE PARKWAY AND IMPROVEMENTS TO CONNECTING PORTIONS OF ROUTE 288; AND AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF A LIKE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES IN ANTICIPATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF SUCH BONDS", a Notice of Sale (the "Notice of Sale") of $22,000,000 principal amount of General Obligation Bond Anticipation Notes, Series of 1984 (the "Notes"), was duly published on September 14, 1984 in The Bond Buyer, a financial newspaper published in the City of New York, New York. The Notice of Sale provided that sealed proposals for the purchase of the Notes would be received by or on behalf of Chesterfield County, Virginia (the "County"), at the office of the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Virginia, James Monroe Building, 101 North 14th Street, 3rd Floor, Richmond, Virginia 23219, until 11:00 A.M., local time, on September 26, 1984, at which time and place all proposals would be publicly opened. Pursuant to the Notice of Sale, proposals for the purchase of the Notes were received, each accompanied by a certified or bank treasurer's or cashier's good faith check payable to the order of Chesterfield County in the amount of $440,000. The names of the bidders submitting each such proposal, the purchase price for the Notes specified in each such proposal- and the "True" or "Canadian" interest cost to the County resulting from each such proposal are as follows: Name of Bidder Purchase Price Specified Interest Cost After due consideration of all such proposals, this Board finds that (a) (the "Purchaser") is a responsible bidder, (b) of the pro- posals received, the proposal of the Purchaser (the "Proposal") is the proposal to purchase the Notes at the lowest "True" or "Canadian" interest cost to the County, computed by doubling the semiannual interest rate (com- pounded semiannually) necessary to discount the debt service payments from their respective payment dates to the date of the Notes and to the price bid, not including interest accrued, if any, to the date of delivery, and (c) the Proposal is the highest and best proposal received, is in accordance with the provisions of the Notice of Sale, and should be accepted. SECTION 2. Acceptance of Proposal. The Proposal, being a proposal to purchase the Notes at the price of ($ ) plus accrued interest from the date of the Notes to the date of delivery thereof to and payment therefor by the Purchaser, with the Notes to bear interest at the rate per annum specified in Section 4 hereof, is hereby accepted and the Notes are hereby awarded to the Purchaser. SECTION 3. Good Faith Checks. The good faith checks of the unsuccessful bidders shall be returned forth- with. The good faith check of the Purchaser will be deposited by the County and the proceeds thereof credited against the purchase price due for the Notes upon their delivery or retained as and for liquidated damages in the event the Purchaser fails to take up and pay for the Notes in accordance with the Proposal. SECTION 4. Details of the Notes. The Notes shall be dated as of October 9, 1984; shall be in fully registered form; shall be in the denomination of $5,000 each or any -3- integral multiple thereof; shall bear interest from their date at the rate of per centum ( %) per annum, payable on April 1, 1985 and semiannually on each October 1 and April 1 thereafter; and shall mature and become due and payable on October 1, 1986. at its principal office in the City of Richmond, Virginia, is hereby appointed Registrar for the Notes (the "Registrar"). The principal of, and~premium, if any, on the Notes shall be payable at the principal office of the Registrar. Interest on the Notes shall be payable by check or draft mailed by the Registrar to the registered owners of the Notes (hereinafter the "Registered Owner or Owners") at their respective addresses as such addresses appear on the books of registry kept by the Registrar as of the fifteenth day of the calendar month next preceding each interest payment date. The Notes shall not be subject to redemption prior to October 1, 1~85. The Notes shall be subject to redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated maturity at any time on or after October 1, 1985, in whole at any time, or in part from time to time on any interest payment date, upon payment of the principal amount of the Notes or the principal amount thereof to be redeemed, together with the interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for redemption, plus a premium of 1/2 of 1% of the principal amount of the Notes or the principal amount thereof to be redeemed if the same are redeemed on or after October 1, 1985 and prior to April 1, 1986. The Notes are subject to redemption at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof on or after April 1, 1986. In the event less than all of the Notes are called for redemption, the particular Notes or portions thereof in installments of $5,000 to be redeemed shall be selected by the Registrar by lot. If any Note or any portion of the principal amount thereof shall be called for redemption, notice of the redemption thereof, specifying the date and number of such Note, the date and place or places fixed for its redemption, the premium, if any, payable upon such redemption, and if less than the entire principal amount of such Note is to be redeemed, that such Note must be surrendered in exchange for the principal amount thereof to be redeemed and the issuance of a new Note equalling in principal amount that portion of the principal amount thereof not redeemed, shall be mailed not less than th-irty (30) days prior to the date fixed for redemption by registered or certified mail to the Registered Owner of such Note at his address as it appears on the books of registry maintained by the Registrar. When notice of redemption of a Note (or the portion thereof to be redeemed) shall have been given as aforesaid, and payment of the -4- principal amount of such Note (or the portion of the principal amount thereof to be redeemed) and of the accrued interest and premium, if any, payable upon such redemption shall have been duly made or provided for, interest thereon shall cease from and after the date so specified for the redemption thereof. Upon payment of the costs of any transfer taxes or other governmental charges relating thereto, if any, any Note may be exchanged at the principal office of the Registrar for a like aggregate principal amount of Notes of other authorized principal amounts and of the series of which such Note is one. Any Note is transferable by the Registered Owner thereof, in person or by his attorney duly authorized in writing, at the principal office of the Registrar but only upon payment of the costs of any transfer taxes or other govermental charges relating thereto, if any, and upon the surrender thereof for cancellation. Upon such transfer a new Note or Notes of authorized denominations and of the same aggregate principal amount of the series of such Note is one will be issued to the transferee in exchange therefor. The Note shall be executed, for and on behalf of the County, by the facsimile signature of the Chairman of this Board, and shall have a facsimile of the corporate seal of this Board imprinted thereon, attested by the facsimile signature of the Clerk of this Board. The County Administrator shall direct the Registrar to authenticate such Notes and no such Note shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose unless and until the certificate of authentication endorsed on each Note shall have been manually executed by an authorized officer of the Registrar. Upon the authentication of any Note the Registrar shall insert in the certificate of authentication the date as of which such Note is authenticated, such date to be the date upon which such Note is actually authenticated if the date of such actual authentication is an interest payment date or to be the interest payment date next preceding the date upon which the Note is actually authenticated if such Note is not actually authenticated upon an interest payment date or to be the date of the Notes if such Note is actually authenticated prior to the first date upon which interest is payable upon the Notes. The execution and authentication of the Notes in the manner above set forth is adopted as a due and sufficient authentication of the Notes. A CUSIP identification number may be printed on the Notes, but no such number shall constitute a part of any Note or a part of the contract evidenced by the particular Notes upon which it is printed and no liability shall attach to the County or any officer or agent thereof (including the Registrar or any paying agent for the Notes) because of or on account of any such number or any use made thereof (including any use thereof made by the County, any such officer or any such Registrar or agent) or by reason of any inaccuracy, error or omission with respect thereto or in such use. All expenses in relation to the printing of such numbers on the Notes shall be paid by the County; provided, however, the CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of such numbers shall be the responsibility of and shall be paid for by the purchaser of the Notes. SECTION 5. Form of Notes. The Notes shall be in substantially the form set forth below: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COMMO~4EALTH OF VIRGINIA CHESTERFIELD COUNTY GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ANTICIPATION NOTE SERIES OF 1984 REGISTERED CUSIP NO. REGISTERED No. R- REGISTERED OWNER: PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: Chesterfield County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, for value received, hereby promises to pay to the registered owner of this Note shown above (the "Registered Owner"), or registered assigns, on October 1, 1986, the principal amount shown above (unless this Note shall have been duly called for previous redemption and payment of the redemption price shall have been made or provided for), upon presentation and surrender of this Note at the principal office of in the City of Richmond, Virginia (hereinafter referred to as the "Registrar") and to pay interest on such principal amount from the date of authentication hereof at the rate of per centum ( %) per annum, such interest being payable on April 1, 1985 and semiannually on each October 1 and April 1 thereafter until the Payment of such principal amount, by check or draft mailed by the Registrar to the person in whose name this Note is registered on the books of registry kept and maintained by the Registrar as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the calendar month next preceding each interest payment date. Both principal of and interest on this Note are payable in such coin or currency of the United States of America as at the respective dates of payment is legal tender for public and private debts. This Note is one of a duly authorized issue of Notes (herein referred to as the "Notes") of the aggregate principal amount of Twenty-Two Million Dollars ($22,000,000) of like date, denomination and tenor herewith, except for number, and is issued for the purpose of financing the costs of a public improvement project of and for the County, under and pursuant to and in full compliance with the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including Chapter 5 of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia 1950, as amended (the same being the Public Finance Act), an election duly held in the County under such Chapter 5 on June 12, 1984 and resolutions duly adopted on August 8, 1984 and September 26, 1984, by the Board of Supervisors of the County under such Chapter 5. The full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged to the payment of the principal of and interest on this Note as the same become due. The Notes of the series of which this Note is one are subject to redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated maturity at any time on or after October 1, 1985, in whole at any time, or in part from time to time on any interest payment date, upon payment of the principal amount of the Notes or the principal amount thereof to be redeemed, together with the interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for redemption, plus a premium of 1/2 of 1% of the principal amount of the Notes or the principal amount thereof to be redeemed if the same are redeemed on or after October 1, 1985 and prior to April 1, 1986. The Notes are subject to redemption at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof on or after April 1, 1986. In the event less than all of the Notes are called for redemption, the particular Notes or portions thereof in installments of $5,000 to be redeemed shall be selected by the Registrar by lot. If this Note or any portion of the principal amount hereof shall be called for redemption, notice of the redemption hereof, specifying the date and number of this Note, the date and place or places fixed for its redemption, the premium, if any, payable upon such redemption, and if less than the entire principal amount of this Note is to be redeemed, that this Note must be surrendered in exchange for the principal amount hereof to be redeemed and the issuance of a new Note equalling in principal amount that portion of the principal amount hereof not redeemed, shall be mailed not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for redemption by registered or certified mail to the Registered Owner of this Note at his address as it appears on the books of registry maintained by the Registrar. When notice of redemption of this Note (or the portion hereof to be redeemed) shall have been given as aforesaid, and payment of the principal amount of this Note (or the portion of the principal amount hereof to be redeemed) and of the accrued interest and premium, if any, payable upon such redemption shall have been duly made or provided for, interest hereon shall cease from and after the date so specified for the redemption hereof. Subject to the limitations and upon payment of the charges, if any, provided in the proceedings authorizing the Notes of the series of wh£ch this Note is one, this Note may be exchanged at the principal office of the Registrar for a like aggregate principal amount of Notes of other authorized principal amounts and of the series of which this Note is one. This Note is transferable by the Registered Owner hereof, in person or by his attorney duly authorized in writing, at the principal office of the Registrar but only in the manner, subject to the limitations and upon payment of the charges, if any, provided in the proceedings authorizing the Notes of the series of which this Note is one, and upon the surrender hereof for cancellation. Upon such transfer a new Note or Notes of authorized denominations and of the same aggregate principal amount of the series of which this Note is one will be issued to the transferee in exchange herefor. This Note shall not be valid or obligatory unless the certificate of authentication hereon shall have been manually signed by an authorized officer of the Registrar. It is hereby certified, recited and declared that all acts, conditions and things required to have happened, to exist and to have been performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Note and the issue of which it is a part do exist, have happened and have been performed in regular and due time, form and manner as required by law, and that the Notes of the issue of which this Note is a part do not exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation of indebtedness. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County, by its Board of Supervisors, has caused this Note to be executed by the facsimile signature of the Chairman of such Board; a facsimile of the corporate seal of such Board to be imprinted hereon, attested by the facsimile signature of the Clerk of such Board; and this Note to be dated as of October 9, 1984. [SEAL] Attest: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Chairman of the Board of Supervisors CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This Note is one of the Notes delivered pursuant to the within-mentioned proceedings. , Registrar By: Authorized Officer Dated: ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto the within-mentioned Note of Chesterfield County, Virginia, and hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints , Agent, to transfer the same on the books of registry in the office of the Registrar, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Registered Owner Witness: Signature Guarantee: NOTE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as written on the face of the within Note in every particular, without alteration, enlargement or any change whatsoever. SECTION 6. Execution and Delivery of the Notes. The Chairman and Clerk of this Board, the County Administrator, the County Treasurer and other appropriate officers, employees and agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to take all such action and to execute such instruments as shall be deemed by them to be necessary or appropriate to effect the printing, execution and issuance of the Notes and the delivery of the Notes to the Purchaser in accordance with the terms of the Proposal, the Notice of Sale, the resolution referred to in Section 1 hereof and this resolution upon receipt of the purchase price therefor as set forth in Section 3 hereof, and for the proper application and use of the proceeds of such sale. SECTION 7. Preliminary Official Statement; Official Statement; Certification Concerning Official Statement. The Chairman of this Board and County Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver to the Purchaser copies of an Official Statement of the County relating to the Notes, in substantially the form of the Preliminary Official Statement of the County relating to the Notes, dated September 14, 1984 (the '"Preliminary Official Statement"), presented at this meeting, after the same has been completed by the insertion of the interest rate to be borne by the Notes and by making such other insertions, changes or corrections as the County Administrator, based on the advice of the County's financial advisors and legal counsel, deems necessary or appropriate; and this Board hereby authorizes such Official Statement and the information contained therein to be used by the Purchaser in connection with the sale of the Notes. The County Administrator and the Director of Budget and Accounting of the County are hereby authorized and directed to execute on behalf of the County and deliver to the Purchaser the certificate referred to in the Official Statement under the caption "Certificate Concerning Official Statement". SECTION 8. Ratification. The action of the County Administrator in causing the Notice of Sale to be published as described in Section 1 hereof, and in causing the Notice of Sale, a Proposal for Purchase of $22,000,000 General Obligation Bond Anticipation Notes, Series of 1984, and the Preliminary Official Statement to be distributed, and the form and contents of the Notice of Sale, such Proposal and the Preliminary Official Statement, and all actions and proceedings heretofore taken by this Board, the County Administrator and the other officers, employees, agents and attorneys of the County in connection with the authorization, issuance and sale of the Notes, are hereby ratified, confirmed and approved. SECTION 9. Filing of This Resolution. The County Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to file a copy of this resolution, certified by the Clerk of this Board to be a true and correct copy hereof, with the Circuit Court of the County. SECTION 10. Invalidity of Sections, Paragraphs, Clauses or Provisions. If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this resolution shall be held invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining portions of this resolution. SECTION 11. Headings of Sections. The headings of the sections of this resolution shall be solely for convenience of reference and shall not affect the meaning, construction, interpretation or effect of such sections or of this resolution. SECTION 12. Effective Date. shall take effect upon its adoption. This resolution CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AG E NDA L_ MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 Water and Sewer Financial ITEM NUMBER:, Reports. 9 .I.l.a. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: See attached reports. PREPARED BY: ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO [] SIGNATURE:_ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR r-q *-.q 0 0 0 ~D 0 0 0 (D ~oooo~o~o~ ~oooc ~O000~~O~ ~0000~~ ~000~~~ 0 ~ ~ I I I I I ~ I ~ 00 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~,~ ~ O~ 0 ~ 00000 00~000~0~ ~000~0~00 ~0000~0~00000~000000000000000000 ~000000~000000~0000000000000~0000 ~0000~0~00000~0~000~000~00~00~0 ~0000~0~00~00~~00~0~0~0~0 000 ~ 00~000000000 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ C::~'~ 000000000 000~0000~00~00~~ I ~00~0000000~ 00~ 00~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~m~ I I I I I I I I I i I Z 0 ooo~oooo~oo~oo~~~oo~ooooooo~ 0 ~0 0 o o +1 o o o o 0 0 -IJ ~> 0 0 0 0 .,-.I 0 0 0 .,-.I o 0 O 0 ~0~0~000~0~000 ~0~000~0~000 00~ ~ ggJo ~ ~000 ~ ~0 0 ~ gg,J, g ooo~o ~ ooooo ~ o0oo0 ~ ggggg ~ 00000 ~ 000~0 ~ 0~0 0 ~ 000000000000~000 00~000000000~000 ggYgggggggggJggg 00~00000000~000 0~000000~00~00 0 0 h 0 ,-t CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9.I.l.b. Report of Water and Sewer Contracts by Developers. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The following water and sewer contracts were executed by the County Administrator: W84-120D/6(8)4203 Treemont - Section "C" Developer: M.C.W.C. Developers, Inc. Contractor: T & E Construction Company, Inc. Number of Connections: 74 W84-140D/6(8)4403 Sachem's Head - Phase 1 Developer: Mid-Atlantic Financial Group, Inc. Contractor: P. E. Eubank & Company and Castle Equipment Corp., subcontractor Number of Connections: 53 W84-144D/6(8)4443 Salisbury - Galloway Place Developer: G. and H., Inc. Contractor: Fred Barnes Construction Company Number of Connections: 28 Dale $55,281.00 Clover Hill $32,149.00 Midlothian $28,885.25 ATTACHMENTS: YES 0 NO SIGNATURE: CO0~NtY ADMINISTRATOR September 26, 1984 Page 2 0 W84-138D/6(8)4383 Somerset - Section 3 Developer: Somerset Corporation Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Inc. Number of Connections: 17 S84-138D/7(8)4383 Hillenwood Subdivision Developer. M. Dean Whittington Contractor: Shoosmith Bros. Inc. & William M. Harman Contractors, subcontractor Number of Connections: 33 S84-141D/7(8)4413 Meadowdale Square Office Building - Phase II Developer: Meadowdale Square Associates Contractor: G. L. Howard, Inc. Number of Connections: 1 S84-136D/7(8)4363 Woodlake Aquatic Center Developer: Investors Woodlake Development Corp. Contractor: R.M.C. Contractors, Inc. Number of Connections: 4 S84-142D/7(8)4423 Plum Creek - Section 1 Developer: S & B Development Corporation Contractor: R.M.C. Contractors, Inc. Number of Connections: 58 S84-135D/7(8)4353 Boulders Office Building #1 Developer: Sigma CJ Associates & Petula Associates, Ltd. Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Inc. Number of Connections: 1 Matoaca $20,277.00 Dale $32,885.73 Dale $6,970.00 Clover Hill $5,672.50 Clover Hill $50,452.00 Midlothian $7,677.80 CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA REPORTS MEETING DATE: REPORT ON: Sept. 26, 1984 9.I.l.c. Testing of Individual Wells and the Source of Contamination ATTACHMENTS: YES. E) NO ri SIGNATURE: __ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY CHESTERFIELD , VIRGINIA 2:5832 MEMO TO FROM DATE SUBJECT The Honorable Members, Board of Supervisors Richard L. Hedrick, County Administrator David H. Welchons, Director of Utilities /~~.~ September 18, 1984 Testing of Individual Wells and the Source of Contamination At the Board meeting on September 12, 1984, several members inquired about the test used for determining if a well is contaminated and the probable cause of the contamination. The standard procedure for the determination of contamination in water supplies is to test for the presence of coliform bacteria. Although this bacteria in itself is not harmful, it is used as an indicator for the presence of harmful bacteria. A positive test result is a good indication that the well may have been contaminated by surface washings or fecal material. A positive test can also result from improper collection of the sample. The Health Department reports that the majority of the contaminated wells are the results of surface water contamination, temporary contamination resulting from removing the well top to work on the pumps and/or plumbing and small animals entering the wells. Wells can become contaminated because of not being grouted, improperly grouted, cracks and holes in the well casing, broken tops and casings that do not extend at least 12 inches above the ground surface. The Health Department further reports that less than 1% of the contaminated water samples in the County are caused by actual groundwater contamination; therefore, the contamination problem in 99+% of the cases can be corrected by actions of the property owner such as disinfecting the well, repairing existing well, or by digging a new well. Board of Supervisors Mr. Hedrick Page 2 September 18, 1984 On November 1, 1982, regulations were approved changing the responsibility of inspecting wells from the Building Official to the Health Department, increasing the depth of grouting from 10 feet to 20 feet, and required the submittal of a GW-2 form. The GW-2 form shows the depth of the well, depth of the casing, depth of the grouting, and the yield of the well. These changes should reduce well contamination problems and provide a more reliable water supply. DHW/rmm CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA REPORTS MEETING DATE: . September 26, 19 84 9.I.l.d. REPORT ON: Policy to Route Ail Requests for Water and/or Sewer for Existing Homes through Capital Improvements Program. ATTACHMENTS: YES ~k NO E] SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMI NI~;TRATOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HARRY G. DANIEL, CHAIRMAN DALE DISTRICT G. H. APPLEGATE,VICE CHAIRMAN CLOVER HILL DISTRICT R. GARLAND DOOD BERMUDA DISTRICT dOAN GIRONE MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT dES,SE d. MAYES M&TOACA DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY P.O. BOX 40 CHESTERFIELD,VIRGINIA 25852 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RICHARD L. HEDRICK MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: The Honorable Members, Board of Supervisors R. L. Hedrick, County Administrator ey B. Muzzy, Assistant County Administrator for Development September 18, 1984 Consideration of Establishing a Policy to Route All Requests for Water and/or Sewer for Existing Homes through the Capital Improvements Program The Utilities Department has received an unusual number of requests for water and sewer service to existing homes during the past 14 months. Since July 1, 1983, projects have been approved totalling $964,143 to extend water service and $1,161,655 to extend sewer service. The Board Agenda for September 26, 1984 contains requests amounting to $112,100 for water extensions and $281,000 for sewer extensions. In order for staff to manage the Utilities Department's funds, it is necessary to establish a procedure to handle requests for water and sewer service. By considering all requests through the Capital Improvements Program rather than incrementally, both the staff and the Board of Supervisors will be aware of the financial impacts on the system and resultant necessary increase in rates to finance these projects. In conjunction with this approach, staff will recommend criteria for prioritizing these projects. We recognize that there will always be some emergency and unauthorized projects which will require immediate action. These projects must, however, be kept to a minimum if the financial integrity of the Utilities system is to be preserved. Staff will be meeting with the Board in the near future to review the total County CIP, of which the Utilities CIP is included. We will discuss this matter further with you then. pb CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9.I.3.a. SUBJECT: Consideration of Addendum to the Agreement, dated August 19, 1969, between the County and the City of Colonial Heights providing sewer service for the Route 1 area. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Agreement for sewer service to the Rt. 1 area at Swift Creek, dated August 19, 1969, provided that the County own, operate, and maintain the sewer lines within the County and within the City of Colonial Heights that are necessary to provide sewer service to this area. The Utilities Department requested the City of Colonial Heights to consider the transfer of ownership of a portion of the system to the City. City Council has approved the Addendum to effect this transfer. Approval of this Addendum will accomplish the following: Colonial Heights will be maintaining a line to which they have connections. m Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation (VDH&T) will be responsible for 95% of the necessary relocation costs in conjunction with the Swift Creek Bridge Project. County will reimburse the City for the actual costs not borne by VDH&T as part of the project and incurred by the City for relocation of a portion of the system facilities in PREPARED BY: . L ' i ~ ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO E3 SIGNATURE: ~ADMINISTRATOR September 26, 1984 Page 2 conjunction with construction of the Swift Creek Bridge Project, up to 5% of the actual total cost of any such relocation of the system facilities located within the City and up to 100% of the actual~ total cost of any such relocation of the system facilities located in the County. The Addendum has been reviewed by the Utilities Department and the County Attorney, and staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Administrator to execute this Addendum on behalf of the County. Recommend Approval CHESTERF! ELD COUNTY BOARD OF' SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9 .I.3.b. Consideration of a Petition from Residents of Sambar Road for Public Water Service, W84-146C/6(8)4464. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Utilities Department has received a petition from residents of Sambar Road requesting public water service. The Health Department surveyed three (3) wells and two (2) are contaminated. Four (4) houses will be served by this extension. The estimated cost of the extension is $6,000. Staff recommends that contracts be sent to the residents of the area to determine the number of residents that would connect to public water if it were made available. If three (3) of the residents agree to connect to public water, staff further recommends that the Board authorize design and construction of the project and that $6,000 be appropriated from 563 surplus to 380-1-64464-4393. District: Matoaca Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO ~ SIGNATURE: ,~/ I~ / COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR · CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AG E NDA MEETING DATE :, SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9 .I.3.c. Consideration of a Petition from Residents of Irvenway Lane for Public Water Service. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION The Utilities Department has received a petition from residents of Irvenway Lane requesting public water service. This extension will serve eight (8) houses. The Health Department surveyed six (6) wells and all are contaminated. Staff recommends that the Utilities Department be authorized to forward contracts to the residents in the area to determine the number of residents that would connect to public water if it were made available. District: Bermuda Recommend Approval ATTACH MENTS: YES / NO ~ SIGNATURE' COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR /- CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9.I.3.d. Consideration of a Request from Residents of Myron Avenue for Public Water Service. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Utilities Department has received a request for public water service from residents of Myron Avenue. There are eight (8) houses that could be served by this extension. The Health Department surveyed six (6) wells and four (4) are contaminated. Staff recommends that the Utilities Department be authorized to mail contracts to the residents of the area to determine the number of residents that would connect to public water if it were made available. District: Bermuda Recommend Approval ATTACH MENTS: YES / NO ~ CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE* SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9.I.3.e.. Reconsideration of a Request to Extend Public Water on Parkway Lane COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Utilities Department received a petition from four (4) of the nine (9) residents on Parkway Lane requesting public water service. The Health Department tested the petitioners wells and one showed contamination. On June 13, 1984, this matter was presented to the Board and was deferred for 30 days. This matter was again considered at the Board Meeting on July 11, 1984, at which time the matter was deferred until more interest is shown. Mr. Applegate has been in contact with the residents and advises that six (6) of the (9) residents have now agreed to connect to public water. The estimated cost of the extension is $18,600. The existing houses are all on one side of Parkway Lane while the property on the other side is vacant. A local surveyor recently contacted the Utilities Department inquiring about the availability of public water to the vacant property. ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO [] COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Page 2 September 26, 1984 Staff recommends that no action be taken on this request at this time since only one well showed contamination and since it is likely that the extension will be made by the developer of the vacant property. However, if the Board wishes to proceed with the project, the Utilities Department should be authorized to design and construct the extension provided six (6) of the nine (9) residents sign contracts agreeing to connect to the public system. Appropriate $20,500 ($18,600 plus 10% contingencies) from 563 Surplus. District: Clover Hill ~ . CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9.I.3.f. Report on the Results of the Survey for Sewer Service in the Jimmy Winters Road area. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At the Board of Supervisors meeting on August 22, 1984, the Utilities Department was authorized to design and construct the sewers to serve the Jimmy Winters Road area residents provided at least 70% of the homeowners signed contracts to connect to the public sewer and requested the Utilities Department to advise the Board of the actual percentage received. Contracts were mailed to the 19 residents and we received signed contracts from 13 for a 68.42% response. If we had received 14 contracts, the percentage would have been 73.68%. Staff recommends that the Utilities Department be authorized to proceed with the project based on the 68.42% response since the Health Departmen~ report indicated the area has limited soils suitable for septic tank use and because of the age of the septic tank systems. District: Midlothian Recommend ApprOval ATTACHMENTS: YES r-! NO J~ SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ,Y CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER:, 9.I.3.g. Consideration of a Request from residents in the North Lake Hills area for public sewer service. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Utilities Department has received a Petition from 10 of the 46 residents of the North Lake Hills area requesting public sewer service. The Health Department surveyed 35 of the existing 46 residents and eight (8) of the residents have experienced some problems with their septic tank systems. Of these eight (8), only four (4) experienced problems beyond normal preventative maintenance pumping. The estimated cost of providing sewer service to the existing 46 residents is estimated to be approximately $250,000, which includes an allowance of $50,000 for rock excavation. The per unit cost is estimated to be $5,434. Staff recommends that no action be taken on the request at this time because of the high per unit cost and because of the small number of residents experiencing septic system problems. District: Dale Recommend Denial PREPARED BY:, ATTACHMENTS: YES El NO [] ,GO 65 4G *ix" ,/ CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER; 9.I.3.h. Report on the Results of the Sewer Survey in Englewood. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION At the Board meeting on July 25, 1984, the Utilities Department was authorized to survey a portion of Englewood to determine the number of residents that would apply for sewer service. The survey has been completed and only three (3) of the fourteen (14) residents (21%) signed contracts agreeing to connect if sewer service is provided. Recommendation: Staff recommends that public sewer not be extended at this time and that the contracts be marked Void and returned because of poor response from the residents. District: Midlothian PREPARED BY: ~_. ./ ~ . ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO [] SIGNATURE: ~COUNTY ADM I NI STRATOR CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE' September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9.I.4.a. SUBJECT: Authorization to proceed with condemnation of a water line easement across the property of Robert E. Burks and Blanche May Burks at 533 South Courthouse Road, on emergency basis. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION In order to install the water main from Briarcliff Subdivision to Smoketree Subdivision, an easement is required across the Burks property. This project is a continuation of a 16" transmission line from Briarcliff Subdivision to connect with the existing 16" water line at Smoketree Drive and Courthouse Road. The completion of this water line will give the County another feed to Smoketree and Evergreen area. On September 13, 1984, an offer of $1,230.00 was made to the Burks for this easement. This offer was refused and no counteroffer was made. Since the contract for the installation of the water main is to be awarded today, it is necessary to proceed with condemnation on an emergency basis. Staff recommends that the Board approve condemnation of the easement across the Burks' property on an emergency basis and the PREPARED BY: /~/~ "~ Z ~' ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO [] SIGNATURE' '~ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ,/ September 26, 1984 Page 2 exercise of immediate right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia, and that the County Administrator be instructed to notify the owners by certified mail on September 27, 1984, of the County's intention to take possession of the easement. District: Midlothian Recommend Approval L'~VRTHOUS~ EOBEBT E. BUI~HS., ET. UK. · D.B. 4'7'~ P. 4'5G CI...IAI~LE5 E. V/ILSOk~ E CECILIA B. WI L50~ LE~;END: EDGE OF EASE. --E~E OF CDNSl~ rdroE ~. Ir-, V/ATER UlklE R-AT 5HOV/I~JG A IG' PEEMANEIklT V/ATEB AND A 5' TF:hlPORAR~ CONSTRUCrlON EASF_HENT ACRC~5 '~R4E PP~p~p~-y OF" ROEE_R~ E. BURKS'~ E'T UX.' TAX 'MAP N~. ~7-10¢1~ JAMES K. TIMMJ J. K. TIMMON.~ & ASSOCIATE~ 711 N. EOURTNOUSE RD, I~IEI. IK,~]Nr SCA[.;; 9075- ID z z DIST. BERRANO \ GOROON REAMS Cr CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AG E NDA MEETING DATE' September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9.I.4 b. SUBJECT: Authorization to proceed with condemnation on an emergency basis, of a sewer easement across property of Consolidated Sales Company, Incorporated, along Robious Road. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On June 22, 1983, the Board of Supervisors authorized condemnation of a sewer easement across the property of Consolidated Sales Company, Incorporated, to construct a sewer line to serve LaPetite Academy. An offer of $5,326.00 has been made for this easement. Since the contract for the construction of this sewer line is to be approved today, to prevent a delay to the contractor, it is necessary to proceed with the condemnation on an emergency basis. Staff recommends that the Board approve the condemnation of the easement across Consolidated Sales Company, Incorporated on an emergency basis and the exercise of immediate right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia, and the County Administrator be instructed to notify the owners by certified mail on September 27, 1984, of the County's intention to take possession of the easement. District: Midlothian Recommend Approval PREPARED BY: ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO [] SIGNATURE: _ ~ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR PLAT $i*tC~I~IG PEEUA. qEI,IT 16 FOOT SE~IFI~ E/GF..UEI,IT ~ TEUPOI~.A.~)/ COIGTI~UCT~ON EAS£1aE,VT$ TO 8E AC~.L(~I~E~ ACEOSS T~E ~ OF CO~- $OL~i~ATEO SALF-.S CO., ~NC, ~AI THE t,,iI~)LOTHI,Ui PISTRICT OF CHESTER- FIELO COUkrT)/, VIgG]',qZA, SCALEr l"- 700' F. Potts, Jr. and Associate ~egistered Land Surveyor Cbe~t~field, Virginia t YOUNG Pond I MtoLO]' DR ICHMOND ". I 8 I 16 Poge ? Rb CHeSTER- FIELD M ALL CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER' 9.I.4.C. Authorization to proceed with condemnation on an emergency basis, of a sewer easement across the property of Sherman T. Garrett and Junie J. Garrett. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On July 11, 1984, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Right of Way Section to aid Charles Vette in acquiring a sewer easement across the Garrett property. An offer in the amount of $57.00 was made for this easement and refused by the Garretts. Instead they want a 25' wide strip across Mr. Vette's property from Spirea Road to their property. This counteroffer was explored and was found not to be feasible since it caused Mr. Vette to lose one of his six lots in Spirea Subdivision. Since the contract for the construction of this sewer is being approved today, and to prevent delay in the construction of the sewer, it is necessary to proceed with condemnation on an emergency basis. ATTACHMENTS: YES J~ NO [] SIGNATURE: _, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR September 26, 1984 Page 2 Staff recommends that the Board approve condemnation of the easement on the Garrett property on an emergency basis and the exercise of immediate right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia, and that the County Administrator be instructed to notify the owners by certified mail on September 27, 1984, of the County's intention to take possession of the easement. District: Midlothian Recommend Approval 142 l, VaHor~ ] ,P ~! I_ . . ~ ... ,.,. .~ .; ~ .' ~.~ ~- ~/~E~ ~0~ PLAT SHO~ING A IG'UTILITY EASEMENT ACROS~ THE PROPERTY OF ~HER~AN ~ y dUPlE d. GA~RETT - T~X PC~. ~A~. ~- 7- ~4 .c~ I" = ~0' BERRAND ~DlO~gl ' LUCK I REAMS P~ge 16 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF' SUPERVISORS AG E NDA MEETING DATE: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER' 9.I.4 .d. SUBJECT: Approval of an agreement between Baldwin Contractors, Incorporated, and the County for permission to use a portion of County property located in the City of Richmond at the intersection of Walmsley Boulevard and Mark Road for a temporary road detour. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Right of Way Office has received a request from Baldwin Contractors, Incorporated to allow them to use a portion of the property previously used as a County utility storage yard for a temporary road detour. The Contractor proposed to close a portion of Broad Rock Boulevard during construction of improvements in that area between Belmont Road and Walmsley Boulevard. They propose to detour traffic along Belmont Road, to Mark Road, to Walmsley Boulevard to Broad Rock Boulevard. In order to detour the traffic, the State Highway Department and City of Richmond are requiring safety improvements at the intersection of Mark Road and Walmsley Boulevard as shown on the attached sketch. Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Administrator to execute an agreement with Baldwin Contractors for the use of the County land as shown on the attached sketch subject to the County Attorney's Office approval of the agreement. City of Richmond Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO [] SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMI NI STRATOR -I CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9.I.4.e. SUBJECT: Consideration of a counteroffer from Roy T. Fuqua and Virginia H. Fuqua for an easement for a water line and sewer force main across their property at 14100 Hull Street Road. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION The Right of Way Office has received a counteroffer in the amount of $2,200.00 to the County's offer of $1,430.00 for an easement for water and a sewer force main to serve the Woodlake Development on Hull Street Road at Swift Creek Reservoir. Staff has reviewed the counteroffer and approval is recommended. The County will be reimbursed by Investors Associates who have approved the counteroffer. Woodlake District: Clover Hill Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO [] SIGNATURE:, COUNTY ADMI NISTRATOR , '74 BRAND~ CI-OvE a HaLL ''RD Page 2.5 P£11T ~HO~qht/6 ~q L/,~IABL~ PJIDTIV ~EL, V~R (~LIA/£R LIIU~ D,~EIZ£~JT A £n°OSS TIIE ?ROPGRTY OF ~/IRGitJI~ 14 ( ~oY T~ FUQLIA ~ TAX AAAP t/OS. 7~-~0 ~ ~4~ PR[VIOU~I JOB NO, JOB No. CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9.I.5.a. Approval of Sewer Contract S84-139CD/7(8)4395, Midlothian Village - off-site and on-site (portion of) sewers. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This project includes the extension of off-site improvements which will serve the adjoining properties. sewer Developer: Fi-Tech, Inc. Contractor: Best Backhoe & Excavating Co., Inc. Number of Connections: 2 Total Construction Cost: $40,606.45 Estimated County Cost: 31,582.57 (Refunds from connection fees for off-site sewers) Code: 574-1-00556-0000 District: Midlothian Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO [] SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR / MID HS. MIDLOTHIAN VILLAGE representative IIi1~11111 CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9.I.5.b. Approval of Sewer Contract S84-143CD/7(8)4435, Ashley Village - Phase I. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This project includes the extension of off-site improvements which will serve adjoining properties. sewer Developer: Rolling Hills Development Corporation Contractor: Piedmont Construction Co., Inc. Number of Connections: 50 Total Construction Cost: $40,327.00 Estimated County Cost: 4,707.05 (Refunds from sewer connection fees for off-site sewers) Code: 574-1-00556-0000 District: Dale Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES J~ NO [] SIGNATURE:., COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ~ 1=3 1:=3 o 0 \\ II \\ MON 129 -0 1 I CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9.I.5.c. SUBJECT: Approval of Sewer Contract S83-78CD/7(8)3782, Spirea Subdivision. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This project includes the extension of off-site improvements which will serve adjoining properties. sewer Developer: Charles H. Vette Contractor: J. Steven Chafin, Inc. Number of Connections: 6 Total Estimated Project Cost: Estimated County Cost: $23,245.00 8,405.05 (Refunds through sewer connection fees) Code: 574-1-00556-0000 District: Clover Hill Recommend Approval PREPARED ATTACHMENTS: YES [~ NO [] SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ,/,/ CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9.I.5.d. Approval of Sewer Contract S83-18CD/7(8)3182, LaPetite Academy - Robious Road. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This project includes the extension of off-site improvements which will serve the adjoining properties. sewer Developer: George W. Farley Contractor: Piedmont Construction Co., Inc. Number of Connections: 1 Total Construction Cost: $19,736.00 Estimated County Cost: 19,671.25 (Refunds from sewer connection fees for off-site sewers) Code: 574-1-00556-0000 District: Midlothian Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO [] SIGNATURE :_ / '~-C'OI3NTY ADMINISTRATOR CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 Award of Contract off-site water lines. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ITEM NUMBER; W83-46B/6 (8) 3467 9 .I.5.e. for Smoketree SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This project is a continuation of a 16" transmission line from Briarcliff Subdivision to connect with the existing 16" water line at Smoketree Drive and Courthouse Road. The completion of this water line will give the County another feed to Smoketree and Evergreen area. We received seven (7) bids on this project and we recommend awarding this project to Patterson Excavating Co. in the amount of $74,480.62 based on 16" Class 51 Ductile Iron Pipe. Appropriate $92,000.00 from 567 Bond Surplus to 380-1-63467-4393 which includes a 10% contingency and 3 - 16" gate valves to be furnished by the County. District: Clover Hill Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO [] SIGNATURE' .. COUNTY ADM I NI STRATOR PROJECT W83-46B/6 (8)3467 SMOKETREE - OFF-SITE WATER LINE CONTRACTOR ..... DAYS .... SCHEDULE OF PRICES INST~L UNIT 1 16" ~ctile Iron , Class 51 2.258 L.F. ~,9/ j 4B,~ C~,~ ~,C~ ~,~ ~,~ ~,~ 2 16" Horizontal Gate Valve 3 ~CH ~gO,~l EC~,~ /~,~ /~,~o ~,~l ~,~ /~,~0 3 16" - 45° Bend (M.J.) 2 EACH ~I~,C~ ~ M~,O0 ~,00 ~,~ ~/~,~ ~8~,~ ~,~0 4 16" - 22~° ~nd (M.J.) 1 ~CH ~'~,0~ 5 16" -llk© Bend (M.J.) 1 EACH 6 16" x 16" Tee (M.J.) 3 EACH 7 16" Blind Cap (M.3.) 3 ~CH g~,gO 9~,dO ~/,~o F~,D~ ~,~ /~,~ /~,~ 8 Type 1 Air Release Valve 2 ~CH /~/,~ /~/,~ ~,~ /~,0~ /~,~ /~/~,~ /~,~ 9 4" Blow Off 1 ~CH ~B~,~ ~,~/~,~ /~g,~ /~,~ //~ /~,~ 10 26" Steel Casing 44 L.F , /~7,~ ~/~,D~ /~, ~ /~,~ /~,~ /~,~ ~,~ 11 Tie-In to ~isting 16" Main 2 ~CH ~,~ /~,~ /~,~ ~,~ /~,~ ~/,~ ~,~ 12 Top Soil and Seeding ~sements 2,214 L.F. ~ ~,~ ~.~ /,~ /,/~ ~,~ ~.~ 13 Straw Bales for Erosion Control 50 EA~ /~,~ ~,~ ~,~ /~ ~,~ ~,~ ~,~ 14 Clear and Grub ~sements 650 L.F ~// /~,~ ~,~ ~,~ ~,~ ~,~ ~,~ TOT~ ITemS 1 - 14 ~? CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AG E NDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9.I.5.f. Acceptance of Deeds of Dedication from the heirs of Charles Daniel and from Glen W. Butler and Virginia R. Butler for the construction of East Avenue. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION The acceptance of these two deeds completes the acquisition of right of way for East Avenue except for two parcels and one flood easement for which the Board has authorized condemnation. A right of entry has been acquired on those properties. Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Administrator to sign these deeds, accepting them on behalf of the County. District: Bermuda Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES '1~ NO [] SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DB. 4~4 ?~- 13~ ~ ~ 7~° 45' '£ OOHN L.~VI 5}.ttqt~? W.~. -~' ?~. a7 ~. O. 1--I. I~OTLEg O. ~. 434 p~. 292 ./ To ~£ D~OlCA TED .TO C/-/E.~'TRRF/~'LD COUHT ~, ,q, lw Curv,~ Z~to c~: 1~1. ~/' Plat -7 / ~ 5o ' of Right of Way Io be dedicated to County of Chesterfield Glen VZ. ~ Virginia ~. Buffer Bermuda D/sfrict Chestedield County, Virginia )( D ! I I J Po~e 43 / / AVE ] <'"' CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9.I.5.q. Acceptance of a 5' strip of land along the south line of Totty Street from Walter L. Cross and Celestine D. Hicks. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: It is the policy of the County to acquire right of way whenever possible through development to meet the ultimate road width as shown on the Plan 2000. The dedication of this right of way conforms to that Plan. Staff recommends that the Board accept this conveyance of this right of way and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. District: Matoaca Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO [] SIGNATURE: ,,, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR WALTER L, CROSS & CELESTINE D. HICKS 'T.M 1BP_.-I:~ (4) 5D L3. B. 1645, PG. 842 N 48°09'49" E - 134.89' 677.9]9 ~q.ft.- or - QOI6. Acre 156, 28' ~ $ 48°09'49"W TOTTY STREET STATE ~TE ~ 1115 PLAT OF 5' STRIP TO BE DED~3ED, TO THE CCLIN~ (~ CHESTERFIELD FCR THE ADDITIONAL WIDENING OF TOTTY STREET - STATE ROJTE4~1115 ACROSS THE PROPERTY CF WALTER L. CROSS & CELESTINE D. HICKS MATO/~A DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COJNTY, VIRGINIA S~AL.E: 1 ": 25' A~JGUST 22 , 1984! CHARLES C. TOA/NES & ASS(~IATES. POI CIVIL ENGINEERS - PLANNERS - LAND CC)LCNIAL HEIGHTS, VIRGINIA J r.~l ~,. ~, ~. .!.~.. ETTRICK [IT~ICK INT 4 62 187 Page 62 CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE' SUBJECT: September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 9.I.5.h. Acceptance of 5' strip of land along Knightbridge Road and 20' strip along North Arch Road from Archway 60 Associates. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION It is the policy of the County to acquire right of way whenever possible through development to meet the ultimate road width as shown on the Plan 2000. The dedication of this right of way conforms to that plan. Staff recommends that the Board accept this conveyance of this right of way and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. District: Clover Hill Recommend Approval PREPARED ATTACHMENTS: YES ~1 NO [] SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR O. 06'¢ e~l° I0 J J. K.TIMMONS & ASSOCIATES, INC. OB]OUS HALL % % '0 c~ t bO! ¢ ~-OU RS[ ~ s~ CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA REPORTS MEETING DATE' September 26, 1984 9.J.1. REPORT ON: State Road Acceptance/Abandonment ATTACHMENTS: YES E~ NO I-I SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMI NI STRATOR HAROLD C. KIND, COMMISSIONER ~ EDGAR BACON, JON,~BVILLE ~RI~TOL DISTRICT O ............................ COMMONWEALTH of ~o~.o~c~.~c~s~o~.~r~o~..~v~ DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 September 13, 1984 OSCAR K. MABRY OEPLFFY COMMISSIONER J. M. WRAY, JR. CHIEF ENGINEER J. T. WARREN DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION H. W. WORRALL DIRECTOR OF FINANCE JACK HODGE ASSISTANT CHIEF ENGINEER SALLY H, COOPER DIRECTOR OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION J. G. RIPLEY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING Secondary System Ab andonmen t Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors County of Chesterfield P. O. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832 Gentlemen: AS requested in your resolution dated July 25, 198~ the following abandonment from the Secondary System of Chesterfield County is hereby approved, effective September 13, 1984. ABANDONMENT Ives Lane - Route 2660, relative to a portion of the Cul-de-sac concerning right-of-way. (No mileage involved.) LENGTH 0.00 Mi. Sincerely, Oscar K. Mabry~ Deputy Commissioner TRANSPORTATION -- AMERICA'S LIFELINES CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE' September 26, 1984 9.J.2. REPORT ON: Waste Disposal ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO D SIGNATURE: .,, COUNTY ADMI NI STRATOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HARRY G. DANIEL,CHAIRMAN DALE DISTRICT G.H. APl=LEGATE,VICE CHAIRMAN CLOVER HILL DISTRICT R. GARLAND DOOD BERMUDA DISTRICT dOAN GIRONE MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT JESSE J. MAYES MATOACA DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY P.O. BOX 40 CHESTERFIELD,VIRGINiA 2:58:52 COUNTY AOMINIBTRATOR RICHARD L. HEDRICK September 18, 1984 MEMORANDUM TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Mr. Richard L. Hedrick County Administrator William H. Howell Director of General Services Waste Disposal Report Attached for your information is a report on leaf burning and solid waste disposal in Chesterfield County. This is a lengthy but comprehensive report that addresses leaf burning and collection, bulky waste pickup and residential solid waste pickup as requested by the Board of Supervisors earlier this year. We have made several recommendations in this report and the Board may select one of the following courses of action: (1) The Board may instruct the staff to expedite the public hearing process and implement one or more of the recommendations in the current year. (This would of course require appropriation of the necessary funds as these requirements were addressed, but unfunded in the 1984-85 Budget.) (2) The Board can direct continuation of the current methods of leaf and bulky waste disposal and include the staff's recommendation in next year's budget. (3) The Board may choose to refer the report to the Landfill Committee for their review and recommendations prior to taking action. (4) The Board may elect to have a work session on this subject. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors September 18, 1984 Page 2 The staff will be present at the September 26, 1984 meeting to address any questions that Board members may have. ~~Vlt~fm H. Howe%i ' - - Director of General Services WHH/rcs Attachment SOLID WASTE COLLECTION IN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY TABLE OF CONTENTS September 18, 1984 Page Executive Summary Leaf Burning Versus Collection Alternatives and Costs Bulky Waste Collection Alternatives and Costs Residential Solid Waste Pickup Alternatives and Costs 11 Status of Landfill Sites 15 Other Virginia City and County Collection Systems 16 Cost for New Recommended Services 18 Map of Proposed "No Leaf Burning Permitted" Area 19 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION IN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the April 25, 1984 Board of Supervisors meeting, the leaf burning ordinance was changed to limit open leaf burning in the spring to the period of March 16 - April 15. The fall period remained November 1 - December 15. (Weekend leaf burning is prohibited in both seasons.) The Board also requested the County Administrator to prepare a study with recommendations governing the entire spectrum of solid waste collection and attendant costs. This report focuses on: o o o Leaf burning and collection Bulky waste pickup Residential solid waste pickup Leaf burning periods are established in the County Code, Article IV, Section 10-22 and 10-23 as summarized above. Article IV, Section 24 establishes that when weekly leaf pickup is provided during the leaf burning period, specific areas may be designated as "unlawful to burn leaves at any time." Beginning on page 3, three alternatives, with comparable costs, have been examined for leaf burning versus leaf collection--no change, county-wide ban on leaf burning with citizen disposal, and urban-area ban on burning with weekly County collection in those urban areas. (Friday County-wide collection of leaves and grass clippings would still be offered under the latter alternative). Bulky waste pickup service is not provided by the County and is not readily available from commercial collectors. Pickup and disposal of sofas, refrigerators, washing machines, etc., must be accomplished by the citizen personally if he is unable to hire a commercial operator. An analysis of two alternatives--no change, or County bulky waste collection are examined and costed begin- ning at page 9. Residential solid waste pickup and disposal is presently provided by 39 commercial collectors and a small County force operating three trucks. Four dumpster (transfer) sites are provided by the County and operated under contract to serve some more rural sections of the County. An analysis of the current system and a county-wide full service system with comparable costs is provided on page 11. Solid waste disposal sites are not a problem. However, the status of these facilities as well as brief comments on resource recovery as an alternative method of disposal are included at page 15. In addition to an analysis of the various alternatives under each of those areas, practices in selected other Virginia localities are summarized at page 16. Disposal of hazardous waste is not addressed in this report because such waste cannot be accepted at the landfills and it is a subject more properly addressed at State level. RECOMMENDATIONS That urban areas as outlined on the map at page 19 be designated no-leaf burning permitted" areas and that the County provide once-a-week leaf pickup County-wide at an annual operating cost estimated at $142,000 and capital start-up costs of $100,000. That bulky waste pickup and disposal service be initiated by the County at an annual operating cost estimated at $88,000 and capital start-up cost of $50,000. That the current system of commercial and county collection of residential solid waste continue unchanged. That the County continue to participate in, support and in fact lead the efforts of the Solid Waste Task Force of the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission in develop- ment of regional alternatives for solid waste disposal with emphasis on resource recovery. LEAF BURNING VERSUS COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES AND COSTS Current Status The existing methods of leaf collection in Chesterfield County are directly related to the ordinances and regulations concerning leaf burning. Prior to fall of 1981, leaf burning was permitted in Chesterfield County from October 16 to December 15 and from March 15 to May 15. Residents were required to abide by Virginia Division of Forestry regulations regarding time of day for burning and attending the fire. During the spring of 1981, there was considerable outcry for the banning of leaf burning. During that summer a staff study was conducted to address the issue. In brief the recommendations of that study were as follows: (1) To ban leaf burning in high and medium density areas of the County, (2) Discontinue County leaf pickup, (3) Encourage leaf collection by private haulers, and (4) Promote alternative collection/disposal methods other than landfilling. No action was taken on study recommendations. A proposal to ban weekend burning was made by a citizens group and the burning ordinance was changed accordingly. The outcry over leaf burning resumed in the fall of 1983 and the result was that in April 1984, the spring burning season was reduced to one month. The current methods of disposal are: (1) Burn leaves during the periods November 1 to December 15 and March 16 to April 15 (weekend burning prohibited). The County will provide once a week pickup in areas where leaf burning is prohibited. (2) Haul the leaves to the landfill. (A slight increase has been noted in the number of people using the landfill as a result of the restricted burning period.) (3) Have a private trash collector remove the leaves. Virtually all of the trash collectors surveyed responded that they routinely collect leaves. Some restrict the number of bags collected and others charge extra. Some made no additional charges. (4) Pile or compost on the residents own property. (5) Use the County pickup service. The current service involves pickup of bagged leaves or grass clippings on Fridays of each week. Citizens call in and request a pickup each time they desire such service. Three trucks with three men each provide this service. It should be noted that the re- duction in burning time last fall had a noticeable impact on the County's collection effort. During the peak collection periods, the number of re- quests for leaf pickup increased by 16%. Another increase is expected next season when the efforts of the reduced spring burning season are felt. The current cost for this service is $52,000 per year. Further reduction of leaf burning periods or the designating of non-leaf burning areas would generate more requests for pickup than could be accommodated by the current resources--trucks, employees and budget authority. Vacuum pickup service was examined and considered infeasible. The initial capital costs exceed $780,000 with operating costs of $446,000 for a ten week pickup period. Vacuum service only works satisfactorily in areas with curbs or well defined ditches and is very unsatisfactory in rocky or mulched areas. Total ban of leaf burning with county-wide leaf pickup service was also examined and determined to be infeasible due to costs, enforcement problems and the fact that it is not necessary in the rural portions of the County. Citizen payment on a per pickup or per bag basis was examined and determined to be infeasible in billing, accounting and collecting areas. Alternatives No change in regulations on leaf burning and disposal methods. Advantages (a) Each citizen is free to select a disposal method within the regulations and means available. (b) A substantial part of the leaf collection effort will remain in the hands of the private sector, which means that most of the disposal is accom- plished at no cost to the County. In fact, it generates a small amount of revenue in the form of fees at the landfill. Disadvantages (a) Smoke, the primary cause for complaint from leaf burning would still be present during the per- mitted burning periods. As the many citizens groups opposing burning have noted, the problem is most acute in the more densely populated parts of the County. (b) If the trend of the past two years continues, more people will elect to use the County collection service which will overload the existing level of staff and equipment. Total ban on leaf burning County-wide. their own disposal. Citizens provide Advantages (a) Problems associated with smoke from leaf burning would be eliminated. (b) Collection service can be provided by the private sector, thereby keeping government service from expanding. (c) Citizens can select the type of service they want. (d) County gets out of leaf pickup with some dollar savings. Disadvantages (a) Not all citizens will have the capability to provide for their own leaf disposal. Either financial or physical restraints may apply. (b) Citizens develop some belief that the County doesn't care. (c) Accelerated fill of our landfill areas. Ban leaf burning in urban areas with bagged pickup services provided on a weekly basis. For analysis it is assumed there will be five fold increase in participation. (Many people are reluctant to use a bagged pickup system because of the cost of the bags and the work involved in filling them.) Collection vehicles would be used, each with a three man crew. Envisioned operation is three trucks four days a week plus six trucks two days a week--a total of 24 truck days per week. We currently use four to six truck days per week during the peak 10 week period. (If the bulky waste pickup service on page 9 is adopted. The four employees from that service would be diverted to collector trucks during the 10 week peak period --a savings of $15,000 in the labor costs shown below.)* Ba~ed Leaf Collection Costs - Urban Areas Initial Capital Costs 2 collection vehicles Operating Cost Personnel costs for 9 employees for 10 weeks Vehicle operations, maintenance and replacement Additional operational cost Current cost to provide limited service Total Cost to Provide Service $100,000 33,750* 56,500 90,250 52,000 $142,250 Advantages (a) Leaf collection will be available to those people living in areas where burning is prohibited. (b) Leaves would not blow once bagged. (c) Problems associated with smoke from leaf burning in urban areas will be eliminated. Disadvantages (a) Two different types of privileges with different costs would be provided within the County. Some citizens would incur additional costs to buy bags and then bag the leaves--while others would be permitted to burn theirs or have them picked up. (b) An additional County expense will be incurred for a seasonal service. (c) Shredding is not practical as plastic in bags does not decompose as readily as the leaves. (d) Accelerated fill of landfill areas. (e) If the service is over subscribed beyond the five fold increase envisioned, commercial collection service would have to be contracted to pickup that additional increment. Alternative Costs Leaf Burning/Collections Alternative Capital Outlay Annual Labor, Operational and Replacement Cost Alternative 1 No change None $52,000 Alternative 2 Ban leaf burning Citizen disposal None None Alternative 3 Ban leaf burning in urban areas with weekly/ bagged pickup 100,000 142,250 -7- Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Leaf Burning Versus Collection ALTERNATIVE 1 Status Quo - Periodic Leaf Burnin~ ALTERNATIVE 2 Ban of Leaf Burning - Citizens Provide For Disposal ALTERNATIVE 3 Ban of Leaf Burning in Urban Areas County Provides Weekly Pickup Greatest use of private collection Least use of private collections Greatest direct cost to citizen Least direct cost to citizen Greatest cost to County Least cost to County Greatest amount of landfill revenue Least amount of landfill revenue Greatest increase in landfill volume Least increase in landfill volume Citizen solves pickup and disposal problem County solves pickup and disposal problem Greatest overload of present capability Least overload of present capability Highest fire hazzard level Lowest fire hazzard level Establishes different levels of citizen costs and privileges within County Most citizen complaints concerning fires and smoke Fewest citizen complains concerning fires and smoke X X X X X -8- BULKY WASTE COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES AND COSTS The term bulky waste refers to those items which are too large for normal collection services to pick up or are incompatible with compactor trucks. Examples are: furniture, appliances and mattresses. For most people disposal of such items is difficult. Current Status Currently there is no organized method for removal of bulky waste from residential property. Citizens must either haul the materi- al to the landfill themselves or hire one of the few yard ser- vices or collectors that will collect bulky waste. Often, citizens discard bulky items along roadsides or at the County or private dumpster sites. Alternatives Maintain current status. The disposal of bulky waste items can be left as it currently exists. An argument can be made that the owner of any durable good, a refrigerator for example, is responsible for the disposal of that item when it is no longer serviceable. Advantages No additional expenditure by the County is re- quired for personnel or equipment. Disadvantaqes Since no convenient disposal method is available the incidences of promiscuous dumping along roadsides or at dumpsters will continue. Owners of the land where the promiscuous dump sites exist as well as the County incur additional expense in cleaning up bulky waste items from those sites. The Sanitation Department makes 3 to 5 trips weekly to pickup such items from its dumpster sites. Establish a bulky waste collection service. A curbside bulky waste collection service can be established in the County. Informal surveys show that a demand does exist for the service. The Sanitation Department receives about 20 calls per day either requesting such a service or informa- tion on companies which provide such a service. About 2,000 private vehicles entering County landfills monthly are carrying material which would be picked up by bulky waste service. The service would be available on a call as needed basis. Citizens could call and request a pickup. Staffing would require two two-man crews plus part of a supervisor's time -9- 1 d7 and part of a clerk's time. gate would be required. Two stake body trucks with lift Advantages (a) Provides a needed service to our citizens. (b) Will reduce some of the roadside clutter caused by promiscuous dumping. (c) An included benefit would permit diverting these crews and trucks plus other collection trucks to leaf pickup during peak periods which would reduce the number of temporary hires required. The bulky waste service could be suspended during the leaf collection season and the crews used to supplement leaf pickup. Bulky Waste Collection Alternative Capital Outlay Alternative 1 Status Quo None Alternative 2 Provide Pickup $50,000 Annual Labor, Operational and Replacement Cost None $87,950 RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE PICKUP ALTERNATIVES AND COSTS Current Status Chesterfield residents currently have a wide variety in the levels of waste collection services available. There are 39 collectors offering residential waste collection. Levels of service vary from once weekly curbside service limited to house- hold waste to twice weekly backyard service without limit as to volume and type of waste. The County also offers pickup of dry household waste on a once monthly basis. Private collectors have a combined fleet of about 60 trucks in operation. Typically, the trucks have two or three man crews. The County operates three trucks with three man crews on its routes. Commercial fees charged for weekly curbside service vary from $5.67 to $9.00 per month with an average cost of $7.78. The average cost for weekly backyard service is $8.50 per month. County collection crews serve about 8,000 customers. The monthly cost per customer for pickup is $1.87 plus associated capital replacement costs and loss of landfill revenue which would have been earned if pickup has been by a commercial collection ser- vice. Dumpsters Citizens who haul their own waste, may dispose of it at either the County landfills or the County operated dumpster sites. Four sites are now in operation; they are located on Sappony Road, on Hill Street at Fullview Market, at the intersection of Coalboro and Winterpock Roads and at Ettrick Park. The latter two sites are the largest and a source of substantial use and abuse. Current container service costs are $30,000 per year. Labor for site cleanup and maintenance comes from overtime and part-time labor from the sanitation collection crews. Alternatives Continue with current methods of collection. The current system appears to be operating satisfactorily. Few calls are received complaining about the quality of service given by the private collectors. There are, however, advantages and disadvantages to the current system. Advantages (a) The collection system is in place. (b) No period of transition into a new system will be needed. (c) Private employment for the 180+ people currently working continues. ® (d) Citizens have the option to choose the level of service desired. (e) A major expenditure to establish a County operated service is avoided. (f) Quality of service and price are determined by competitive market conditions. Disadvantages (a) When viewed as a whole the system is quite ineffi- cient. About twice as many employees and trucks are in use than would be needed under a centrally managed system. (b) Quality control is left to the individual collect- or. If a company misses pickups or does a poor job then the citizen has no governmental agency to call for assistance in resolving the issue. (c) Those who cannot afford a private collector for weekly collection are limited to the County's once a month service. While the rules of the service prohibit food waste, realistically such waste is collected by the County. This means that such wastes have been sitting up to 30 days before being collected-- an unhealthy condition. The other option is to use the landfills or dumpster sites directly. County-wide full service collection system. This alter- native outlines the costs and impacts involved in a County operated once a week curbside collection service. For the analysis presented here, the following assumptions were made. (1) Conventional 3 man served. collection crews would be (2) Ail single family residences (49,000) would be served to include detached dwellings, townhouses, and privately owned condominiums. (3) Collection does not include bulky waste pickup. (4) All existing equipment and personnel would be retained. -12- County Wide Full Service Collection Costs Initial Capital Costs 25 collection vehicles 3 supervisors vehicles Total Capital Costs $1,250,000 25,000 $1,275,000 Operating Costs Personnel costs - include drivers, laborers super- vision, clerical, mechanics Vehicle operation, maintenance and replacement Total Operating Costs $1,400,000 583,500 $1,983,500 Initially a system of ~collection routes would need to be established. A consultant would need to structure the routes and establish a data base for managing the system. It is not possible to give an accurate estimate of the cost of consultant service at this time. Advantages (a) A uniform level of service would be provided to all County residents. (b) Quality of service could be monitored since all collection would be done under one office. Disadvantages (a) Loss of jobs for about 180 people currently involved in private collection work. Although a County collection service would need about 80 new employees, that would be about 100 less than are currently working for the private collectors. (b) Less variety in level of service. A county collection service would prohibit all but the largest companies from being able to offer alter- native levels of service. (c) Increased cost to the County. From the figures shown below, it is readily apparent that the cost of such a system is substantial. The figures shown are only the most direct costs and do not reflect the added costs for support agencies such as personnel, accounting, print shop, etc. (d) Lost landfill revenue. Since most of the landfill revenue comes from private residential collectors, a county collection system would eliminate most of that source of revenue. That amount, (approxi- mately $435,000) would have to be provided to the landfills' budget from some alternate source. (e) Loss of flexibility provided by having many collectors with excess capacity for use when needed. Alternative Costs of Solid Waste Pickup Service Alternative Alternative 1 Status quo monthly dry pickup Capital Outlay Annual Labor, Operational and Replacement Cost None $208,000 Alternative 2 Full weekly service 1,275,000 1,983,500 STATUS OF LANDFILL SITES Chester Landfill - Opened in September 1972, this site is nearing capacity. Under current methods of operation, this site is expected to reach capacity by the end of this fiscal year. It is operated by Shoosmith Brothers under contract to the County at a rate of $14,400 per month. Northern Landfill - Opened in September 1981, this site is a modern state-of-the-art landfill developed at a cost of $2.6 million. It has a life expectancy of 15 years and is operated by Walter Link, Inc. under contract to the County at a rate of $30,000 per month. The current tipping fee of $12 per ton is expected to offset annual operating costs. Southern Landfill - This new landfill was completed this summer at a total cost of $1.7 million and is similar in design to the Northern Landfill. Operating funds were not budgeted for 1984- 85. Opening is scheduled for July 1985. Operating contracts will be solicited in the spring of that year. Life expectancy is projected at 19 years. Bon Air Landfill - This old county landfill on State property of the Bon Air School for girls was closed out in 1976 after 7 years of operation. Recent inspections have revealed the need for considerable maintenance work to correct erosion and other problems, work which is considered to be a responsibility of the County. Resource Recovery - A long-range option that would convert solid waste into a marketable energy source is technologically feasible now. However, the attendant problems of capital investment, siting, environmental impact and finding markets for the product must be considered in detailed study. A major benefit to the County would be about a 90% reduction in the volume of waste placed in the landfills. This sort of benefit is at least five years away--probably longer. OTHER VIRGINIA CITY AND COUNTY COLLECTION SYSTEMS Fairfax County The bulk of the residential waste collection effort in Fairfax County is by private collectors who contract with individual homeowners. Approximately 82% of the households are served in this way. Eighteen percent of the households are in "Sanitary Districts" and receive waste collection by County owned and operated trucks. Sanitary districts are established by a proce- dure whereby a group of at least 50 households in a contiguous area petition the Board of Supervisors to begin residential waste collection in their area. A fee is charged for the service and is attached to the real estate tax bill. Currently the rate ranges from $114 to $116 per year. Service provided is once a week curbside service with unlimited pickup. Seventeen routes are operated. Twenty-four trucks are in the collection fleet. Operating and maintenance cost for the vehicles total about $500,000 per year. Other costs were not available. Ail leaf burning is prohibited. County vacuum leaf collection is provided 3 times per year in Sanitary Districts. This covers about 18% of the households. Those households using the service are assessed a $15/year charge. The leaves are taken to large tub grinders and ground into mulch for use in parks. The vacuum collection service is self-supporting. The remaining 82% of the households must make their own arrangements for leaf collection. Most private collectors will pickup bagged leaves for an extra charge. City of Chesapeake Residential waste collection is provided free of charge by the City of Chesapeake. Once a week curbside, unlimited pickup is available to all single family households. Chesapeake uses 20 routes daily with 2 or 3 man crews on each truck. Fifty-four employees are in the collection section. The operating budget is approximately one million dollars. Leaf burning is permitted in the City of Chesapeake. Bagged leaf collection is included in the weekly residential waste collection provided by the city. There is no limit on the number of bags that can be placed out for pickup. Some people place their leaves in ditches. The city road crews pick those up as part of the ditch cleaning program. Henrico County Most of Henrico County is served by private collectors. About 75% of the households contract with a collector or provide their own disposal. Twenty-five percent of the households are served by a once a week curbside collection service owned and operated -16- by the County. Special collection districts are established by a petition procedure. At least 60% of the homes in a contiguous area must be willing to sign up for the service. A monthly fee of $5.50 is charged for the service. Six routes are run each day. The collection section has 21 employees with an operating budget of about $730,000. Henrico County prohibits leaf burning within densely populated areas. The areas are determined by the County staff. Bagged leaf collection is provided free of charge in those area. Collections are made once per month for a three month period from November 1 to January 31. Staff estimates 95% participation with a range of 50-200 bags per stop. The cost for this program was not available as it is included with other programs. However, three crews and trucks are dedicated to this program each year. In addition to this program, a vacuum leaf collection service is available to anyone in the County for $20 per visit. That charge does not cover all expenses and the program runs a deficit. In some areas where contractors are used to supplement the County forces, the contractors get as much as $70 per stop. Henrico has 17 machines, 5 of which are spares. Each machine costs about $10,000. Replacement parts cost $16,000 per year. Up to four trucks with leaf boxes are used to support each machine. Fur- ther, each machine has a crew chief, operator, two laborers and two flagmen. The demand for the service is quite high and the vacuums are operated form November 1 to April 30. ADDITIONAL COST FOR NEW RECOMMENDED SERVICES Weekly bagged leaf pick- up in designated urban no burning areas Capital Outlay Annual Operating Cost Labor Equipment $100,000 $33,750 $56,500 Bulky waste pickup 50,000 62,950 25,000 Total $150,000 $96,702 $81,500 R~ON / / CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA REPORTS MEETING DATE: September 26, 1984 9.J.3. REPORT ON: Contingency Fund ATTACHMENTS: y ES7.~ NO I:] SIGNATURE: ~. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Page 1 of 1 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY STATUS OF GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT September 19, 1984 Date 07/01/84 05/09/84 05/23/84 06/13/84 06/13/84 06/27/84 07/25/84 08/08/84 08/22/84 08/27/84 08/31/84 Department/Description Original FY85 Budget Appropriation Board of Supervisors - Salaries for Capital Region Airport Commission. Human Services - Challenge grant for Jamestown 4-H Educational Center. Planning Department - Salary adjust- ment Planning Commission salaries FY85. Health Department - Additional funds for FY85 due to salary and bene- fit adjustments adopted by the Governor and the General Assembly of Virginia. Planning Department - Funds for Central Area General Plan revision. Police Administration - Funds for reward for information leading to arrest and conviction of parties responsible for the Walmsley murders. County CIP (Parks) - Funds to purchase parcel of land in Bensley area for park land. Fire Department - Funds to repair Buford Road Fire Station floor. Public Information - Funds for entry fee for float in Tobacco Festival parade. Airport - Transfer funds for portion of cost of sprinkler system. Amount 9,600.00 10,000.00 10,800.00 30,954.00 53,000.00 25,000.00 130,000.00 40,000.00 3,200.00 5,000.00 Balance $350,000.00 340,400.00 330,400.00 319,600.00 288,646.00 235,646.00 210,646.00 80,646.00 40,646.00 37,446.00 32,446.00 CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA REPORTS MEETING DATE : September 26, 1984 9.J.4. REPORT ON: After School/Play Care Program As a result of media interest and coverage, we have received questions from several Board Members concerning the status of our Play Care Program. We are also receiving increasing inquiries from the public a.s to when the program will be provided in Chesterfield County. As you know, this type of program is spreading rapidly across the country. Richmond and Henrico are currently conducting a limited number of similar programs. The principal benefits from such programs are reduced vandalism in the community, reduced juvenile delinquency, reduction in the number of latch-key children and last, but by no means least, constructive and creative programs for children who are least likely to have an opportunity to participate in other community activities wherein they can learn positive social behaviors. Of the delinquent children assigned to the Department of Social Services by the Courts, over 80% were latch-key children. As you will note from the overview sheet, the program is designed to be self supporting and yet be accessible to low income families. To make the program feasible to low income families, the School Board would have to waive the facilities charges; however, the ° program would not require additional lights, heating or air condit'ioning. Any damage to school property would be repaired or replaced by the program. This program has been under discussion by the school use committee without resolution. After the program was discussed by the School Board in open session last year and inasmuch as there have been some discussions between some Board of Supervisors and School Board Members, we think it may be most productive for the two' Boards to explore the program jointly and advise what steps, if any, we should take towards implementing the program. ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO [] Robert ~. Masd~n. Assistant County ~dministrator Human Services SIGNATURE: _ /' COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Report: After School/Play Care Program September 26, 1984 Page 2 The attached proposal includes provisions for independent monitoring and evaluation of the pilot programs by expert representatives from Virginia Commonwealth University and Virginia State University, who will report directly to the Board of Supervisors and the School Board so that you may determine the value of the program and whether or not it should be continued. The Program has been formally endorsed by the Youth Services Commission and the Social Services Board. I hope the attached outline and proposal will give you accurate background information for discussion with the School Board, if you so desire. Please let me know if you need additional information. I:~.IIL T. HESTER DIRECT(~ A CHESTERFIELD COUNTY CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 2:58:52 (804) 748-1625 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT After School/Play Care Program Proposal for Pilot Program Overview Purpose: To create a convenient, safe, and supervised program of recreation for children after school hours. Locations: Bellwood, Chalkley, and Greenfield Elementary Schools. These were selected because of their diverse location, appropriateness of their facilities to the program, for their resident's expressed interest in the con- cept, and for the fact that successful recreation programs have been held at these sites previously. The program would require a multi-purpose room, a classroom, restrooms and outdoor areas. Operation: Would be an eight (8) month pilot program to operate five (5) days a week from after school to 6:30 p.m. Details concerning early school closings, vacations, clerical days, etc. are included in the attached proposal. Number Served: 30-50 children per site with a ratio of one (1) staff to fifteen (15) children. Program: A wide variety of recreation activities like crafts, sports, games, music, etc. Cost: The fee would be $60-$80 per month which covers staff, materials, telephone, etc. Does not include a rental fee for use of the facility. The program would use existing heat/air conditioning and would not request special con- siderations. Liability: Since this is a county sponsored program, it would be covered under the county liability policy. Impact if program is successful: Would work with community and PTA's at other school sites to assess their interest in such a program. Private Sector Concerns: Potentially, some more established day care centers may mildly be affected, but it is projected that this program would tend to serve a different population. Other: Other specific information concerning the program is included in the attached proposal. 202 PHil.. T. HE~FER DIREG'rO~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 2~5857. (804) 748H6Z5 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT A Proposal for an After School/Play Care Program Introduction: For the last year, there has been discussion concerning the development of an after school recreation program for school age children of Chesterfield County. Some parents, interested residents, and county agencies like the Youth Commission, Social Services Department and others, see such a program as a partial solution to the growing problem of latch-key children in our community. Others see it simply as an opportunity for children to benefit from their leisure time. The Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Department considers it both...a program of creative recreational opportunities available to all children of Chesterfield County, latch-key or otherwise. Survey and citizen input has indicated a substantial number of parents having a need or interest in the creation of a convenient, safe and supervised program of recreation for children during after school hours. It is the belief of the Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Department that an effective response to this need would be the establishment of an after school, at-the-school recreation program. As a result, the Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Department proposes an eight (8) month pilot program to be held at three (3) elementary school sites. This pilot program would serve as a mechanism to assess the need for such a program in Chesterfield County, would also provide a means of determining any programatic problems and allow the department the opportunity to address them in their infancy. Public schools would seem to be the logical location for this pilot program, since the schools are already in existence and they meet state and local standards (regarding health and safety requirements). Most important, their use would mean that transportation to the program would be unnecessary since the majority of participants would already be on the premises. Since schools are primarily concerned with the educational process, it seems natural that the school system would not have an interest in establishing or administering such an after school program. Therefore, a "team" approach, ie., the administration of the program being the responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Department and provision of the facility being the responsibility of the School Board, would conceivably solve the problem. A Proposal for an After School/Play Care Program Page 2 It would be the intent of the Parks and Recreation Department that state established guidelines and procedures relating to the safety and well-being of the participants be utilized. These guidelines would include the requirement of staff and medical exams, medical care authorization forms, established illness, accident and discipline procedures, and any health and safety conditions not already required for admission into the Chesterfield County school system. The pilot program would be offered to Chesterfield County children ages five (5) through twelve (12) who are currently enrolled in school. Proposed pilot sites would be Bellwood, Chalkley and Greenfield Elementary Schools. These were selected because of their diverse locations, the appropriateness of their facilities to the program, for their residents' expressed interest in the concept, and for the fact that successful recreation programs haVe been held at these sites previously. The program would begin October 1 or as soon as it could be organized and publicized, and would operate on a month to month basis. There would be a minimum of two (2) professional staff members per site with additional added if registration exceeds 30 children. There would be a maximum program registration of 50 children per site. One option for staffing would be to give teachers from the particular school site the opportunity to apply for the positions, if they so desired. It is the intent of the Parks and Recreation Department that the program operate without adversely affecting the schools' educational process, and with as little disruption of the maintenance and custodial operations as possible. As a result, some of the responsibilities of the Parks and Recreation Department would include, but not be limited to: 1) operating and managing of the program, including registra- tion, budget, payroll, communications with parents, evaluation, etc. 2) reimbursing the school for custodial services, if overtime is required; 3) maintaining liability insurance to cover all program activities; 4) installing and maintaining a separate phone line for the program and removing the phone when program is not in operation; 5) restricting access by participants to only permitted areas; A Proposal for an After School/Play Care Program Page 3 6) promptly reimbursing schools should there be any accidental damages to facilities or equipment attributed to this program. The responsibilities of the schools would include, but not be limited to: 1) providing free space for the program in accordance with the normal school/recreation agreement; 2) providing the normal school maintenance for the program area; 3) providing utilities for normal use of the program area; 4) providing daily school attendance records of the participants to the site program director; 5) allowing the program to utilize furnishings and/or equip- ment when available and in accordance to the normal school/ recreation agreement. Program Content: A wide variety of recreational activities, including crafts, music, drama, films, art, nature, games, sports, storytelling, free play, reading, etc. would be offered. Other specific activities would be conducted depending upon the appropriateness of the facility. Registration: Registration would be handled by mail or in person at the Parks and Recreation Department office. Communications: The Parks and Recreation Department would have an additional telephone line installed. The telephone would be disconnected daily by staff. The parents of the participants would be instructed to contact the Parks and Recreation Department office during school hours for information regarding the program, and to call the special program line during after school hours. It would be stressed that at no time should the main number of the school be used. Storage: The Parks and Recreation Department would request a location for a storage cabinet to be placed on site. This would be a location agreed upon by the school principal. A Proposal for an After School/Play Care Program Page 4 Attendance: The program director for each site would pick up daily school attendance records of program participants upon arriving at the site. If a student was in school on that day but did not report to the program, the parent or an alternate contact would be notified immediately. Children would be required to stay on site at all times until they were called for by authorized individuals. At the time of registration, parents must give written notification of individuals authorized to pick up children from the site. Late Fees: To discourage late pickups by parents or authorized individuals, a "late fine" of $1 for every five minutes would be in effect. If parents do not arrive by the established time, the staff member would stay with the child and attempt to contact the parents. The program would operate from the time the specific school closes till 6:30 p.m., if necessary. However, in the interest of safety, parents would be asked to pick up children as soon as possible. Full Day The program would not operate whenever the schools were closed due to a holiday, snow, energy problems or other emergencies. The program would operate from 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. during school vacation periods (not including specific holidays like Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, etc.). ~Days~ -~J~LY3u~ D_al~: A full day program (8:00 a.m.-6:30 p.m.) would be observed during clerical or teacher in-service days. An ill child would be separated from the rest of the group and parents or other emergency contacts would be notified. A Proposal for an After School/Play Care Program Page 5 The fee would be $60-$80 per month. The fee would cover staff, materials, telephone, administrative costs, incidentals. The Parks and Recreation Department would propose moving security gates at Greenfield Elementary, if necessary, to allow for closing off the program area and still having access to restrooms. The new facilities at Chalkley and Bellwood Schools already allow for this school security. Records on each child would be at the program site and at the Parks and Recreation administrative office. These records would include name, address, sex, date of birth, any special needs; telephone number of parent, guardian or agency holding custody; location and telephone number of parents' place of employment; name and phone number of family doctor; name, address and telephone number of designated person(s) to call in case of emergency if parents cannot be reached; names of persons authorized to call for child, etc. A list of qualified staff substitutes would be on file at the department office for contacting when necessary. These substitutes would be required to meet the qualifications of all the regular professional staff. If no substitute could be secured, a full-time Parks and Recreation Department staff member would "fill in" on that day. It is the intent of the pilot program to serve as a trial, a means of determing the feasibility of a larger and/or more permanent program. A cooperative planning session between schools and county prior to the initiation of the pilot program would provide an opportunity to identify potential problems and determine the steps necessary to avoid them. The pilot program itself would then serve as a means of determining any other (unanticipated) problems, and developing solutions, prior to considering program continuation and expansion. A Proposal for an After School/Play Care Program Page 6 The ability of this program to operate smoothly and effectively is contingent upon a sincere spirit of cooperation between the Parks and Recreation Department and the School Board. In order to effectively assess and evaluate the Play Care pilot program, it is suggested that, through the existing cooperative agreement, the county seek assistance from Virginia Commonwealth University and Virginia State University. This assessment would include information on the degrees of program acceptance, social and psychological impact on the participant, economic impact on the participant's families, etc. Carrying out this assessment procedure would be a two person team with one representative from each university. The VCU faculty liaison would serve as coordinator for the team. The group would occasionally call on other facility resources (psychologists, educators, recreators, economists, social workers, etc.) to assist in the evaluation process. Costs for such a process should be negotiated and shared by the two boards. CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE' September 26, 1984 ITEM NUMBEr:. 9.Ko SUBJECT: Executive Session to discuss personnel matters as permitted by Section 2.1-344 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: PREPARED BY;, ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO mx COUNTY ADMI I~ISTRATOR The following is a chronological summary of the events leading up to and including the SWAT Operation at 1713 Cole Street on September 18, 1984. 0831 0834 0858 0903 0921 1000 1040 1057 1100 1110 1110 1120 Officer R.K. Clarke, received a suspicious person call at Shoney's Resturant located at 12531 Jefferson Davis Highway. Officer Clarke arrived at Shoney's Resturant. He spoke to the manager and looked in the suspect's vehicle and saw a large caliber handgun. Officer Clarke waited for suspect to leave the Resturant before approaching him. He then called for assistance. Suspect left Resturant before back-up arrived. Suspect drove eastbound on Route 10. Officer Clarke followed suspect and was shortly joined by Officer J.F. Eyler. Officer Clarke and Officer Eyler conducted a traffic stop of the suspect on Route 10 near Windmill Point Marine establishment. Suspect refused to exit his truck and pointed his weapon at Officer Eyler. He also attempted to run down Officer Eyler at which time Eyler shot three times into the engine block of the truck. Officers Eyler and Clarke pursued suspect eastbound on Route 10 to North Enon Church Road and then to his residence at 1713 Cole Street. Suspect exited the truck and the two officers attempted to reason with him and again the suspect pointed his weapon at Officer Eyler before enter- ing the house. Mr. Black of 1714 Cole Street called Eyler to his residence to advise him that suspect was mentally ill and had been getting worse in past weeks. Clarke and Eyler called for assistance and Sgt. Lovelady responded. Eyler, Major Parrish, Lt. Driskill, and Captain Mathews responded to Magistrate's office obtained a warrant for Brandishing a Firearm for suspect, Marion Lee Driggers of 1713 Cole Street. SWAT and Hostage Negotiators were notified to respond. First Hostage Negotiator arrived Officer J.A. Andrews and was briefed. Andrews attempted to make phone contact but learned phone was disconnected for non-payment. SWAT arrived and was briefed by Captain Mathews. Dick Anderson from Security of C & P was contacted. Suspect's son was contacted. -2- 1127 1129 1130 1137 1140 1146 1156 1157 1158 1210 1215 1231 1237 1240 1254- 1256 1257 1258 1316 Andrews attempted to contact suspect by P.A. System. The suspect was standing outside in yard armed and would not respond. Suspect re-entered house. Requested Ed Sulzbach of FBI to respond for psychological profile. Telephone was connected by C & P and contact was attempted by Negotiators at this time but unsuccessful. SWAT surrounded inner perimeter of house relieving the original officers that had responded. Attempts to contact suspect were discontinued. Contact was made over P.A. System with suspect standing in his front yard. Suspect re-entered his home. Andrews and Major Parrish moved inside the house across the street 1714 Cole Street. C & P Telephone made additional adjustments from central office and Negotiator Furr makes contact with suspect over the phone. Suspects states he will come out and talk tomorrow. Suspect was asked if there was anyone he would like to talk to. He stated Warren Cunningham, his son, and Peppie. He was also at this time having delusions about subjects from outer space. Suspect still requested to speak to previously mentioned subjects. Mr. Cunningham had not had contact with suspect in over 20 years and Peppie was a fictitious character and part of suspect's delusions . Contact with suspect was lost. Ed Sulzbach, FBI Agent arrives. He is briefed listens to taped conversation of suspect and Sulzbach and Kenney come to conclusion suspect exhibiting symptoms of paranoid schiz- ophrenia. Attempts were made to call suspect on telephone. Suspect picks up phone does not speak and hangs up. Suspect again picks up phone says nothing and hangs up. Suspect answers phone but will not speak. He does not hang up but keeps/the line open. -3- 1318- 1416 1440 1500 1507 1527 1546 1638 1635 1800 1809 1815 1830 1831 1833 1834 Line stays open but suspect does not speak. Negotiator Furr makes his way to the house at 1714 Cole Street in case suspect stepped out of his house into yard so Furr would be in a position to communicate with suspect. State Police SWAT Team arrives in order to eventually relieve Chesterfield SWAT Team. Suspect finally hangs up phone after a long period of keep- ing line open. He says nothing when he does this. Phone contact is again attempted but is unsuccessful. Negotiators attempt to contact suspect with P.A. System with no success. Chesterfield SWA~Team is relieved by State Police SWAT Team. Electronic tone is sent through the telephone line to suspect's phone in an attempt to get the suspect to answer. The decision was made to stop using the tone as it might made suspect hostile. Chesterfield SWAT returns from break and resumes their positions relieving State Police SWAT. Voice contact is made by Negotiator Kenney from 1714 Cole Street. Suspect repeatedly asked Kenney to reveal his location. SWAT members Griffin and Styles are ordered to flatten two tires on suspect's truck to prevent escape after dark. During this time the suspect continues to ask Kenney his location and says only way he will talk to Kenney is from the end of his gun barrel. Calls officers Russians and Communist. Suspect comes to front door puts rifle on shoulder aims and fires one shot. This shot strikes chimney of 1714 Cole Street behind which Officer M.L. Pulley was positioned. Bullet fragments ricochetted from chimney striking the scope of Officer Pulley's rifle and fragments of the bullet entered Officer Pulley's left eye. Lt. Starnes advised SWAT units to hold their fire. Confirmed suspect did fire shot that wounded Officer Pulley. Lt. Starnes asked for permission to fire on suspect. Captain Mathews relays green light. Lt. Starnes relays green light to SWAT Team and ask if any member has a shot at the suspect. Sgt. Griffin replies he -4- 1834 1839 (cont.) he has a shot and fires two rounds from his 12 gauge shotgun at the suspect standing in doorway of his home. SWAT member assault house and gain entry and find suspect deceased. /vh SUMMARY OF CONCERNS - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Mr. Hedrick expressed concern to Mr. Woodall for several years about his lack of knowledge and involvement in Economic Development activities and process. Received reports sporadically, contained little information and in code. No attempt by Mr. Woodall to resolve concerns. - January 1984 - Economic Development Department assigned to Division of Community Development in an attempt to involve department in county administration and give director extra help in resolving problems. - January 20, 1984, Mr. Muzzy wrote Mr. Woodall expressing confidence, willingness to help and expected results. - February 1, 1984, Mr. Muzzy met with Mr. Woodall and discussed: 1) His lack of knowledge of operation; 2) R. L. Hedrick's lack of knowledge of operation and involvement; 3) The need to bring Economic Development into County Administrative Team 4) The need to work out plan to involve Mr. Hedrick in activities. - February 4, 1984 - Mr. Hedrick met with Mr. Woodall during budget review and expressed extreme concern about his total lack of knowledge and involvement in the Economic Development department and stated he was "unable to say if we have good or poor program as I have no knowledge of activities." - March 1, 1984 - Mr. Muzzy wrote Mr. Woodall summarizing previous meetings and requests and stated that he had not heard from Mr. Woodall on the raised issues. - March 19, 1984 - Mr. Woodall began weekly status reports (requested by Mr. Muzzy) - unacceptable information and met with Mr. Woodall to discuss. The reports stopped with no explanation May 29, 1984. - March 29, 1984 - Mr. Muzzy met with Mr. Woodall and expressed extreme concern as to his lack of action and interest in resolving problem and bringing Economic Development into the Community Development group and County Administration. Mr Woodall was told if it didn't change, he would be terminated. Told to make an appointment with Mr. Muzzy next week if he wanted to resolve the matter. Mr. Woodall never made the appointment or attempted to discuss or resolve. -May 14, 1984 - Requested by Mr. Hedrick to prepare a report on Seminar he attended. Never submitted. - May 14, 1984 - Requested by Mr. Muzzy to review budget shortfall and respond by May 18 with a plan to handle it. Never submitted. - May 14, 1984 - Requested by Mr. Muzzy to obtain approval, and submit standard leave sheet in advance, before commitments were commitments were made, prior to leaving town for more than a day. Also, requested to provide a list of anticipated activities (out-of-town) for next year. Never submitted. - May 17, 1984 - Mr. Woodall requested by Board of Supervisors Economic Development Sub-Committee for list of measurable goals, objectives and results. Never submitted. - July 3, 1984 - Mr. Woodall gave Mr. Muzzy information on Virginia Chamber Summer meeting and said "I'll be going next week." Mr. Woodall was on the published program. - July 25, 1984 - Mr. Muzzy met with Mr. Woodall for one hour plus and discussed situation. Discussed his concern on time spent at meetings, seminars, conferences, etc., and need to re-evaluate the ratio of client work versus social type events with peers. Also discussed the change in organization from when Mr. Woodall hired and now. Mr. Woodall replied current organization is "unacceptable." - must change to as before or assign his department to Industrial Development Authority. - September 11, 1984 - George gave Mr. Muzzy an announcement of Piedmont PDC Meeting 9-12-84 & 2nd annual meeting of Virginia Economic Development Assoc. and said "I'll be going (Sept. 13-14)." He was on published program. - September 17, 1984 - Mr. Muzzy received from Budget & Management request for payment from Mr. Woodall for SIDC meeting in Arkansas. No request from Mr. Woodall to attend received.