The URL can be used to link to this page

08-14-1985 PacketCHES'rERFIF-. ) C,O BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE' August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 8.1. SU8JECT: Condemnation for a Sewer Easement across the Property of Willie V. Williams and Mamie H. Williams; Rock Springs Farm COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff is requesting the Board to authorize the County Attorney to proceed with condemnation for a sewer easement for the extension of sewers within Rock Spring Farms, S73-2T/7. On July 12, 1985, an offer of $512 was made to the above owners for a 20' permanent sewer easement and a 10' temporary construction easement for the extension of sewers within Rock Springs Farms. This offer has not been accepted. Since the contract for installation of the sewer line was awarded June 26, 1985, it is necessary to proceed with condemnation on an emergency basis. Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Attorney to proceed with condemnation on an emergency basis and exercise immediate right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia, and that the County Administrator be instructed to notify the owners by certified mail on July 25, 1985, of the County's intention to take possession of the easement. District: Dale Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES~ NO !-1 PREPARED BY: ~,~ ,~v · SIGNATURE: ~;Y ADM I NI STR ATOR II F,/I£1..IA CA T T~'t~ I C tf t7 0,4 D UTILITIES CHESTERFIELD -SCALE DATE DEPARTMENT DATE COU N'FYj VIRGIN REVlSIO[JS A D;;/.V,'N b-~-cST~ 5 ~v Di~/J,'.'il;S NO. STELL& BELMONT t .t -t · F&IRPINE$ t Cosb ?UCKE'e ?D D I 1..I TT LE CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE' m SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 8,2. Condemnation for a Sewer Easement across the Property of James C. Nelder, Jr., and Barbara L. Nelder; Rock Spring Farms COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION' Staff is requesting the Board to authorize the County Attorney to proceed with condemnation for a sewer easement for the extension of sewers within Rock Spring Farms, S73-2T/9. On July 11, 1985, an offer of $613 was made to the above owners for a 16' permanent sewer easement and a 20' temporary construction easement for the extension of sewers within Rock Spring Farms. This offer has not been accepted, and in meeting with staff and engineers, a more suitable location could not be determined. Since the contract for installation of the line was awarded June 26, 1985, it is necessary to proceed with condemnation on an emergency basis. Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Attorney to proceed with condemnation on an emergency basis and exercise immediate right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia, and that the County Administrator be instructed to notify the owners by certified mail on July 25, 1985, of the County's intention to take possession of the easement. District: Dale Recommend Approva! ATTACHMENTS; YES'~'/ NO [] PREPARED BY; SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMI NISTRATOR N42 o 45 '52"E ~ IB4.08' rOT ,~.~ ~ HORACE- E.. El ANNE- G, _¢ T D.B. 758 P. 506 45'52 189.~77 ' 20' CONSTRUCTION EASE. IG' SE~ER EASEMENT lOT 5. dAMES ~. dR, ~ BARBARA L. .,NE. L D ER tV 42045 '62 19,~.6G SEWER L/NE LOT 6 IRVING E-. UR. Et MICKEY ANDE.R$ON D.B. 1529 P. 502 20' BLDG. L/NE 174. 95' ~ S42o43'52"W S V/A L E ROAD 50' R/W · GILL'S · FAIRPINES Cl. · % I I DN BELMONT VD DN LITTLE I CREEK'/ eD B~DGESI.~F~D~ CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETINGDATE: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 8.3. SUBJECT: Condemnation for a Sewer Easement across the Property of Irving F. Anderson, Jr., and Mickey L. Anderson; Rock Spring Farms COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff is requesting the Board to authorize the County Attorney to proceed with condemnation for a sewer easement for the extension of sewers within Rock Spring Farms, S73-2T/8. On July 12, 1985, an offer of $733 was made to the above owners for a 16' permanent sewer easement and a 20' temporary construction easement for the extension of sewers within Rock Spring Farms. This offer has not been accepted. Since the contract for installation of the sewer line was awarded June 26, 1985, it is necessary to proceed with condemnation on an emergency basis. Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Attorney to proceed with condemnation on an emergency basis and exercise immediate right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia, and that the County Administrator be instructed to notify the owners by certified mail on July 25, 1985, of the County's intention to take possession of the easement. District: Dale Recommend Approva~ / ATTACHMENTS: YES~// NO D (- SIGNATURE: c~~,~ ~ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR er ~o · FAIRPIN£$ · % t ° 0 VD BELMONT LIT'I'Ll[ ~D IRIA ROLK~ ~0. lOT 4 HORACE E. El ANNE G. SC O.B. 758 P. ' S ~2° 45'52"W 189.$7 ~ 20' CONSTFtUCT/ON EA SE. 16~ SEV/EB EASEMENT tOT 5 JAMES C. Et BARBARA L. NELDER D.B. 571 P.$~! IV 42043'52 "E'-"'"'- 194. GG SERVER LINE LOT 6 IR VINE F'. .,dR. ~ MICKEY I.. -ANDERSON . D.B. 13~9 P. 5Q~ 20' BLDG, LINE 174.95' ~ S42o45'52"W SWALE BOAD 50' R/w .... SURYEY OF I 5' PERMA NEN T SEWER L/NE EA SEMEN T AND 2 0' TEM?ORAR Y CONS TRUe TION EASEMENT A CROSS' ?RO?ERTY OF IRVING F. ANDERSON JR. ~ MlCKEY_.L. ANDERSON DALE DISTRICT~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY~ VIRGINIA $CALE'~ I "--- ,50 ' BY CARROUTH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SURVEYORS 9100 JEFFERSON DAVIS HWY. DATE: 1-25-85 RICHMOND, VA. CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 8.4. Condemnation for a Sewer Easement across the Property of E. L. Wynn, Jr., and Hattie W. Wynn; Rock Spring Farms COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff is requesting the Board to authorize the County Attorney to proceed with condemnation for a sewer easement for the extension of sewers within Rock Spring Farms, S73-2T/5. On June 20, 1985, an offer of $162 was made to the above owners for a 20' permanent sewer easement and a 10' temporary construction easement for the extension of sewers within Rock Spring Farms. This offer has not been accepted. Since the contract for installation of the line was awarded June 26, 1985, it is necessary to proceed with condemnation on an emergency basis. Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Attorney to proceed with condemnation on an emergency basis and exercise immediate right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia, and that the County Administrator be instructed to notify the owners by certified mail on July 25, 1985, of the County's intention to take possession of the easement. District: Dale Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES C' NO [] PREPARED BY; I ~ ~ SIGNATURE: , COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ~r dl,0 STELLA BELMONT VD % .t -1 6 ~OYfl IL.i. GILL'S · F&IRPINES ~o cT. % Cosbys Loke sl=nd £MM£1'I~ L. a ALIC£ B. GFIUBB O. B. 4~1' P. 185 / ? L. OT II RoCl~ 5PRII''I~ F E. ~_. dt~. ~__ HA TTIE It. W YNN D.B. 4~$ RSI~' CHESTER:FI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE:, August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER; 8.5. SUBJECT: Condemnation for a Sewer Easement across the Property of Emmett L. Grubb, Jr., and Alice B. Grubb; Rock Spring Farms COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Staff is requesting the Board to authorize the County Attorney to process with condemnation for a sewer easement for the extension of sewers within Rock Spring Farms, S73-2T/6. On June 20, 1985, an offer of $624 was made to the above owners for a 20' permanent sewer easement and a 10' temporary construction easement for the extension of sewers within Rock Spring Farms. This offer has not been accepted. Since the contract for installation of the sewer line was awarded June 26, 1985, it is necessary to proceed with condemnation on an emergency basis. Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Attorney to proceed with condemnation on an emergency basis and exercise 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 July 25, 1985, of the County's intention to take possession of the easement. District: Dale Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO [] PREPARED BY; _,_~,~./x...~, ~ J SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR EMMETT L. ,,/ff. __8 AL/CE B. GRUBB E. L . dt~. ~ HA T TIE I-L W YNN D.B. ,¢43 P. 51Z kOT I~ JkO%. II i~oCi~ $PFINO . \ SURREY OF BELMONT VD .I ~ 61LL'$ ' FAIRPIN ES CT. % % I Lo~ DPt I LITTL[ ,. ,p CHESTERFIELD COUNT' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE; August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER; SUBJECT: Resolution honoring Richard Taylor, Eagle Scout at the request of The Hon. Harry Daniel. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OFINFORMATION: Richard Taylor of 4351 Round Hill Drive, Chesterfield 23832 has attained the rank of Eagle Scout· He is a member of B.S. Troop #874 sponsored by St. Luke's United Methodist Church in Chesterfield. Richie is a member of the Manchester High School Show Choir and the wrestling team. Richard is the son of Mr. and Mrs. Charles Taylor. ATTACHMENTS: YES//~ NO I-3 SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOGNIZING RICHARD TAYLOR EAGLE SCOUT WHEREAS, Richard Taylor, son of Mr. and Mrs. Charles A. Taylor of 4351 Round Hill Drive, Chesterfield, who is a member of Boy Scout Troop # 874 sponsored by St. Luke's United Methodist Church in Chesterfield and a student at Manchester High School; has achieved the rank of Eagle Scout; and WHEREAS, It is known and recognized that this is an honor that must be earned over a long period of time, requiring physical skills, and knowledge and training in 24 different categories; and WHEREAS, Richard has proven to his leaders that he is a good citizen of outstanding character; and WHEREAS, The rank of Eagle Scout that he has attained is an honor that will remain with him forever; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby extends its congratulations to Richard and acknowledges the good fortune of Chesterfield County to have such an.outstanding young man as one of its citizens. CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE' August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT: HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS 7oao COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION' Ms. Karen Livingston and ~r. Don Coates regarding the Chesterfield County Stable Facility. PREPARED BY:, ATTACHMENTS: YES :{~ NO [] SIGNATURE: · C~)UNTY ADMINISTRATOR Equine Committee of Chesterfield 7824 Bur Oak Lane Richmond, VA 23237 August 7, 1985 Mr. Richard L. Hedrick County Administrator Chesterfield County Chesterfield, VA 23832 Dear Mr. Hedrick, This letter is to request an appearance before the Board of Supervisors on Wed- nesday, August 14, 1985 to discuss the propsed destruction of the Chesterfield County Stable Facility. This facility has been used for 20 years by both local and state wide horse associations. Before the take over in maintaining the facility by Parks and Recreations in March of 1981, individual horse owners and clubs participated in the upkeep and maintainence and providing the necessary equipment needed to produce a show. Since 'the takeover in 1981 individuals and clubs have donated such items as the following; $1,000 for the installation of the water line, the existing aluminum gates on the rings and $10,000 was paid by The Virginia Quarterhorse Association for materials and installation of new stalls. The destruction of this facility not only affects horse owners but also numerous businesses in Chesterfield by the lose of revenue brought in by the use of the facility. In addition of these people, the Youth of Chesterfield will also suffer, as this is the ONLY horse related facility in the County. We are proposing to Chesterfield County that the existing facility remain as is until such time as a replacement facility can be made ready for our use. Attached you will find copies of a few of our petitions signed by concerned horse people. Our speakers will be Karen Livingston and Don Coates. We sincerely hope you will give our request due consideration and we look for- ward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, , Co Chairman Equine Committee of Chesterfield WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED RF, LOCATION OF TIlE CIIESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES. AND THE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL IlAPPEN TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE ...... SIGNATURE ADDRESS PETITION TO CHESTERFIELD COUNTY WE TNE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT TtlE PROPOSED RELOCATION O,- TIlE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES.AND THE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING TIlE THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIM~ AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. SIGNATURE ADDRESS PETITION T~CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~-~ 'E 'FILE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED RELOCA'F1ON OF 1'111~ CIIESTERFIELD COUNTY ~TABLE FACILITIES.AND THE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL IlAPPEN TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE ,EQUESTING · THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIM~ AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS :OMPLETED FOR OUR USE. ;IGNATURE ADDRESS '- 'E TllE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT TIIE ['ROPOSED RI".LOCAT/ON OF Till': UIIgSTIiRFIELD COUNTY ;TABLE FACILITIES. AND THE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL IIAPPEN TO TI-IE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE ;EQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIM~' AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY I$ ;OMPLETED FOR OUR USE. ;IGNATURE ADDRESS " STABI~IB FACILITIES AND TIlE LSIONS ON WIIAT WILL IIAPI'EN TO EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE ,REQUESTING '~;~ THE EXISTING FACILI~%' REMAIN AS IS UNTIl, SUCI{ TIM~ AS TilE. PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. SIGNATURE PETITION .'E TI]K UNDI".RSIGNMD ARE CONCERNED ABOUT 'I~IIE PROpOSED,RELOCATiON OF '1'111~ CIIES'I'I~RFI~OUNTY ;TABLE FACILItIES.AND THE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL'IIAPPEN TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE ',EQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILI~ REMAIN AS IS~ UN~IL SUCH TIME AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS ;OMPL~ED FOR OUR USE. · ~ '. ;IGNATURE PETITION TO CHESTERFIELD COUNTY WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF £11E CHESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES.AND THE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIM~ AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. IS SIGNATURE ADDRESS .'g THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT '~'HE PROI'OSEI,) Id~LOCAT1ON OF '1'I11£ GIIESTI'~RFiELD COUNTY TABLE FACILITIES.AND THE DECISIONS ON W.HAT WILL I1Ai)PEN TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE '.EQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMk~IN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS '.OMPLETED FOR OUR USE. ;IGNATURE ADDRESS ', WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT TIlE PROPOSED Ill.]LOCATION OF Till'] CI1ESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES AND TIlE DECISIONS ON WiIAT WiLL IIAPPEN TO TIlE EXISTING FACILiTiES. WE ARE REQUESTING TIlE THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIMI~ AS TltE PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. SIGNATURE , ADDRES,S , .. q717 '6 ~ OS IIb//. PETITION TO CHESTERFIELD COUNTY WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERN,~,J ABOUT THE PROPOSED RELOCATION ,.,e' TIIE CI1ESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILiTIES.AND THE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL ~APPEN TO T~E EX]STING FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING ,~. THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIM~ AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. ADDRESS loc) WE TIIE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT TIIE Pi/OPOSED RELOCATION OF TIlE CIIESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES.AND THE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL IIAPPEN TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCII TIME AS TIlE PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. ADDRESS ', l'v;i.£'l'l. ON ' .JIII75'tI:,RVIi~,LI.) COIJN'I.'Y WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT Tlll': PROPOSED RELOCATION OF Till". CIIESTERI"iELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES.AND TIlE DECISIONS ON WIIAT WILL IIAPPEN TO TIlE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING TIIE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCI1 TIME AS TIlE PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. SIGNATURE WE TIlE UNDEIiS1GNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT TIlE Iq{OPOSI£1)Iif~LOCATION OL" TIlE CIIESTI~RFiI£LD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES,AND TIlE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL }IAPPEN TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS TliE PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. SIGNATURE ADDRESS ., WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT TIIE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF TIIE CI1ESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES.AND TIIE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL tlAPPEN TO TIiE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING TIIE THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIM]~ AS TIiE PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. ADDRESS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS G.H. APP~_EGATE, CHAIRMAN CLOVER HILl. OIITIIIC'T JESSE J. MAYES, VlCE CHAIflldAN HARRY G. DANIEL ~ DI~TRt~T R. GARLAND DOOD BERMUDA DISTRICT JOAN GIRONE MIDLOTHIAN I~'I'RICT CHESTER FIELD COUNTY P.O. BOX 40 CHESTERFIELD ,VIRGINIA COUNI"V RICHARD L. HEDRICK MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: The Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors ~ey B. Muzzy, Assistant County Administrator for Development August 9, 1985 Horse Stables Pursuant to our meeting with you on July 24th, we began communicating the agreed upon building plans and the resultant impact on the horse stables and ring complex to interested groups and individual people. Essentially, we informed them that: (1). It had been determined that the area occupied by the horse rings was the most appropriate place to construct the new Data Processing Building. (2). There would be no impact on the horse facilities until the end of this year's show season (November). (3). Construction would begin on the new building sometime late this year. Next summer (1986) the ring closest to Krause Road would be impacted and unavailable for their use. The remaining ring, however, would remain available throughout next year's season. (4). The County would work with the horse associations to provide (if it can be accomplished without a great deal of expense) a warm up and cool down area so as to mitigate the effects of taking one of the rings during the 1986 horse season. (5). Following the 1986 season, the parking area and access drives for the Center would be constructed thus impacting and eliminating the final ring. Page 2 (6). There are no County funds or plans at this time to reconstruct the horse facilities. We stated clearly, however, that we will work with the horse associations in anyway possible to minimize the effects on them and help them explore alternatives and future directions. Several of the associations have requested to meet with us to review vacant county land with an idea towards requesting the land be made available to them for a new horse facility. We have set up a meeting in several weeks to discuss the situation further with them. Beginning several months ago, when the word got out that we were considering activities which would impact the horse facilities, we were candid with all inquiries which we received. We stated that yes there were considerations underway that may impact the facilities but at that particular time we could not give them the definite situation as we were also considering other sites which would have no impact on the facilities. Upon selecting the building site and meeting with the board we began to communicate with those interested parties. In addition, in the next several weeks we will send a letter to those associations who have used the facility in the past outlining the situation. It appears that the opposition which is building is not based on our using the area for the DP Center but rather on the fact that we are not building them a new facility. We are not aware of anyone who feels our plans are out of line just that the County is remiss in not recreating a new facility at some other location. The question of moving or eliminating the horse facility is not a new one. It has been discussed and mentioned over the years. In fact, several years ago, when the County was approached for authority to build a new bank of stables on county property, it was done under a contract which clearly specified that if the facility was eliminated or moved what the horse association's rights to reclaim the materials or salvage value would be. We will continue to meet with interested people and associations on this matter. As we work with them, we will communicate with you the alternatives and directions which they are seeking. Representatives of several associations will be appearing before you during the Board meeting on August 14th. They have already requested to be on the agenda. We have tried to encourage those people with whom we have spoken to approach this from a positive standpoint, work with us and identify alternative solutions, etc. Unfortunately, it does not appear that our advice will be heeded, and the tone of the press coverage to date has not been positive. We will proceed on the above course unless directed otherwise. Please let us know if you have any questions. :bk D9/019 ~9 PETITION TO~,.CHESTERFIELD COUNTY WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES,AND THE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. PETITION TO CI1ESTERlrlELD COUNTY '--' !E THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABouT THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF Tu.~ CIIESTERFIELD COUNTY ,TABLE FACILITIES.AND TIIE DECISIONS ON WIIAT WILL IIAPPEN TO Till'] EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE :EQUESTING TIlE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCII TIM~' AS TIlE PROPOSED FACILITY IS ;OMPLETED FOR OUR USE. ~E THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED Ab,~dT THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF '~,,,'~ CtlESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES.AND THE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL IIAPPEN TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIM~ AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ~5OUT THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF ~ilE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES. AND TIlE DECISIONS ON WIIAT WILL tlAPPEN TO TIlE EXIS,TINC FACILITIES. WE ARE .REQUESTING TIlE ~ EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIMI~ AS TIlE PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. ~ ADDRESS -, x,7-u/ .f~ ... ~.~'~ %4 .!/.'..ff-- 'E THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABboT TIlE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF Th.. CtlESTERFIELD COUNTY TABLE FACILITIES.AND TIIE DECISIONS ON WIIAT WILL IIAPPI~N TO Till;: EXISTINC FACILITIES. WE ARE .EQUESTING ' THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCII TIM~ AS TIIE PROPOSED FACILITY OMPLETED FOR OUR USE. TS IGNATURE ADDRESS /7 / / .)/ /./ /.? // // / . ) ) It ), 1(' ?( itc it ½, t, q 4 TIlE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCI.'.P, NED AI½0t. TIlhl I'ROPOSED RI'iI,OCAT1ON OF 'l.'ll,. ,IlhlSTI'iRFII'iLD COUNTY BLE FACILITIES.AND TIlE DECISIONS ON WIIAT WILl, IIAPI"Ir, N TO Till;; EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE UESTING TIlE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIl, SUCII TIME AS TtIE PROPOSED FACILITY IS PLETED FOR OUR USE. ;NATURE ,A,DDRESS , :7 7 jl "------ ,,r · THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT TIlE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF TilE CIlESTERFIELD COUNTY ?ABLE FACILITIES.AND TIlE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL ~APPEN TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE ~QUESTING THE EXISTING FACILIT~f REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIM~ AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS )MPLETED FOR OUR USE. [GNATURE ADDRESS '-" PETITION TO ~ESTERFIELD COUNTY ~E THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF ~tE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES AND THE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE IEQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIM~ AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS ~OMPLETED FOR OUR USE. PETITION TO C~ESTERFIELD COUNTY IE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF THE OIESTERFIELD COUNTY ;TABLE FACILITIES AND THE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL I~API'EN TO T}~E EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE [EQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIM~ AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS :OMPLETED FOR OUR USE. iIGNATURE ,ADDRESS :: v WE THE UNDERSIC, NED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT TIlE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF THE CIIESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES ~ AND T11E DECISIONS ON WltAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIM~ AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. SIGNATURE . '~,~,~- ADDRESS II PETITION. r_ .... TO C.~kESTERFIE~D~ COUNTY E THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PgOPOSED REI~OCATI/ON OF THE CI~]ESTERFIELD COUNTY TABLE FACILITIES AND THE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL IIAPPEN TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE EQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIM~ AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS ADDRESS "- THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF TIlE CI'IESTERFIELD COUNTY FABLE.FACILITIES AND THE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL IIAPPEN TO TI-IE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE :.QUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIM~. AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS ~,~'~.ETED ~OR 0~ USE. OV~i~ ~ ~ }/.'~ ~ 0/~ ~. J~ ~ S~ ~ ? ,'~/J C ~ . £GNATURE ADDRESS ..'- WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED aBOUT THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES.AND TIlE DECISIONS ON WilAT WILL IIAPPEN TO TIlE EXISTINC FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING TIlE ~ EXISTING FACILITY REblAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS TIIE PROPOSED FACILITY IS SIGNATURE ADDRESS ~ PETITION TO~HESTERFIELD COUNTY 2.~ ~ ~,< · ~E THE ~1NDERSIC, NED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF I~]E CHESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE ~ACILITIES AND THE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL IIAPPEN TO THE EXIST1NG FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIM~ AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS %OMPLETED FOR OUR USE. ADDRESS ~32~ 7 :] THE UNDER%IGNFD ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF TIlE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY FABLE FACILTTIES AND TIIE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL IIAPPEN TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE · ]QUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIMI~ AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS )MPLETED FOR OUR USE. [GNATURE ADDRESS PETITION TO CHESTERFIELD COUNTY E THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABoDT THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF TltE CI-IESTERFIELD COUNTY TABLE FACILITIES AND TIlE DECISIONS ON WIIAT WILL IIAPPEN TO TIlE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE EQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILI~'Y REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIM~ AS ~I~E PROPOSED FACILITY IS O~LETE~ ~OR OUr~ USE. OV'e.~ /~ ,,Y.~5' ~/~/. C-h ~s '/-~.-w?,'~./d C ~ ADDRESS WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT TIlE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF TIlE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES.AND TIlE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIM~ AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS CO~n. ETED ~'OR OOr~ USE. ~ V~ ~? ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ /~ , 4 Z ~ Fe~'~~ ~ /~ ¢._~ ~, ADDRESS SIGNATURE THE UNDER$~C, NED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 7ABLE FACILiTY, ES AND THE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE ~Q~UESTING THE EXISTING FACILIT~f REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIM~ AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS ~?'~ ~:-"' °'~' '~" ::', ~.~, ~ J~'>~<~.. d~h~.3T~.~'>",'~/~ d~' PETITION T ;HESTERFIELD COUNTY WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF ~]E CHESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES AND T}?E DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL IIAPPEN TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES WE ARE REQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIM~ AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. .S.,I~ATURE ADDRESS C A . /4 , o, PETITION TO CHESTERFIELD COUNTY WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED RELOCATION 0!~ f11E CT1ESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES AND THE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL liAPPEN TO TI. IE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIM~ AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS SIGNATURE ADDRESS PETITION TO CIIESTERFIELD COUNTY WE THE UNDERSIGNF. DAP, E CONCERNEb ABOUT TIIE PROPOSF. I) RELOCATION O, Till". CIIF. STI.:I~FIELD COUNTY STAllLE FACILITIE,q. AND TIIE DECISIONS ON WIIAT WILL IIAPI'EN TO TIlE I",×I,qT'INC F^CIL'IT'[F,S. WE ARE REQUESTING TIlE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCII TIME AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. SIGNATURE ADDRESS .,', PETITION TO CIIESTERI,"IELD COUNTY WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNEb ABOUT THE PROPOSEI) RELOCATION Ol.' 'rill,'. CI[%STERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES.AND TIIE DECISIONS ON WI1AT WILL IlAPI'~I'iN TO Till;', EX?STINC FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. SIGNATURE ADDRESS PETITION ~-'n CHESTERFIELD COUNTY WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF TIlE CIIESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES.AND THE DECISIONS ON WltAT WILL IIAPPEN TO TItE EXISTING ]fACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCtt TIM~ AS TIlE PROPOSED FACILITY IS CObIPLETED FOR OUR USE. j, PETITION T'"~qHESTERFIELD COUNTY WE THE UNDER~ICNFD ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF ~]E C};ESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILTTIE~ AND THE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO TI-~E EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIM~ AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS SIGNATURE ADDRESS PETITION T~P..~CIIESTERFIELD COUNTY WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED RF. LOCATION OF THE Ct-IESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES. AND TIlE DECISIONS ON WIIAT WiLL I~API?EN TO T~IE EX]STING FACiLiTLES. WE ARE REQUESTING TIIE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS TIIE PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. PETITION T~--CIIESTISRFIIgLI) COUNTY WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF TIlE CI'IESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES.AND THE DECISIONS ON WIIAT WILL IIAPPEN TO TIlE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE ~REQUESTING ' TIlE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SIJCII TIME AS TIlE PROPOSED FACILITY IS OMPLETED FOR OUR USE. ADDRESS III [ PETITION T~. CIIESTERFIELD COUNTY WE TIlE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCh~RNI~D ABOUT 'I'IIE I)ROPOSED RI,.iI,OCAT1ON O1,' Tllhl CII[,]STERF£ELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES.AND TIlE DECISIONS ON WIIAT WILL HAPPEN TO TIIE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCIt TIME AS TIIE PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. ADDRESS PETITION TO CIIESTERI?IELD COUNTY WE TIlE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCI:]RNI~,D ABOUT TIIE I)IIOPOSI~,I) I~I,H,OCATION OF '['lllt~ CIIIt]S'I'I,]RF.[ELI) COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES.AND TIIE DECISIONS ON WIIAT WILL I1APPI~,N TO TIlE EXTST]NC FACTLTTIES. WE ARE REQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS TIlE PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. ADDRESS h PETITION TO CHESTERFIELD COUNTY WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ~,~OI.]T TIlE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF LHE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES.AND THE DECISIONS ON WIIAT WILL lIAPPl,:N TO THE EXISTINC FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING THE THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIM~ AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. PETITION TO CIlESTERIQELD COUNTY WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ~OUT THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF O1E CtlESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES.AND TIIE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL ~IAP['I~]N TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING THE THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIM~ AS TIlE PROPOSED FACILITY I$ COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. SIGNATURE ADDRESS :, 6ql-a r'r'x_o~Ld_',c3rn 80¢. cJq_c,,.%'TJ:Ap., U.~ ./?dff. /az ,~m: z/. ... pr PETITION ,'E TIlE UNDERSIGNED ARF. CONCERNED ABOUT gel) 'I~ELOCAT1ON O/: Till". CIIESTI'.'RFi~OUNTY ;TABLE FACILITIES.AND THE DECISIONS ON W IlAPPEN TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE :EQUESTING TItE EXISTING FACILITY REM~lz,~ ~S IS~ UNTIL SUCH TIM~ AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS ~0MPLETED FOIl OUR USE. .. ; I GNATURE ADDRESS : PETITION T~,~ WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT STABLE FACILITIES.AND TIIE DECISIONS ON ~,.. REQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. ;ED RELOCATION OF TIlE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~.. IIAPPEN TO THE EXISTINC FACILITIES. WE ARE IS UNTIL SUCH TIM~ AS TItE PROPOSED FACILITY IS SIGNATURE ADDRESS ., ,¥ 1/5 / \,,,, ,il PETITION T~,~, )UN~I ~ WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUL ..)SED REL~ 'rile C[IESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACiLITIES.AND TIIE DECISIONS Ok :.L [IAPPI,:N .~.STING FAC£L1TIES. WE ARE REQUESTING TItE THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCI! TIH~ AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. SIGNATURE ., ADDRESS PETITION TO,.C,,~ESTERFIELD COUNTY WE TIlE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF TIlE CID:,STI{RFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES.AND TIlE DECISIONS ON WIlAT WILL IlAI~PEN '170 TIIE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCll TIM~ AS TilE PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. ADDRESS 7/ / t 1/ t/ /,/ PETITION TO~.~CHESTERFIELD COU~_~Ty .'E THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE I)ROI'OSED RELOCATION OF TIlE CIIESTI':RFIELD COUNTY 'TABLE FACILITIES.AND THE DECISIONS ON WI.IAT WILL IIA'i)FEN TO THE EXISTINC FACILITIES, WE ARE '.EQUESTING TItE EXISTING FACILITY REM~.IN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS :OI'IPLETED FOR OUR USE, . ; I GNATU RE ADD RE S S ., ~';' "'y '"-,,.~ . -L~ .r'~,5" PETITION '~"CHESTERFIELD COUNTY "~ WE THE UNDERSIGN~?D ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF TIlE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES AND TIlE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL IIAPPEN TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIM~ AS THE PROPOSED FAC_~ILITY IS COMPLFTED FOR Oth,q USE. /~ c~l.O.x.~g~- (~.~.~ ~.z.t~-~ ~ ~ 1/o1 ' ... SIGNATURE ADDRESS ,, PETITION ~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF TBE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES AND THE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING ,T,~HE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH.TIM~ AS THE P.ROPOSED FACILITY IS co~T~ ~o~ o~,.. u~. /~ ~,,.~.,~ ~ ~ SIGNATURE PETITIO~'~O CHESTERFIELD COUNTY WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT TIlE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF TIlE CIIESTERFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES.AND THE DECISIONS ON WHAT WILL IIAPPEN TO THE EXISTING FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING "~ THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCIt TIME AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. ~ I GNATU RE ADDRESS PETITION %,q~CIIESTERFIELD COUNTY WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE CONCERNED ABOUT TIlE PROPOSEI) RELOCATION OL. TIll". CIII~STI'~RFIELD COUNTY STABLE FACILITIES .AND TIIE DECISIONS ON WIIAT WILL IIAPPEN TO TIIE E×ISTINC FACILITIES. WE ARE REQUESTING THE EXISTING FACILITY REMAIN AS IS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS COMPLETED FOR OUR USE. ,,*,::,i: FACII,ITIIiS A,,I) Till:. I}I'iC]S]ONS ON WIIAT W11.1. IIAI)t'EN TO TtlE EXISTIN(i FA(5IL1T'IES. WE At':E REQUESTING TIlE EXISTING FAC1LITY I>,EMAII'~ AS IS t:['g'lTIL SUClt TIME AS TIlE PROPOSED FACILITY IS CO?'IPLETED FOR OUR USE. SIGNATURE ADDRESS ' 7:,s? eW,,~,5.~5: /.~. ST.",F. LE FACILITIES ANI) Till: I)I'X;]S]ON,q ON WIIAT WILL IIAI'I'EN TO TIlE I':)~IST]NC FACILITIES 14E AP, F, P, EQFESTINC, TtlE EXISTING FAC1LITY RE?qAIN AS IS UNTIL StlC. 11 TIH~ AS TIIE PROPOSED FACILITY IS CO..,J LETED FOR OI. JR USE. SIGNATURE ADDR____ESS > .a 3z. 7 'Tg'a g /z't> ~'t v ,,z ,e"o,. 'z ~2 ? '3 'v As early as 1980 we began discussing the Chesterfield Stable Facility problem with special interest groups who use the facility. In 1983-84, the group using the County complex riding facilities wished to expand their facilities. At that time we discussed with them the rapidly pressing need to build new county government facilities. Their proposed facilities would be in an inappropriate place when such a construction project should occur. Representatives at that meeting assured us they would construct temporary and movable facilities, with full knowledge that it would not be a permanent location for future horse shows. While it is a fact we have allowed this special interest group to use county government property in the past, and we have cooperated with them even so far as to maintaining the property, the time has come for that property to be used for the good of the entire county. We must move to the next phase of utilization of this property-that of construction of the new County Data Processing Building. It is unfortunate that in using the facility, they have come to feel a sense of ownership. However, the truth remains...it is county property and must now be used as such. Quite frankly, we do not have funds to pay for relocation of the Horse Show track. For this season, they are all right where they are. Next season, they will be limited to the warm-up track. The following season they will have to make other arrangements. We do not want to displace anyone, and will try to work with them in any limited way we can. Since the late 1800's the sport of horse racing and showing has been a part of Chesterfield County. Attached are pictures and news clippings from showings and races held at the Chesterfield County Courthouse during 1936 thru 1938. Then, as now, the Stable Complex located behind the Courthouse provides a wholesome sport which allows youth to learn responsibilites and sportsmanship as well as have fun. Since that time the sport of horse showing has increased and for the last 20 years shows have been held at the existing facility. Although there are not definite figures as to the number of horses currently in the County it is estimated at 4000. The facility is currently used by 13 horse associations on a regular basis. Three of these assoc- iations are 4H groups, and another is currently being formed. Horse shows .provide good, clean family fun at little and in most cases, no cost to spectators. In each show youth participation plays a major role. Shows have designated classes for youth participation only and many times youth entries will out number the adults. This facility provides a major way of fund raising for youth members of ~h_se associations. T~his allows the youth their special activities and projects. Individuals and clubs alike have supported the complex since its beginning in 1965. Before the takeover by Parks and Recreation from General Services most repairs additions and general maintainence was taken care of by clubs and individuals ~/~~ Since 1981 we have continued to support the facility. In 1983 three individuals held benefit shows to..,raise $1,000.00 needed to install the water line between the two rings. The alumininum gates were bought and installed by individuals. Two clubs bought and maintain a water wagon for an adequate watering system. The calf shoot was purchased by a local club. And when the need arose for more stalls, The Virginia Quarter Horse Association paid $10,000.00 to have the new stalls built. The above/ items are but a highlight of the support of individuals and clubs in the area. During the 1985 show season there are 34 bookings. Each booking could be a one, two or three day show depending on the association sponsoring it. The cost for renting the facility are as follows: $125.00 for 2 rings and judges stand, $25.00 for con- cession stand, $3.00 per stall if the county cleans, $1.00 per stall if you clean, $6.00 per stall for VQHA stalls. Each club is billed for their water and electricity use at $.07 per 100 cubic feet of water and $.06 per kilowatt hour for electricity. According to an estimate provided by Parks and Recreation in 1981 the estimated cost per show is $261.35~although some adjustments must be made to this estimate. Attached you will find a copy of this estimate and the changes that must be made. You will also find a breakdown of the cost for clubs for a one, two or three day show and what the operation cost versus the monies taken in is. In addition to the stable complex Parks and Recreation maintains 1 boat launch, 1 boat ramp, 7 parks, 5 athletic complexes and another park which is currently under construction. Also, there are 109 baseball diamonds, 43 soccer pitches and 20 football fields. The estimated cost of a class 1 baseball field ranges from $20,000.00 to $80,000.00, class 2 fields range from $200.00 to $10,000.00. There are 35 class 1 fields and 74 class 2 fields. Rental fees for these facilities are applied only during tournament play. The stable complex is the only horse facility in Chesterfield and the only public property owned and maintained by Chesterfield County where you may ride a horse, as horses are restricted from County Parks. This facility has been used by the associations and residents of Chesterfield for 20 years and to destroy it with,.no replacement would be like destroying a part of the CountY$ history, . We are requesting the existing facility remain as is until such time as a new facility has been completed for our use./ We have obtained estimates from contractors for the cost of rebuilding a new facility exactly like the one we currently~have. These estimates range from $250,000.00 to $350,000.00.~ In closing I would like to quote Mr. Phil Hester in a memorandum to Mr. Richard Hedrick, August 1981 when discussing the option of closing the facility at that time. "Even though this sounds like a simple approach, I feel it would not be received favorably by those ~_roups who currently utilize the facility. Also, since we have tt.e makings of a good facility, it would be a shame to deprive the citizens the opportunity to have it to use." Not only do I sp_eak ~_~_~ym~v~e_]_f~_tonight and share Mr. Hester's feelings, but also a number of those present tonight and ~]~rge number of county residents as reflected by the petitions attached~ Fora- . TIIUILSI~Y, MAY' ~ 1936 RICItMONI)' TiMI~S~DISpATCH SOUT~I SI~E SUPPI scenes at ' ' uth de Ch, liorse Show PRIZE.'-; FOIt I'ONIES.--These three Ml~ea won awards itl toe fl~st ciasa at tile ho~ show held ,qaturday at I,langollan, Chesterfield Couuty home of Mr. and Mrs. M. Ball Jr. l~'ft' to right, they arc Mi~ Mary Sydnor, first; Mi~ Nancy KJcll~,rg, sec- Ontt, ami Mi~ Nancy Nichols, third. ~ FOtllt IIOOVES WEltE UP--When the photographer snapped Miss Bruce Bowe as she put Dixie over the rail In tile tlandy ltunters Scurry at I.langollan. Dixie ~ balked at the jumps earlier ~ the day, but this time t.he t,.'n(!) was taken in stride. "GOING TO JERIISAI,EM"--Thls was one of the features at Iolal~gollan Saturday. !Fhe object here is to dismount and find a stump to sit on. Lonnle Dugan is demonstrating toe "first-come-first-seated" rule to Mt~.~ Nancy Noland, who was disqualified on the play. Anyway, Mr. Dugan, himself, wa~ eliminated on the next rotand. WITll EASE ,qND GRACE--Mrs. B. R. lluband, who took practi 'ally all of the a~arda at the s0ow Saturday (she even won the Going to Jerusalem hah llcap), pu~ her Black ~arqu~ over the rail In the llandy linnets Scurry wltlcll 8he NO, ~e ho~ ~'t ~allv cr~ his legs. Or'Ell TIlE takes 'the thud Iour- foG} Jump over the Idangollan course, fOtal competitive evept 10 tl~j~,utli Side llo~r~e 'Sho'v~.'..Sevcfna~"Of'the 0orses ~;hled a~ay /rom this jump, Oat'Dr. Hughe~i pu~ her ovex the lkrst tkme. '. Vol. '3, 8o. 15 ;.~l%ck and neck '~ th4 streli:h at :heslerfiekl Court- )und.s come Jt~dge BlizZard "win -ft}0Led" trotter (left) ownca and (lriveq by Oeo: ~e i'l. llerndonl aaa The W&)dmal~ fle0t i)ic)r ow 'd by W. A. l~t)l'llt'r atltl :;0n. The "son, is J. I. lh~rner, wllo i~ mall~Oiq,."l'hc Wot)df ~;tll'S I'¢,itls il~ this trial for the h:trne3s and flat races, which ar~ ~o ~e'St:q,cd Moll, ay tinder tile aus- pit:es of the n.'wly formed lh*oadrock t0t~ing A:~J&:iatlon 'ill celt, l:; alton of t, ltce Day.--~;h ff Phgto. : ' I'or Cm~riltouse mt 31o Detasea. will go to C(}unty Fair ^:~soci racea and tile h; fall. To II.ye }:vent Th,,re will I)e i)yroleehnlc.,i {1:30 A. M. Mol)da , at UI ('.';ll'lfhq(l ~'he pr,larant wi}~ Marl at ~a:a0 sl~rtslnfln of 1'. M. Proceeds. ~ all Cllesterfleld fit,lllbly, who le evellk~ lea- ] (~ol~tintled oli Page 12, thele will 19r the two flat rnee.~, one flat free-fof l In this latter ~e, ~ Horse Racing to Be in Chester[ield AII:,.'tlTING STalrr o1,' 'Fllti'?,¥Oltli.,q'--Whh:h are ex- pt'cirri to ilcconq}any tile lifting of the bar;:ier for the Ilal rihT~ lo bt' singed {}ti the lh'oatlrock Racillg Assm'ia- Ill'Il I'.JliJ (Ill Monday ltl th(' (TOtll'thottSe I,'aJr Ol'Otllldfi ~11, I. {' ~'isJll,f illl{J hJ~ l'h'ct-JlJoled l)ri~('r's Pet. BEING (il{OOMl,;l) lq)it A WINNICII?~--That is tljc hope of W. A l~)rner and his son. J I, the owners of the troltvr John ~)., which is~>eing rubbed duwh by a groom after a trial heat about Ifie track at lhe COill'lhotlse Iqdr (]l'Olllld$. 'riio t.,tld a, hetltllcd for Mollday.lll~ty mi{rk lhe rpvival of,llarlloss Ii1~ flat horse racillg Ill I':le~Icrlluld ¢otmly, which is l.hJ~ aim of thc lh'oil(h'ock liat'i~g A:;sociation, sport,or ol Iht lnde: I)cndence l)ay event, ~ [ i AllillJeilr To Rank ' ' State Fi,ri'st '" Show to .Draw Ov~r 60 Entries }¥AlIOO ON WAIIPATII.- J..K. llaldo's Wahoo works ~'n tit the ~'alk. with 8coltie Riles lip. lie also will enter tile hol'~ show JUCIII}S Ilbt ~} exceed 3 I-2 her. Kver~ W~k / ~ Vol. 3, No. 16 · $OU']?H SiDE Richmond, Virginia, T ¢UPPLEMENT u~%lay, Jl}ly 8, 1937 TWEI.VE PAGES [ - . ..~, '.'~ ! !'~ ,.¢~ '":.ii, COW:RS EXI kENS TRAIN Mil,E--After ({oink a mile in two minutes and one Seco i1 Flat, llanover Express, fleet-footed trotter ~ned by W. Il. Ih'o;tch of GL. me men's Church. la arisen back to the judge's stand:Dy L. Al)l~legale ttt e races spons~..ca by the nroafl ~I; llorse lhtcing ass~lat m at the Gl esterficld Co ~ty Fait' Grounds on Monday to ,'eceive the acclaim ot the,gecrowd.~Sl:~[fl'hotob~South. ~ ' ' )raws Ih)mcr States lh, rse l{at.e 'Revival' lhg Cro;wd .t {,beste~' whl ~' n~ws m IDce .,.,.,,,,,, ,,, ,,,,,.. , ...... ,,,,. ...... ,.,~, ....... ,,,,,., ,,,.~.,.,,,,d.. ~ '~,' ............. favorites. Ro~k llol'~e llact'tl A&,u)t:iaLioll arid la likely to bel the forerunner Chesterflehl Count Fair each fall. Outstanding ev~t of the day said to b,~ a little a}wr(, thin rash- tollably-brcd/~lJ o~ OUy Mt:Kinney third. I { * it3:4!rt!glllellt tiffs wevk. he sill~t Irate, of tile nfO~rnOOn, the 2:15 12:30 o'clock ~hd 'l~st~l lllllll about 5:30~o~ ~ be a e I)etweett John D~o~ed by Wl A Ih)rner ~ ~)n i~d driven by ,L I. lh)rn(,r, lind l'e~ B q'here, ow led Crow4s. . 'Thrf' ,ed. by Races at CoUrthouse START OF FREF.-I TROT AND PACl.:-.llanover Express, drlve~ all trot at tile Che~terlteht County Fair Grounds itl the races sponsored pendence Day. L~t is Miss Alliance, drivcn by J. I. Ilorner, and right is ' ;y I, Applegale, gels away in front ill tile start o! tile 2:15 free-for- the I:lroad flock lIorse }lacing Association itl celebration of Inde- Iud{lc Ulizzard, driven by George IL tlerndon. ' - I,AIHI,:S DAY IN '1' 1,, Aplfiegah' in Ihc 2 'Thomas J , her o',Y11 alle~,d tff tile ficld itl I.:VENT It wa:; Irltly "l,adies Day" for Mrs. trol and pace Its .q]ll~ won all Ihrec heal.s wilh iltry. 8be is M~OWI~ crosshlg the finish line far Second heat. l,lNE..-Was Al Kandle, up on I,. C, I,'iMler's SLI(;IITI,¥ OUT ()Ir ]lylle~dermle, when I~,~ r~xle Ihlwll tile stretch to win the flat race for flrst-sLarting thoroug ~bred e01Ls, llyperdermle rnn away from tile field, nnd slightly clo.~ to [,lie Infield but lie wo~. F~)I!N(; (;II{I, SII()~,VS TIlE WAY Il wa~ Miss t~itty Phillips. up oh MI'~;. ll. I}. lhll)and's M~:l'Wilz;{, who .~)lowed I]lc way l)a.~t tilt' jtldge's M~nd iu Ibc farm horse cla:;s, first of the flat races, to Silver Krug and SI]'rits of An~n~ox~ia. ~ ~,. : : .... ~;.~.' . ,;,.~. ~- ,.'.... ~,' ... . SCIIAMIILE fiCUIIS TO VIC'I'OI{¥ ~,liss Mikh'rd l{,~rvey, t~lcr. thorolqlhbreds in one minule fl:ti al the CheMcrfield County FMr Orollnda on Tuck;day. Iii the luck ia Newton Mayo t);x Warpath. ---Staff l'hott~ b~ llalvcy Four IIlCltM6~D TIMES DIspATCiI SOUTtI SIDE SUPPI,~,~T, THURSDAy, S :PTEMBER 30, 1937 Exhil)its Io Vie With (:a'owds Ftdr Is Awaited LC om, I}-.xy ~ other del~.rtmeni.s. Club? ~ new fa~e~' club Clove~ }B~ ~t~ct, ~ill exMblt first plmee l~t y~r and la law h~d ~ at. In that again th~ year, while the l~ew~'s pl~e more than any other club. i$ working to re,at. Mldlothl~n ~ve-At-llome and Maraca At-Home Clu~ h~ve ~th h~d ~ exce~lnEly k~n ~ IM~era' Club e/hlblM, which cream in~re~ 'than ~y other single eYent at t~ fair. 4-1I clubs have ~n m~t~g for Om ~ two w~ m~ln[ ~rk~ ~L He }~ I fine it ~fleld, ho will r~ve ~. Ho~ ~ the Rlchm~d ~ ~ester ~hl~ ~om his s~ ~ r~ntl~ develo~ W~I B~sy el ~xhlbl~ ~IM~, aU pr~uets cnler~ In AT llOR,';E SIIOW--Whcn the women take to tile hurdles in thc Chesterlleld County Hor~e Bhow the last day of tile lair next week, these thrqeo" will be In tile running--and Jumping. Top, left t r~ght: Mrs. Oretta Wallihan riding Rolling Hock ol the ~trook Run ,9tables and Anne Cone with Chief, Below, Mi'st ljlldreth ,Scott MeCra~y on one o! her favorites. Judges have s~cured in all del~.r tment8. Omden :CIu~, ~me Moa elu~, ~acl~al~y ~1 the ~unty, a~ p~nn~e and workl~ ~ aur~ ~U ~ua exblbl~ with ~he ~auty ~ ~v~n~ of their dl~lays. M~ M~rgaret year in the w~mn'$ de~r~en~. furnished by the]Aerial Cowden~, fornmnee.; Much of the fun 81d~hows Al~y on Groun~ Already P, L. ~ua~ of the ~, and eree~d ~ breMh-t~k[ng ferr~ wheel and a: kiddie' a~lto s~iway on tile {air grounds, l~u P. ulay{vania wi[h a Mdoahow, Abrams lite ha:Ii man. will bring his attra;'tlon w rich a ieatur~l of thc ~aMon w~s that only the l~r ou tile fall'. { The main aim Of (lie horse MWw. cording tb llober~ I'. Grymes. who is ~ ellcotlraKe the breeding and ownblg of bet~r horses of all are eoll0;ied ~ horses and riders of Ches[erfieid. ~ with other owners of the~ ~e e{~," Mr. Oryxes said. fesslonal]~uch, and we are try- ing to a$old thl~ b~g~me It ~uM the avernge rider in an unfa~. position. ~ We ~ Ieee with the re- new~ llflereat {~lnff shown horses, esp~lally lu tills ]~ality, that mir,show ~l{I {ro~ ~ one of tile {~gest e~n~ of th~ ~rt." follows: ; Whu~y, I P. M., first race~2:l; trct; ~ond pwcef tlUrd r~-.Ha~ r~ce for fr~-for-all tro~ and ~ce; thud fo~lrth raee~flat race Anne C~ne~-. Chaxk$ M. AubreyA:~well. Dr. A~ ~ Jon~.~. MI~ Arms OFFI¢'IAI, F1 EI,D FAIR .q Et YI'I(J~N Nol. 3, No. 28 sOuTH, SIDE SUPPLEMEN* for its d~versity or Interco*, There ¼ I dl~,erslty of ~o11, a favorable cllm&tl~ emmdttion, ~nd, ~tng lur- ~ th~ ~mumty finds a ready m~rket[for I~ ~lrlcultur~l pr~- In th~ county you may find me~e~ ty~ of f~mlnw tlmt ~evsi~where else in n~qy for ~m~ne ~ ~ve the ~lon ~ ~ke the le~ In [h~ ~- ~ ~ ~kl~, who w~ ~C~f~ Iff I~ll~ the first ~ dent off the county o~lnl~o~ tlmt ~ Itrl~ exhlbl~ esch · UCC~ year, !F. ir W.'s Begun .s CornSho., lly Sr..for. II ttkt's rtt 1910 Ily ..'. C. Shawen ~rk in lot0 ........ I .... I /~r:handn~uegtltl~tAt t e n a/mee_~ ~ .... o~. I e tag the fsi ~eslden~ a manaler ·secre {by M ~ ti e la~ ~natof John B Ifar .... ~' - * ' " ~ R I /~n~tl~a from each district In Itrndttlon as manager of the exhl- /the eoufltv '-- ~ ........... r ~alklns w~q made the flrat , presiden~ of the a~l~tfon and l-- Y ............ Iremalned In that of fi ..... all his when under the leadprship ofi · [ -.-L___ [death 1~ 1931. lie was ~Ucc~d~ J Continu~ on ~e 3. Column 2 lby ~he ~lectlon of J. O. Ifenin$ ' .... * ...... ]of ~le~'~r]ct, who lit~ the ~ *~ ~ * ~A~A [bfflce a~the pre.at time. I - I ........ ' I I~e II'st manager o[ wlmm we [ ~U~ ~ e~ ~e [can fln~ any r~ord w~ lforace I . I ~- . [Smith. Who t~k a ~reat deal 173T~J .... iE'*~ ~.__ 2 ID ot .It In every way. lie was [at w~ ~ ~ c~ ~me co~ ~ ~ltnbl" ID a t~e, ~ ~ t~ ~Hbt ~v~ ~ a ~. rge expan~on. m ~W. it WM ~ ~ ~ e p n Of the ~latlon to have ~. ~ ~e~ry-tt~umr. It w~ tlmu~ht ~-- Ithat the~holder o[ tills olf~ce ~ -tn the ~rfleld ~tl I a ~ ~ I'- ~--'- ' n ~ltion ~ re~er U~ ~t ~u , ~tln- develo~ent of the fMr ~ a trib- ~h~ t~re ~ no ~unty ~ t~er durlnl the m~Jor ~ ~ ~ ~l~lnia ~tter tlon o~ Mr ~c~e~n*i ~ Pr~otlnl a ~ty ~laon, tn& ~e~ i trot ar ~n b ~rrield, ~a~ of cr~lt for the m~nner In which he conduc~ tlie office, (Itowth Ad~ lo BuIMi~t ~r the s~ce ~ ~ found and a~Ulld tile ~otirth~l~ bull~- Inls w~ ~ for the ~xhlbl~ for a few years one buHdinf on Ute back of the c~rtho~ wM ~ulp~ '~ ho~ the nual show. ~ ~e ~ ft~ year ~ year it w~ a~ntlal bulldlnla ~ ~ke care the dlffe~nt d~attmen~ were ~d~ t~ time ~,t~e. T~y there ~ a fine a~c~ltu~l b~dlnL an ~ucatlonal bulldinw. th~ llve-s~ butldl~a, ~ kl~. All of the~ depRr~en~ a~ well ~troni~ by the lUchmond, Virginia, 'l'hur:;day, Stq)tcrnla,r 30, 1937 Ilorme Ehow Started l,~t Year Tile year 1936 marked tim b~glnning of the hor~e show for tile fair. Tiffs w&sa new depart- ment. and if the tnter~t that w~ tllte3, [~re II~ ~en a s~ndfast pur~ to hold ~ ~e original pla& wlwre we all ~et together District, O~rse Pot~, Frank Hell- w~, W. l,. ~urge~% W. ~. True- Vest. D. O, MorrlsetL, E. A, Mo~- Manchester District, A. M. ~v~, R. H. Wlnfree: Midlothlau Dis-I SI X'I'EI.]N PA(ii.Lq Membership Roll Given The 193'{ membership roll of tile fair a&'~oclallon includes: llermnda ~ Dl~trlut -.K H. il~ki~, It. P. ~, W. O. ~rs. ~. ~. fiwlfief~. Ma~C~ { DLm~ie~, C. Welh. J. W. ~, MatUe X. Wi~, J. ~n Jr.. P.[ ~l~y; ~n~ ~. P. Bm~n. Beula M~ra. J. Clover lllll ~L--A. H. RIOltltlOlqD Chesterfield Awaits Rec or~l-Breaki ng TO OFFICIATE AT COIINTI' l,'AIl~Tlle3e officers iff Ihe Chesterfield County Fair aksoctati0n will be on I~an'l to direct the evcnks, l,efL to right, top row: J. G. Itching, president; W. C. 811awen, secretary-treasurer; J. Ik Walkills, manager; W. A. Ilcrner and E. E; l~:anes, vice-l)restdents. Below: M. C. Frame, W. Ik Appcrson, vice-presi- dents, and P. Itixey Jones, executive committbeman. Fair 'CilESTEIIFIELD COUNTY OPF, N BAll. AND NIOIIT TilURSDAY, FRIDAY AND SATURDAY OQTQ~ER G, 1 AND 0 CHESTERFIELD COIJlIT#OUSF~ VA. Onl~lauding AKrlriillar4! ~nd lave /4t~,ck Exhlhlln ~ A 2,000 Thri" ed by Chesterfield torse Show I:IEI.D lANES lip IN OI'EN SAIH)I.E CI,ASS-.It w~xs a fiue field tha~ competed In the second al~lltlat horse show of the Chesterfield County ].'air last S;tturday as you c~tn see from thi~ ~l~nq)le. The group here fs watching several horst,fi pcrlorm Just befure the judgefi made thole final ach,cti,)n .{ the wi~ut, ls. More thall 45 ]1O1'50S welt ¢ntered ill the show {rOlll RI[ ])ltrL~ of the Etlttc, 1 TAKING IIURDLE IN GREEN IIUNTERS' CIoAS.~--~ Lee Dance's Lndy In fine form takes the first hurdle in the green htm~ra' cl~ for ~e~ terfleld horm$ and riders only, with 8berw~ Dan~:e up, at the horso ~how held 1~ connection with the fair. {}FFICIATED AT MEE~_...ThesO offlelal.,i ran off tl~ Chestcrfh,ld tlm~e Bhow In great style la.~t ~h~turday. I~ft [t~ right: ~ Holmes Allen, riehl starter; John Chaffln, Judge; Jame~ O. llenlng, p~'cMdent of thc l,'Mr A.~r~'iation; Mrs. Fontalno Maury Thra~% jut~$W, and }{obert P. Orymes, s~e~try {d the horse slxow commitS, i TAKES SECOND IN NOVICE RIDEIIS' CLAS~ullan 8~ara Sr. of Ch~terfleld, up on his own Pageana, ~kea a~ond In the novice rlde~' ela~. This means that Bellher horse nor rider h~ ever won a rlb~n In a "r~gnlzed" hor~ show. fi GII{I, SIIIIW~ Till,; WAY. Miss Aim Cone (left) with Chief shod'ed the way 1o the field of nine lu the open green hurters' the Mtver Julep CUl~ In Iokeu of her fine i~rfornmnce. Dicky ~elly ~ith llolmrt W. I)~nlel'.~ I~Corr.tle (touter) ~k second and Newton Mayo with All<et August's Oyl~y Girl a~ tlflxd..-Btalf Phot~ Wgburn. Four RICIIMOND TIMES-DISPA'rCII SOUTII SIDE SUPPI,I,';MI,~'NT,''I'I1UI[SDAY, ~: ' "" ' ...... JUNE 2, 19~ '~ Wmnan Driver Captures Honors at '~II~Y'I{E OFF"--hl Lhe starL of t he first henL in the 2: I.t pace oI Lhe cr~ of 1,o0o people, The Woodsman (righL) with 4. 1. Hm'ner driv- Broad Rock lng, shows the way to Il;mover Expre~ (left) driven By Lynn Apple- gate and Peggy ~Bhannon with George B. llerndon ils dr:~er. . ~.: ..... ..- 3~ - . OVI';It Tlll'] I"INISI! I.INI'; · ,'Sigllal llvngvlt, drivt'H by Jtlllill~; llorner, comes home in the f~rst heat of the 2:25 trot and pace race aL the llroa(I s~ged on M,mday nflernmm, while Tommy ~'. d., with Mrs. Lymx Aplflegate at Ihe reins, drives in lo lixake it a close finish, h~ Ihv si'Pond ;llld third heals of thc race, Mrs Apph,gide lmshtd Tommy F. J. in ahvad nf thc field Io capture fir:it honors in tile evcllt. RICIIMOND TIMES-DISPATC!! ,q0lJ'Tl! 8ID E SUPPLEMENT, TIIURSDAY', ~qEI~I'EMBER 29, 1938 Fi.e Fiebl of Entries to Start in tlorse Races atI'~ir TO STEP OUT ~%T FAIR-. Among the horses and ridm's who will al,pear in the horse show at (Jhcstcrfield (~tmnty ".;![~ ..ill'lit?SS Fair on Saturday aftcraoon of re'at week, wilt t~ this I well-known group. "l,ady" (right), ridden hy 8ht'rwood ~1 . I dh'; Kitty Phlllil)S, center, Mmwx ol,;~ of Mr.s.B. Imml'.~ hor~s; alid "Guhliclock:;" Heft), ridden l)y htT For Two Days .~,,,,.,.. ~,,,~..,.~ ,:,,~,,y. ~,,,,~.~ ,,,.,. :,~,,, ,,, Photos. at HL " ii 'n'~ ('IH ;'} 'h c ]1)' '-aid, with .M 'h Ihor()ttghl)le a la / 'Official Clfestedield Fair Edition of TKe ' .Vol. 3, No. 27 l{iclunond, Virginia, Thurmlay, Sellt~mllwr ~j, 1938 SIXTEEN PM;ES llorsc Show To Ih,hi Social, Sporting Stage &Il. Pot the first tlrlle In tim his- tory of the event, a flve-aal~ ~ldle c~ has ~n ~ded ~ the ~re Ellis Weimar ~ml L. H. Upp llorse Show OfficialS,See-' ~Bcst Exliibits Shown in Yem's In the w~ department, Officials Se(: ; Best Exhibits Show,, in Years w~ decided' thl~ year to lmve Alao for tilt' fitit time, tl~ete that flrnt and ~ wot mmoultto ' Alonl tJxe lllxe of the fmo~ P. a~ M. ~low. will be on hal~ with aU fame ~tl~ and dillon, tl~o~h ~ t virie~ draw will fmni~ 'l~ "--"-~ ATTACHMENT PHIL T. HESTER ,CriES T E R FIELD COU NTY CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832 (e04) 74i9-1623 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT NICHOLAS M. ME:ISZER COUNTY A OM Illl4~T RA"I~N Stable Operation Costs For a large show such as the Virginia Quarterhorse Organization our approximate co%ts are: 1) Litter pick-up - 2) -3) 4) 5) 3 men x 3 hours x $5.00/hour: Vehicle use = Stall cleaning -' 3 men x 6 hours x $5.00/hour: ~ Vehicle use = Dragging rings - 1 man x 2½ hours x $6.00/hour (operator) = Equipment use : Utilities $45. O0 10.00 $90.00 15.00 $105.00. $15.00 10.00 $25.06, Vepco - a) Ring lights $5.00 per night per ring $5.00 x 2 ~' ' : ~ $1o.oo b') Stable lights - inside & outside 50{ x 24 hours = c) Camper & concession hook-ups $1.00/hour x 24 hours = Water - a) Water for horses & washing horses : b) Water for ring 12.00 24.O0 $44.00 $ 2.00 10.00 $12.00 Restrooms 2 portable chemical toilets $73.40/month ~ 4 NOTE: ITEMS l, 2, & 3 are done only once, regardless ~f it is a l, 2 or 3 day show. Therefore these expenses are incurred only once for the duration of the show. ITEM 4 has been deducted as the· clubs are billed seperately for the utilities used, the meters are read prior to the begining ~of the show and at the end of 'the show. ITEM 5 has been d~ducted as there ~re.now permanent..restr~o~ ~._the. g~ou~ds' -2- Totals 1) Litter' $ 55.00' 2) Stall ]cleaning 105.00 , 3) Ring preparation ~ 25.00' -~ 4) Utilities 58.00 deducted 5) Restrooms 18.35 '.deducted $261~35 $185.00 total cost with deductions. This summary does not include any material or labor costs fo~ repairs and improvements to the facility. The fee schedule should include a base cost of perhaps $50 for use of the ring, restrooms, some utilities, and ongoing maintenance and repair costs to the facility. Additional fees can be based on: 1) Use of stalls and approximate number 2)- Use of concession stand ~., 3) Use of ring lights ~ , 4) Use of camper hook-ups CC: Phil Hester Irene McDonald Mike Golden ATTACHMENT 3 OPERATION COST VERSUS MONIES TAKEN IN 68 stalls x $3.00 each 2 rings and judges stands concession stand Total cost per day paid by club County Cost for one day show Overage to Counties benefit $204.00 125.00 25.00 $354.00 185.00 $169.00 Two day show County Cost Overage to Counties benefit $708.00 185.00 $539.00 Three day show County Cost Overage to Counties benefit $1,062.00 185.00 $893.00 One day show using no stalls County Cost Overage to Counties benefit $150.00 80.00 $ 70.00 CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: August 14, 1985-.. ITEM NUMBER: HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS SUBJECT: Consideration of a Claim from Model Development Corporation for Damages as a Result of An Unrecorded Offsite Drainage Easement Necessary for Afton Subdivision COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Attached is a letter from Vernon E. LaPrade, Jr., outlining a claim for compensation in the amount of $28,000, as a result of an easement signed by the owners of the adjacent subdivision which was not recorded prior to the transfer of that property. The breakdown of the claim is as follows: Easement, Lot 8, Fox Hollow Easement, Lot 7, Fox Hollow Lost Profit - Two Houses Diminished Value of Two Lots $ 4,000 5,000 14,000 5,000 $ 28,000 Continued next page - ATTACHMENTS: YES I/ NO I-I David' H. Welch~n~ Director, Utilities SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Page 2 - Model Development Agenda Item Staff has reviewed this request and recommends the following: 1. The County Attorney advises that the Board need not pay this claim because of the protection provided by sovereign immunity. 2. If the Board sees fit to compensate Mr. LaPrade, staff recommends that he be paid~ $4,000 for the easement on Lot 8 of Fox Hollow Estates. 3. Staff has concerns with the $5,000 payment for the easement on Lot 7, Fox Hollow Estates. Staff met with the developer and the property owners and had secured permission to perform the necessary work on Lot 7; however, the work was not started for several months and the property owner changed his mind. The developer had the option of performing the work on his own lot but chose to pay for the easement instead. This payment was made by the developer after other options were available to him and without County participation in the negotiations for this easement. 4. Staff recommends against the claim for lost profit and the value of Lots 17 and 18, Block A, Afton, Section 5, since they are speculative and without basis. District: Dale pb February 21, 1985 Jeffrey B. Muzzy Assistant County Administrator Chesterfield County Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Jeff: This letter is to follow up our meeting on Friday, January 11, 1985, and to formally state my position regarding the Afton, Section 5 drainage easement situation. First, as I believe we all agree, we, meaning Model Development Corporation, acquired the easement from the then current owners of the property and delivered same to Willis Pope. Second, as far as we knew, it was placed on record at that time. Additionally, we were allowed to put Section 5 to record, whic~ according to my understanding, should not have been done if all easements as required by Chesterfield County were not in order. This all happened in early '82 since Section 5 went to record March 17, 1982. A/though I do not have specific dates, the first time we were aware of any problem was approximately April, 1983, when we applied for building permits for lots 17A and 18A in Section 5. Since these two lots were unquestionably the poorest in Section 5, due to the catch basin behind them and the fact. that almost all of the trees were removed to allow culvert installation, they were sold last. As I stated in the meeting, we had no other lots available at that time and we did not know how long it would.~be before Section 6 would be open, therefore, we were successful in acquiring contracts on both lots. However, as you know, building permits were held up due to the fact that we had no upstream drainage easements, and as previously stated we lost both contracts. This alone resulted in a total loss of approximately $7,000.00 per house, plus the fact that now, since have plenty a~ditional wooded lots available at the same price we had placed on these, no one is interested in purchasing either of them at anywhere near the previous market value of $10,500.00. Of course, they could be sold at a reduced price, say $8,000.00 each, however they have been off the market for approximately 2 years and st-ill ]n~e a diminished value due to no fault of ours. MODEL REAL'PC 10132 NIULL ST. ROAD MIDLOTHIAN, VIRGINIA 2311 ;3 I ~104) 276-5253 Jeffrey B. Muzzy February 21, 1985 Next, regarding the easements that we have previously acquired, but had not been put to record. As, of course you know, but for the purpose of complete information in this letter, I will state the following; some time between March, 1982 and April, 1983, when we applied for the building permits, both parcels that we needed ease- ments on, were sold and neither of the two new owners would agree to give us easements across their respective properties. As you are also well aware of, much negotiating was done between all parties, in which you and Steve Mikas both participated, but the end ~esult was a cost of $4,000.00 for 1 easement and $5,000.00 for the other. Therefore, disregarding all time lost and extra work by us, it is still my opinion that Chesterfield County should reimburse Model Development Corporation the following: $ 9,000.00 14,000.00 5,000.00 $28,000.00 Cost of 2 easements Lost profit on two houses Diminished value on the 2 lots To t al I will be happy to discuss this further with you or anyone you desire, however in absence of an acceptable settlement, I hereby formally request to be put on the agenda of the Board of Supervisors in order that I may carry this case to the governing body of the County. VEL/bf Hoping I will hear from you soon, I remain Respect fully, Yernon E. LaPrade~ ~ CC: Richard Hedrick, County Administrator Steve Mikas, County Attorney Harry Daniel, Supervisor, Dale District MO{DEL REALTY 10132 HULL ST ROAD MIDLOTHJAN. ~,qRGINIA 23113 180zs) 276-5,253 CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 9oao Public Hearing on the Land Use and Transportation Plan for the Powhite/288 Development Area COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION On April 2, 1985, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Land Use and Transportation Plan for the Powhite/288 Development Area. On April 23, after considering public and staff comments on the Plan, the Commission referred the Plan with their recommended changes to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. The Plan has been reviewed by citizens and by representatives of regional, state, and local govern- ments. The Commission's recommended land use map is attached along with a memorandum which analyzes the public comments and summarizes the Planning Commission's recommended actions for Plan implementation. In addition to the Planning Commission recommendation, staff suggests five additional amendments to assure the Plan is consistent with the County's current Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and to reduce citizen confusion and concern. The concerns which these amendments are intended to address surfaced subsequent to the Planning Commission's action. ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO [] Director of p~S/. Zo_o_k' a~ing (Acting) S,GNATURE: _ ~ ~/~0UNTY ADM' N'STRATOR Subject: Public Hearing on the Land Use and Transportation Plan for the Powhite/288 Development Area August 14, 1985 Page 2 Amendment One The roads designated by the Plan as minor arterials with rights of way of 90 feet should be reclassified as major arterials with rights of way of 90 feet. This amendment does not reflect a change in the expected traffic volumes on these roads; rather, it would require a more appropriate building setback from the proposed right of way for these roads. Under the County current ordinances, the building setback on a minor arterial with 90 feet right of way is 25 feet. With a major arterial designation, the setback becomes 50 feet. Amendment Two Concern and confusion about the use and inflexibility of the Urban Service Line shown on the map has been expressed. The alternative to the Urban Service Line is the elimination of the line from the map. Textual reference to the urban service area concept would be included in the planning document. Amendment Three Concern has been expressed about the rural residential density classification shown on the Plan Map west of the Village of Mid- lothian. This designation was not intended to reflect the ultimate land use for the area but does reflect the current lack of utili- ties in the area and the lack of a decision by VDH&T regarding the relocation of the northern extension of Route 288. Staff recom- mends that the following action be included in the Plan text to better reflect the County's intent for this area. Action: Upon extension of water and sewer facilities to the area west of the Village of Midlothian along Route 60; or upon approval of private development plans assuring the extension of such facilities to this area; or after VDH&T has identified an exact corridor location for Route 288 west of the Village, upon direction of the Board, Staff will re-examine the area's economic development potential and prepare an area plan for Board consideration. The area plan would revise the Plan now under consideration. Amendment Four Some citizens remain concerned about the consultant's location of the northern extension of Route 288. The consultant has delineated a corridor for this extension, but recognizes that further detailed analysis will be required. The exact location of the northern extension of Route 288 will not be defined until intensive engi- Subject: Public Hearing on the Land Use and Transportation Plan for the Powhite/288 Development Area August 14, 1985 Page 3 neering and environmental studies have been completed. During the public hearing, staff will present the consultant's recommendation and a new alignment which has been proposed by some area residents. Staff is of the opinion that either location of the road is ac- ceptable to accomplish Plan objectives. Amendment Five Concern has been expressed about the severing of existing Coalfield Road by the extension of Powhite Parkway. Under the current VDH&T Powhite plans north/south traffic movements now accommodated by existing Coalfield Road will be accommodated by a relocated Coal- field Road. The construction of relocated Coalfield is not, however, included as part of the Powhite Parkway extension project. To ensure that this north/south movement will be accommodated, staff recommends that unless a bond or other acceptable surety is received for the construction of relocated Coalfield by October 1, 1985, the Board should request VDH&T to design and construct an alternative method to accommodate the north/south movement. RECOMMENDATION After hearing public comment, the Board adopt the Land Use and Trans- portation Plan for the Powhite/288 Development Area with the Planning Commission and staff recommendations as a revision to the General Plan 2000. Attachment AGENII/JL191/dem C~ Ol CH TERFIELD VIRGINIA MEMO Progress Index Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors July 10, 1985 Meetings, Coming Events One (1) time, Wednesday, July 31, 1985 One (1) time, Wednesday, August 7, 1985 Please confirm by calling the County Administrator's Office at 748-1200. Ri~ard' ~.. Hedrick]t~ County Admini strat~ jsd Attachment FROM: DAT~: ~.~: C~ O~ RFIE£D VIRGINIA MEMO Richmond News Leader Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors July 10, 1985 Meetings, Coming Events One (1) time, Wednesday, July 31, 1985 One (1) time, Wednesday, August 7, 1985 Please confirm by calling the County Administrator's Office at 748-1200. R~c~fafd' L. H~dri~ County Administrator jsd Attachment TAKE NOTICE That the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, at a regular meeting on August 14, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. in the County Board Room at Chesterfield Courthouse, Chesterfield, Virginia, will hold a public hearing to consider public comment regarding the Powhite/Route 288 Land Use and Transportation Plan which is a revision to the County's Comprehensive Plan. Copies of the plan are on file in the County Administrator's Office, Chesterfield, Virginia and may be examined by all inter- ested persons between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. P~blisher of THE ~ICHMOND NEWS L~ADER ~ ~ to eertD'y ~h ........ ~, o~a~e of V~rginia new, 3~ I985 Aug 7 July We, the undersigned, ar, ,oncerned about the residential ~mes and land that will be taken as a result of the proposed corridor of the western route of the Powhite]e~ur~= Extension. , ~ff~ Due to our concerns and considering the vast amount of open land in the Otterdale Road area, we petition the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors to reroute the proposed corridor to the south or north so that no homes will be taken or threatened by this road. ADDRESS We,~ the undersigned, ar~ oncerned about the residential mes and land that will be taken as a result of the proposed corridor of the western route of the Powhite/~u~£ Ext ens ion. Due to our concerns and considering the vast amount of open land in the 0tterdale Road area, we petition the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors to reroute the proposed corridor to the south or north so that no homes will be taken or threatened by this road. ~.ME, , ADDRESS I I II ~ i We, the undersigned, az concerned about the residential.,omes and land that will be taken as a result of the proposed corridor of the western route of the Powhite/~Ur~ Extension. Due to our concerns and considering the vast amount of open land in the Otterdale Road area, we petition the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors to reroute the proposed corridor to the south or north so that no homes will be taken or threatened by this road. Z~ME ADDRESS . ':--~, I '~: ... - - : ,'. .. .... 7 ~""; ~ / /' - -~ ' '- Wet the undersigned, ar~ .oncerned about the residential __omes and land that will be taken as a result of the proposed corridor of the western route of the PowhiteJ~?~4&& Extension. Due to our concerns and considering the vast amount of open land in the 0tterdale Road area, we petition the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors to reroute the proposed corridor to the south or north so that no homes will be taken or threatened by this road. ADDRESS O l ( It We, the undersigned, al :oncerned about the residentia~ .omes and land that will Extension.b~ taken as a result of the proposed corridor of the western route of the Powhite/~a Due to our concerns and considering the vast amount of open land in the Otterdale Road area, we petition the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors to reroute the proposed corridorthis road. to the south or north so that no homes will be taken or threatened by W% the undersigned, ar .oncerned about the residential omes and land that will be taken as a result of the proposed corridor of the western route of the Powhite/~ogr~ Extension. Due to our concerns and considering the vast amount of open land in the Otterdale Road area, we petition the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors to reroute the proposed corridor to the south or north so that no homes will be taken or threatened by this road. ADDRESS ~, ~ We., the undersigned, ar -'oncerned about the residential ~.omes and land that will be taken as a result of the proposed corridor of the western route of the Powhite/~ur~ Extension. Due to our concerns and considering the vast amount of open land in the 0tterdale Road area, we petition the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors to reroute the proposed corridor to the south or north so that no homes will be taken or threatened by this road. t~ME ADDRESS We~ the undersigned, ar .oncerned about the residential Jmes and land that will be taken as a result of the proposed corridor of the western route of the Powhite~or~ Extension. Due to our concerns and considering the vast amount of open land in the Otterdale Road area, we petition the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors to reroute the proposed corridor to the south or north so that no homes will be taken or threatened by this road. ADDRESS W~, the undersigned, ar .oncerned about the residential ames and land that will be taken as a result of the proposed corridor of the western route of the Powhite/~0o~ Extension. Due to our concerns and considering the vast amount of open land in the Otterdale Road area, we petition the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors to reroute the proposed corridor to the south or north so that no homes will be taken or threatened by this road. W~, the undersigned, al zoncerned about the residential .,omes and land that will be taken as a result of the proposed corridor of the western route of the Powhite/~oo~ Extension. Due to our concerns and considering the vast amount of open land in the Otterdale Road area, we petition the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors to reroute the proposed corridor to the south or north so that no homes will be taken or threatened by this road. I~WIE ADDRESS W~, the undersigned, ar .'oncerned about the residential omes and land that will be taken as a result of the proposed corridor of the western route of the Powhite Extension. Due to our concerns and considering the vast amount of open land in the Otterdale Road area, we petition the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors to reroute the proposed corridor to the south or north so that no homes will be taken or threatened by this road. W~, the undersigned, az ~oncerned about the residential omes and land that will be taken as a result of the proposed corridor of the western route of the Powhite/A~Cr~ ~.~ Extension. Due to our concerns and considering the vast amount of open land in the 0tterdale Road area, we petition the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors to reroute the proposed corridor to the south or north so that no homes will be taken or threatened by this road. ADDRESS Wg, the undersigned, ar .oncerned about the residential .omes and land that will be taken as a result of the proposed corridor of the western route of the Powhite/~0~r~ Extension. Due to our concerns and considering the vast amount of open land im the Otterdale Road area, we petition the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors to reroute the proposed corridor to the south or north so that no homes will be taken or threatened by this road. ADDRESS Wa, the undersigned, a~ concerned about the residential ,~omes and land that will be taken as a result of the proposed corridor of the western route of the Powhite~a0~R~ Ext en s ion. Due to our concerns and considering the vast amount of open land in the Otterdale Road area, we petition the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors to reroute the proposed corridor to the south or north so that no homes will be taken or threatened by this road. CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AG E NDA MEETING DATE' August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER; 9. C. and D. SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Proposed Lodging Tax and Proposed Vehicle License Fee COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION August 14, 1985 has been set as the date for public hearings on proposed Lodging Tax and Vehicle License ordinances. The 1985-86 Budget includes estimated revenue from these changes. The attached report describes the proposed ordinances. ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO [] ~mes ~7. L. ~tegmaier '~Chief of Budget & Management SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Pr~red by Budget & ,Management Jt 20, 1985 REPORT ON PROPOSED LODGING TAX AND PROPOSED INCREASE FOR VEHICLE LICENSE FEES The 1985-86 Adopted Budget includes estimated revenue from a vehicle license fee increase and from a 2% tax on lodging. To implement these changes, the Board must adopt appropriate ordinances. Significant features of each ordinance are described below. Lod~in~ Tax: The 1985 General Assembly approved legislation authorizing all counties to levy a 2% tax on lodging. The .tax is applied to rentals paid by transients for periods less than thirty days. Businesses affected include hotels, camp grounds, rooming houses, and other establishments offering lodging for compensation. The proposed ordinance requires payment of the tax to the County by the twentieth day of each month for amounts collected during the preceding month. The ordinance provides a late payment penalty of five per cent per month, with a minimum penalty of ten dollars. The State code allows the County to pay a commission of three to five percent to the merchant for collecting the tax. The proposed ordinance does not provide such a commission, but the Board does have the authority to consider this option. (The City of Richmond does not provide any commission.) Vehicle Licenses: The attached chart shows changes to vehicle license fees and compares Chesterfield's fees to Henrico and Richmond. The most important changes are noted below: Automobile fees will increase from $18 to $20. Although many localities charge $25 for vehicles over 4,000 pounds, the staff is not recommending this option because of the additional work it would require of the Commissioner of Revenue. Motorcycle fees will increase from $6 to $10. This is a sharper increase (in percentage terms) than the other catagories, but Chesterfield's fee will still be much lower than Henrico's or Richmond's. Truck fees will increase by $3 to $8 depending on the classification of the truck. In addition, the classes have been restructured to make them more consistent with the classes defined in the State code. (Two previous classes were 6501 lbs. to 12,000 lbs. and 12,001 lbs. to 20,000 lbs. The new classes would be 6,501 lbs. to 10,000 lbs. and 10,001 lbs. to 20,000 lbs.) Three separate classes of trailer have been combined in order to simplify the classification process. Boat trailers, utility trailers, and camper trailers will all be charged at the rate of $6.50. The rate on trailers used in combination with tractor trucks has been reduced from $18 to $17. in compliance with State maximums. O0 CD 0 CD I ~ ~ 0 O0 -, 011111 O0 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 14.1-19 AND 14.1-21 IMPOSING AN ANNUAL TAX ON PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLES, MOTORCYCLES, TRUCKS, TRAILERS, SEMITRAILERS AND CAMPERS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) County of follows: That Sections 14.1-19 and 1~.1-21 of the Code of the Chesterfield, Virginia are amended and reenacted as Sec. 14.1-19. Amount of tax--Automobiles, motorcycles. On each and every passenger motor vehicle there shall be an annual license tax of e~§h%ee~ twenty dollars; and on each and every motorcycle there shall be an annual license fee of s~ ten dollars. Sec. 14.1-21. Same--Trucks, trailers, busses, etc. (a) On each and every truck not designed and used for the transportation of passengers, and not exempt from taxation as otherwise herein provided, the license tax shall be as follows: With gross weight of 6,500 pounds or less ............ ~87~0 $20.00 With gross weight of 6,501 pounds to 12,000 pounds...$~?90 $25.0O With gross weight of 12,001 pounds to 20,000 pounds..~6?~9 $30.OO With gross weight of 20,001 pounds to 30,000 pounds..$~gv99 $35.00 With gross weight of 30,001 pounds or over ........... $~6v~9 $40.0O (b) On each trailer and semitrailer with a gross weight of 1,501 pounds or more constitutin~ a part of a combination of a truck or tractor truck and trailer or semi-trailer, the license tax shall be e~g'heee~ seventeen dollars, e~ On each trailer designed exclusively for the transportation of boats~ regardless of weight or on each one e~ or two wheel trailers with a gross weight of 1,500 pounds or less of a cradle, flatbed or open pickup type w~h-~-4~~~-~e~-m~e-~-~i~e-~t~n~ w~h-~-g~e~e~-~h~-~he-w~h-e~-~he-m~-¥eh~e~e-~-wh~eh-~ ea~Ea~-~--beEem§Em~-~--C-h~-ewee~-~-~-e~a&Ee~, the license tax shall be six dollars and fifty cents. (d) In the case of a combination of tractor-trailer, or semitrailer, each vehicle constituting a part of such combination shall be licensed as a separate vehicle and separate license indicia shall be issued therefor. (e) On each and every motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer upon which well-drilling machinery is attached and which is permanently used solely for transportation of such machinery, there shall be a license tax of twelve dollars. (2) That this ordinance shall be effective January 1, 1986. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 8 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING ARTICLE XI RELATING TO THE IMPOSITION OF A TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Chapter 8 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia is amended as follows: Article XI Transient Occupancy Tax Section 8-42. Definitions. For the purposes of this article the following words and phrases shall have the following respective meanings, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Hotel: Any public or private hotel, inn, hostelry, tourist home or house, tourist cabin, camping grounds, motel, rooming house or other lodging place within the county offering lodging for compensation to any transient. Lodging: Any space or room furnished any transient. Transient: Any person who, tbr a period of less than thirty consecutive days, either at his own expense, or at the expense of another, uses spaces or obtains lodging at any hotel, as defined in this section. Section 8-43. Imposed; amount. (a) Pursuant .to the provisions of §58.1-3819 of the Code of Virginia, there is hereby imposed on each and every transient a lodging tax in the amount of two (2) percent of the total amount paid for room or space rental by such transient to any hotel; provided however, that this tax shall not apply to rooms or spaces rented for continuous occupancy by the same in- dividual or group for thirty (30) days or more. Section 8-44. Collection. Every person receiving any payment for lodging on which a tax is levied under this article shall collect the amount of such tax from the transient or the person paying for the transient's lodging, at the time payment for such lodging is made. The taxes so collected shall be deemed to be held in trust by the person required to collect such taxes until remitted as required by this article. Section 8-45. Reports and remittances generally. The person collecting any tax as provided in §8-44 shall make out a report thereof, upon such forms and setting forth such information as the commissioner of revenue may prescribe and require, showing the amount of lodging charges collected and the tax required to be collected and shall sign and deliver such report to the county treasurer with a remittance of such tax. Such reports and remittances shall be made on or before the twentieth day of each .month covering the amount of tax collected during the preceding month. Section 8-46. Collector's records. 'It shall be the duty of every person liable for the collection and payment to the county of any tax imposed by this article to keep and to preserve, for a period of two (2) years, such suitable records as may be necessary to determine the amount of such tax as he may have been responsible for col- lecting and paying to the county. The commissioner of revenue may inspect such records at all reasonable times. Section 8-47. Duty of collector ~oin~ out or disDosin~ of business. When any person required to collect and pay to the county a tax under this article shall cease to operate or otherwise dispose of his business, any tax payable under this article to the county shall become immediately due and payable and such person shall immediately make a report and pay the tax due. Section 8-48. Penalty for late remittance or false return. (a) If any person, whose duty it is so to do, shall fail or refuse to remit to the county treasurer the tax required to be collected and paid under this article, within the time and in the amount specified in this article, there shall be added to such tax by the county treasurer a penalty in the amount of five (5) percent for each additional thirty (30) days or fraction thereof during which the failure continues, not to exceed twenty-five (25) percent in the aggregate, with a minimum penalty of ten dollars ($10.00). (b) In the case of a false or fraudulent return with intent to defraud the county of any tax due under this article, a penalty of fifty (50) percent of the tax shall be assessed against the person required to collect such tax. Section 8-49. Procedure upon failure to collect, report, etc. (a) If any person, whose duty it is so to do, shall fail or refuse to collect the tax imposed under this article and to make, within the time pro- vided in this article, the reports and remittances required in this article, the commissioner of revenue shall proceed in such manner as he may deem best to obtain facts and information on which to base his estimate of the tax due. As soon as the commissioner of revenue shall procure such facts and information as he is able to obtain upon which to base the assessment of any tax payable by any person who has failed or refused to collect such tax and to make such report and remittance, he shall proceed to determine and assess against such person the tax and penalties provided for by this article and shall notify such person, by registered mail, .~ent to his last known place of address, of the total amount of such tax and penalties and the total amount thereof shall be payable within ten (10) days from the date of such notice. (b) It shall be the duty of the commissioner of revenue to ascertain the name of every person operating a hotel in the county, liable for the collection of the tax levied by this article, who fails, refuses or neglects to collect such tax or to make, within the time provided by this article, the reports or remittances required in this article. The commissioner of revenue may have a summons issued for such person in the manner provided by law and may serve a copy of such summons upon such person in the manner provided by law and shall make one return of the original to the general district court of the county. Section 8-50. Violations of article. Any person violating or failing to comply with any provision of this article shall be guilty of a Class I misdemeanor. Conviction of such violation shall not relieve any person from the payment, collection or remittance of the taxes provided in this article. This amendment shall become effective January 1, 1986. -3- pubg,sher o~~ THE ~ICHMOND NEWS LEADER J~al~z 3, ~985 THE ~ICHMO~D NEWS LEADER Ju~Y 24. 1985 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 9.Eo Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of an Oil Severance Tax COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION The 1985 General Assembly adopted legislation permitting counties to impose a severance tax on oil in the same fashion that counties prior to 1985 could impose coal severance taxes. A number of exploratory wells have been drilled in Chesterfield County during the last five years. Although none of the sites are currently producing oil for sale, those oil wells may produce commercially saleable oil in the future. The attached ordinance would impose an oil severance tax of one-half of one percent of the gross receipts from the sale of oil to wholesalers within the County as permitted by state law. ATTACHMENTS: Y ES.,~ NO [] SIGNATURE: Steven L. Micas- .County Attorney COUNTY ADMI NISTRATOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING SECTION 12-181 RELATING TO A LICENSE TAX FOR PERSONS SEVERING OIL BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Chapter 12 of the Code of the County of Chester- field, Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 12-181 Persons severing oil. Every person engaged in the business of severing oil from the earth shall pay for the privilege a license tax equal to one-half of one percent of the gross receipts of the business generated from the sale of oil severed in the county. Such gross receipts shall be computed based on the fair market value of the severed oil at the time the oil is utilized or sold for utiliza- tion in the county, or at such time the oil is placed in transit for shipment from the county. Ail persons severing oil and ali common carriers transporting such oil shall be required to maintain records for five years showing the ~uantities of and receipts from oil which they have severed or transported; these records shall be made available to the commissioner of revenue and the county's license inspector upon request therefore. {)~- , THE RICHMOND NEWS LEADER Legal Notice - ' ' ~hat the a~tached This ~s to certiiy . der a newspaper pub- ...... .,~¢hli~hed in The [ilehmomi July 24 ~ 31 ~ 1985 CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: Purchase of New Aircraft Towing Equipment 10.A. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION; The aircraft towing equipment at the Airport is old (two of the vehicles were built in 1953 and 1962) and well past its normal life. The four towing vehicles have been repaired numerous times and the availability of parts for the older equipment is becoming very critical. Recently, all of these vehicles have been out-of-service at the same time causing some delays for our corporate customers. One corporate pilot has suggested that they would consider moving unless we provide more reliable towing equipment. A new towing vehicle has been requested in the last two budget sessions; however, the funds have not been appropriated. It is requested that the Board appropriate $11,700 to the Airport from the General Fund contingency account for the purchase of a more reliable towing vehicle. Budget & Management Comments The current balance in the General Fund contingency account is $348,503. ,.'ane B. Ramsey, .,~rec=or Budget & Accounting Department ATTACHMENTS: YES FI NO I~ Thomas D. Callahan III Airport Manager SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF' SUPERVISORS AG E NDA MEETING DATE SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER; 10.B. Waiver of Debt Service Coverage Requirement of 1977 Revenue Bond for Chesterfield County Nursing Home COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION The Board may recall that the Medicaid reimbursement formula for nursing homes was changed in 1983 resulting in an approximate 25% reduction in the amount received per patient day for residents of the County nursing home. The nursing home has a $1.3 million revenue bond with Central Fidelity Bank that contains a net increase to debt service ratio required of 120%. Last year the nursing home was unable to meet this coverage because of the reduced Medicaid reimbursement. The Board requested a waiver of the coverage requirement from Central Fidelity Bank and this waiver was granted. The nursing home has incurred a $262,000 operating loss for fiscal year ending June 30, 1985 for the same reason. Every effort has been made to contain costs without a negative impact on the the quality of care. Operating expenses have increased by a mere 2% over the previous fiscal year. Efforts were made during the last year's session of the General Assembly to change the reimbursement formula. This effort was unsuccessful. The staff has continued to work with the State Department of Health to find some relief from the reimbursement shortfall and this effort will continue. ATTACHMENTS: YES B~' NO [] Elmer Hodge ~ Asst. County Administrator SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Agenda Item August 14, 1985 Page 2 Central Fidelity Bank has expressed a willingness to waive the coverage requirements again this year providing the Board offers some assurance that operating shortfalls will be supplemented from the General Fund. The Board has already appropriated $400,000 for this purpose. It is requested that the Board adopt the attached resolution requesting that Central Fidelity Bank waive this requirement. ECH:rcs On motion of , seconded by , the Board hereby requests that Central Fidelity Bank waive the net income to debt service coverage ratio of 120% contained in Section 602 of the Indenture of Trust for the 1984/85 fiscal years. In anticipation of a permanent resolution of the inadequacy of the Medicaid reimbursement, the Board of Supervisors is morally committed to provide annual funding for the operating deficits at the nursing home. The Board has appropriated $400,000 for the fiscal year 1985-86 for this purpose and will review the operation of the nursing home annually to consider future supplements. It is the Board's intention to continue the present level of quality care in the future. CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER; 10.C.1. Consideration of a Request for an Entertainment/Musical Festival Permit from the Chesterfield County Fair Association COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Because the County Fair includes outdoor music events, a circus and a fireworks display, The Chesterfield County Fair Association, Inc. must obtain a Musical/Entertainment Festival permit in order to hold the annual County Fair at the Chester- field County Fairgrounds September 8-14, 1985. Sunday, September 8th, will be "Preview Day" and no admission will be charged. The sponsors application includes adequate measures to insure public safety, fire prevention, medical protection, sanitation, traffic control, insurance, bonds and building and ride safety. In addition, the sponsor has worked closely with those County departments affected by the Fair to insure a safe fair. Although the application has not been filed 60 days prior to the date of the event as required by the ordinance, if the permit is granted, staff will monitor the applicant's compliance with the conditions of the permit prior to the start of the Fair. ATTACHMENTS: YES I"1 The Entertainment permit application has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office and with the conditions imposed by staff, it meets the substantive requirementsz~f the ordinance. PREPARED BY; , (c,../~ Steven L. Micas County Attorney SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 10.C.2. Consideration of Approving a Music Festival Permit for the Bellwood Drive-In COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION On July 31, 1985, Belinda Riddles, the Manager of the Bellwood Drive-In Theatre ("Bellwood"), on behalf of the pro- moter, Ray Bentley, applied for an outdoor music festival permit for August 31 and September 1, 1985. The permit indicated that the Bellwood intends to hold outdoor music festivals similar to those held last year on August 24, 25, and 26 involving amplified music, bands, outdoor dancing and movies. The shows will begin at 7:00 p.m. and end at approximately 1:00 a.m. with crowds estimated at 1,000 to 3,000 people (See attached). Admission and parking will be handled in the normal fashion for a drive-in movie or flea market, with all persons attending the festival entering through the main gate where an admission price is paid. The Bellwood staff will admit and direct traffic to designated parking spaces normally used for moviegoers. Two flatbed trucks, serving as a stage, will be parked in front of the concession stand with a 100 foot area in front of the stage roped off. No cars will be allowed to park in this area and once ATTACHMENTS: YES.~ NO D (Continued) PREPARED BY: , ' "~S'teven L. Micas County Attorney SIGNATURE: C OU NTY ADM I NI STRATOR Agenda Item - Music Festival Permit August 14, 1985 Page 2 all cars are parked, pedestrians will be permitted inside this area in front of the stage. The area behind the stage will be cordoned off from public access at all times. Further, no alcoholic beverages or glass containers will be permitted. The application was untimely but has been reviewed by a Task Force consisting of representatives from the County Attorney's Office, Police Department, Fire Department, Risk Manager's Office, Health Department and Building Inspector's Office. The Task Force determined that although serious health and safety problems exist, if certain conditions were met by the applicant, risks could be sufficiently minimized to allow issuance of permit. The Health Department has determined that the plan for sanitation facilities and disposal of garbage and trash is adequate provided that the Bellwood obtain twelve port-a-johns. The Bellwood has indicated that the Bensley Rescue Squad will provide on premises medical treatment each night. The Fire Department has reviewed the fire protection plan and determined that it is adequate; however, a recommendation was made that the promoters advise the bands that use of fireworks without a fireworks permit is prohibited. The plan also indicates permis- sible plans for lighting and noise levels in compliance with current County ordinances. The Bellwood will pay for fifteen policemen for each night's performance including a Sergeant to serve as a coordinator for the police and other County officials who will be present in- specting for compliance with conditions of the permit. In addition, the Bellwood will have approximately twenty-five members of its own staff and two private guards present on Saturday and Sunday. Eight to ten members of the theatre staff equipped with golf carts and walkie-talkies will patrol the entire area on a continual basis to monitor the crowd, collect trash and confiscate glass containers. The applicant will have staff stationed along the outside fences and posted at each gate to ensure that no one enters the property except through the main gate. The Police Department has indicated that this plan is acceptable although the potential for health and safety problems and criminal violations exists due to the easy ability of parti- cipants to hide alcohol, drugs and weapons within their vehicles. Last fall at the "rock 'n' roll" concert on Saturday, August 25, police officers observed numerous drug and alcohol violations but were able to do little more than control the problem due to the size of the crowd and limited manpower. The check for alcohol at the gate was not enforced properly, and the disc jockeys and announcers blatantly and repeatedly encouraged consumption of Agenda Item - Music Festival Permit August 14, 1985 Page 3 beer and alcoholic beverages. Three drug-related arrests were made. The applicant has authorized County employees to enter the property at any time prior to or during the festival for the purpose o~ determining compliance with the provisions of the permit. A deposit in the amount of $5,000 is recommended to cover the cost of additional County services necessitated by the festival. Further, a bond in the amount of $10,000 is recom- mended in order to ensure faithful compliance with each require- ment of the ordinance and the permit. If the Board decides to issue the requested permit, in addition to the normal Code requirements, the Board should impose the following conditions: A supervisory police officer be paid for by the appli- cant and be present during all performances. 2. The applicant acquire twelve port-a-johns. An inspection by a County Building Inspector of the electrical equipment and hook-up be satisfactorily completed before each performance. A bond in the amount of $10,000 be submitted to the County insuring faithful performance of all the appli- cants' responsibilities. A deposit in the amount of $5,000 be submitted to the County to insure payment of all personnel expenses. A guarantee from the applicant that the number of cars admitted will not exceed parking capacity. Insurance coverage acceptable to Risk Manager. The ban on alcohol and drugs be strictly enforced by the Bellwood. 10. The promoters advise the bands that use of fireworks in any manner without a fireworks permit is prohibited. A guarantee from the applicant that the bands, disc jockeys or announcers will not encourage or mention the consumption of alcoholic beverages or use of drugs. July 30, 1985 Mrs. Belinda Riddle Bellwood Drive-In Theatre Jeff Davis Hiway & Willis Road Richmond, Virginia Dear Belinda' The County of Chesterfield has requested from you specific information regarding the live shows to be held at the Bellwood Drive-in on Saturday, August 31 and Sunday, September 1, in keeping with the local ordinances regarding such shows. Steven Mast is providing you with the line-up and information for Saturday's show, and I am attaching the information regarding Sunday's show. cc- Karen Waldren Please call me if you have any questions or need further information. Ray~g and Special Show DiviSion Bellwood Drive-in Pre-Labor Day Music Jam When' Sunday, September 1, 1985 Where' Bellwood Drive-in Theatre Jefferson Davis Hiway at Willis Road Chesterfield County What · A Holiday Festival featuring Area club and Radio Station Disc Jockeys including Kirby Karmichael (WANT) Jay Lang (WPLZ) Max Madd and the Destruction Machine Reddy Tedd and the Boys Plus contests for local rappers and break-dancers Times: Gates open 6:00 p.m. Show starts at 7:30 pm Show ends at Midnight Followed by Midnight BreakDance Movies running til 1:30 am Promoter(s)' Hosea Fox 1709 Hickory Street Richmond, Virginia Sponors(s)' The Movie Machine 629 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia W.P.L.Z. Radio 3267 South Crater Road Petersburg, Virginia Those with Financial Interest in this Particular Show' Neighborhood Theatres 629 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23220 (continued) Financial Interests (Icontinued) Hosea Fox Productions 1709 Hickory Street Richmond, Virginia The Movie Machine Ray Bentley Productions 629 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia Owner of Property (Bellwood Drive-in): Neighborhood Theatres, Inc. 629 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23220 Manager or Supervisor of Property: Belinda Riddle 10318 Elokman Avenue (Chesterfield County) Richmond, Virginia 9/1/85 Show CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF' SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 10.D. SUBJECT: Adoption on an Emergency Basis of and Amendment to Section 14.1-1 of the County Code Adopting by Reference into the County Code all State Motor Vehicle Offenses COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION'. State law permits the County to incorporate by reference into the County Code all motor vehicle offenses defined by the Code of Virginia. The effect of the incorporation into the Count~ Code of State motor vehicle offenses is to allow County policemen to charge motorists under County summonses for such violations as reckless driving and failure to yield the right of way. By charging local motorists under the County Code, all fines are received by the County treasury rather than being sent to the State Literary Fund. In order to keep the County Code current, the Board annually must revise ~14.1-1 to incorporate all changes made under State law durin~L the previous year, An amendment to adopt state law as amended in the future to avoid a yearly revision to the Count~ Code is not effective to incorporate subsequent amendments to the State Motor Vehicle Code made by the General Assembly because a legislative body such as the Board may not delegate its power to enact ordinances. By adopting the proposed amendment, all existing motor vehicle laws of the State of Virginia currently in effect will be made a part of the County Code and local police officers can continue to issue summonses citing local Cod___~e sections/~-~ (Continued)( £ ~f,.~._ ~ (~ / PREPARED BY; ,[~-",1~ · ~ ~ Steven L. Micas County Attorney ATTACHMENTS: YES NO D SIGNATURE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Adoption on an Emergency Basis of and Amendment to Section 14.1-1 of the County Code Adopting by Reference into the County Code all State Motor Vehicle Offenses August 14, 1985 Page 2 It is recommended that this amendment be adopted on an emergency basis and that a public hearing be set for September 11, 1985 to consider adopting the amendment on a permanent basis. The Chief of Police and the Commonwealth's Attorney have both re- quested this change and support its adoption. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ARTICLE I, SECTION 14.1-1 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, 1978, AS AMENDED RELATING TO ADOPTION OF STATE LAW DEALING WITH MOTOR VEHICLE OFFENSES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chester- field, Virginia: (1) That the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended by amending the following section: Sec. 14.1-1 Adoption of state law. Pursuant to the authority of section 46.1-188 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, all of the provisions and requirements of the laws of the state contained in Title 46.1 and Article 2 of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia, as in force on July 1, 2984 1985, except those provisions and re- quirements the violation of which constitutes a felony, and except those pro- visions and requirements which by their very nature can have no application to or within the county, are hereby adopted and incorporated in this chapter by reference and made applicable within the county. References to "highways of the state" contained in such provisions and requirements hereby adopted shall be deemed to refer to the streets, highways and other public ways within the county. Such provisions and requirements are hereby adopted, mutatis mutandis, and made a part of this chapter as fully as though set forth at length herein, and it shall be unlawful for any person, within the county, to violate or fail, neglect or refuse to comply with any provision of Title 46.1 or Article 2 of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia which is adopted by this section; provided, that in no event shall the penalty imposed for the violation of any provision or requirement hereby adopted exceed the penalty imposed for a similar offense under Title 46.1 or Article 2 of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia. CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: Appointment to Youth Services Commission 10.E.1. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OFINFORMATION: Appointments to the Youth Services Commission are now due. The appointment needs of the following Districts need to be made: 1. Clover Hill: Two adults and one youth member. Mr. Jack Lynch is currently a member and is eligible for reappointment to a one-year term. 2. Bermuda: Two adults and one youth member. 3. Dale: Two adult members. Mr. W. A. Yogi Berger currently is a member and is eligible for reappointment to a one-year term. 4. Matoaca: Two adults and one youth member. Mr. Howard Warren and Mrs. Charlotte Gibbs are currently members and eligible for reappointment to a one-year term, 5. Midlothian: Two adults and one youth member, Mrs. Maureen Hagen is currently a member and is eligible for a one- year reappointment. BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: That the Board reappoint existing members and fill any such other vacancies or appoint all new member~ where vacancies occur. PREPARED BY;.. ~~_~-/~ M. D. Stith ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO I~!,/' ' SIGNATURE: , COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: .SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ConTour ITEM NUMBER: 10.E.2. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: There is presently the need for an appointment to the Contour Board of Directors. Presently, Mrs. Marie Beach from the Midlothian District is serving in that capacity. She is eligible for a two year appointment. BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: The Board should either reappoint Mrs. Beach or make a new appointment. ATTACHMENTS: YES 1-'1 SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMI NISTRATOR CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 10.E.3. SUBJECT: Consideration of a request to appoint Welchons, Director of Utilities as an representative for Chesterfield County. David H. alternate COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Staff recommends that the Board appoint David H. Welchons, Director of Utilities as an alternate representative for Chesterfield County on the Appomattox River Water Authority's Board. The County Administrator is Chesterfield County's official representative on the Appomattox River Water Authority's Board with Steve Micas being an alternate. The attorney for the Authority has advised that there is no prohibition to a member having more than one alternate representative. The Director of Utilities has represented the County at the Appomattox River Water Authority's meetings, but is unable to vote or be counted towards a quorum. Recommendation Appoint David H. Welchons, Director of Utilities, as an alternate representative for Chesterfield County. ATTACHMENTS: YES I-I SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA August 14, 1985 MEETING DATE: ITEM NUMBER: 10.F.1. SUBJECT: Recommendation for Police Officers COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION I respectfully request the following applicants be approved for recommendation of appointment to the Circuit Court Judges as Police Officers for the County of Chesterfield beginning September 9, 1985. A summary of each applicant is attached. John Harvey Atkisson, Jr. Charles Randall Conner Cynthia Dale Cooke Ronald Gregory Daniel Daniel Gordon Dinius Scott Andrew Earley Virgil Alexander Forbes, Jr. Robert Wayne Garber Daniel Joseph Geary James Barry Kennedy Charles Randall Leedy Joseph Franklin LeCato, Jr. Gary Xavier Lovatt Malcolm Vaughan Lowery Romaine Martin, II William Harold Morgan Thomas James Page Richard Stephen Pittman Gregory Blair Turpin Susan Elizabeth Weigland Edward Michael Wessel Judith Anne Williams ATTACHMENTS; YES I~1 NO [] PREPARED BY: SIGNATURE' ,, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR John Harvey Atkisson, Jr. POLICE OFFICER APPLICANT This applicant is a resident of Chesterfield County, a graduate of George Wythe High School in Richmond, Vir- ginia. He is thirty seven years old, six feet tall and weighs 200 pounds. He is one of two children. He is presently single and is living in Virginia Beach, Virginia, where he works with the Virginia Beach Police Department. The Division of Motor Vehicles shows a balance of five safe driving points on the applicant's driving rec- ord. He has no criminal record. The applicant served in the United States Army from 1968 to 1971 and was honorably discharged with an E-5 (Sgt.) rating. The applicant has one year experience with the Chester- field County Sheriff's Department, four years with the Petersburg Police Department and is currently working for the Virginia Beach Police Department. He has received many commendations in his police career and received the Police Officer of the Year in the Second Precinct, Virginia Beach Police Department for 1984. The applicant is reported to have an even temperament. The applicant has a good reputation and has been given good references from all of his ex-employers. Charles Randall Conner POLICE OFFICER APPLICANT The applicant was born in Winchester, Virginia and was raised in Waynesboro, Virginia. He attended Waynesboro High School and graduated June 5, 1981. He was very active in high school sports. After high school graduation, he attended Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. He graduated from VCU in May 1985 with a degree in the Administration of Justice. The applicant has no criminal record and a good driving record. He has a fine reputation and reported to be a person who lives a good moral life. He is twenty-two years old, five feet eleven inches tall and weighs 182 pounds. He is a very clean cut, neat and well-groomed person. He is not married and makes his home at 553 North Laburnum Avenue in Richmond, Virginia. The applicant has no military experience and no police experience. He is employed with Clemons Investigative Agency in Richmond, Virginia. He works as a security guard at the Life of Virginia building on West Broad Street in Richmond, Virginia. CYNTHIA DALE COOKE Police Officer Applicant Miss Cooke was born in Richmond, Virginia on April 6, 1963 and has lived in or near Richmond all her life. She currently resides at 3400 Martin Avenue in Henrico County. The applicant has no criminal record. The Division of Motor Vehicles shows the applicant has not had any accidents and currently has a balance of plus one safe driving points. The applicant's financial background indicates she has a good credit rating and has handled her banking affilia- tions in a satisfactory manner. Miss Cooke attended Henrico High School and graduated June 4, 1981. She was ranked 66th in a class of 387. She continued her education at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University where she graduated in June, 1985 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Psychology. The applicant is presently employed at Convenient Food Mart as a shift manager in Henrico County. Prior to her present position while attending college the applicant worked for Hop-In Food Stores, Inc. as a clerk and also for Burger King, Inc.. In 1983, while on summer break, the applicant worked for Wheat First Securities, Inc. in Rich- mond, Virginia. The applicant has a reputation for honesty and trust- worthiness. Neighbors, references and employers all spoke favorably of her. Miss Cooke has a keen interest in not just becoming a police officer, but a police officer in Chesterfield County. She expresses a high regard for the Chesterfield County Police Department and has not applied anywhere else in the law enforcement field. Her athletic and academic background indicate she has the physical and mental ability to endure the rigors of training and become an effective police officer. RONALD GREGORY DANIEL Police Officer Applicant The applicant was raised in Alberta, Virginia, and was one of four children. He attended Brunswick Academy in Lawrenceville, Virginia where he graduated in June of 1979. Since graduating from high school the applicant has been furthering his education by attending Southside Virginia Community College, where he has been taking courses in the Administration of Justice. To date the applicant has completed nineteen credits and has a 4.0 grade point average. The applicant has no criminal record and the Division of Motor Vehicles shows the applicant to have a balance of three safe driving points on his driving record. There is no report of the applicant ever using drugs of alcohol. The Credit Bureau reports a good credit rating an the applicant has handled his banking affiliations in a satis- factory manner. The applicant is presently employed as a police officer by the town of Lawrenceville, Virginia, where he enjoys a fine reputation. Previous to his being employed by the town of Lawrenceville, Virginia as a police officer, the appli- cant worked for the Parker Oil Company, in Lawrenceville, Virginia as an oil burner technician. The applicant is twenty-three years old, five feet eleven inches tall and weighs 178 pounds. He is reported to be an even tempered person who does not anger quickly. He is married and has a three month old daughter. The appli- cant and his wife, Judith, presently reside at the address of P. O. Box 401, Alberta, Virginia. The applicant enjoys a fine reputation, and is reported to be a person of high morals, and a devoted husband and father. Daniel Gordon Dinius POLICE OFFICER APPLICANT Mr. Dinius is twenty-nine years old, married, and has a son, aged two. He is a life-long resident of central Michigan. He attended Mount Pleasant Senior High School, graduating in June of 1974 with a grade point average of 2.40. He then continued his education at Alpena Com- munity College, earning seven credits with a grade point average of 4.00 and Central Michigan University, earning 42 credits with a grade point average of 2.88. He served as a member of the United States Air Force from August of 1974 to August of 1978, achieving the rank of Sergeant E-4 before receiving an honorable discharge. His prior police experience includes his employment as a deputy with the Isabella County, Michigan Sheriff's Department from December of 1978 to March of 1981. His duties there included those of a road deputy and jailor. He left that position to accept employment with the Central Michigan University Department of Public Safety as a police officer, and is currently in that position. There he performs various patrol duties and some investigations. He is also a firearms instructor for that department. He has maintained a good reputation in his community and is well- liked by his supervisors and co-workers. Scott Andrew Earley POLICE OFFICER APPLICANT The applicant was born in Jacksonville, North Carolina and raised in Tonawanda, New York. He has two sisters. He attended Williamsville East High School in New York and graduated in June 1981. The applicant has an A.A.S. degree in Criminal Justice from Erie Community College graduating in May 1983. He played football and lacrosse in high school and presently plays softball. The applicant has no criminal record and the New York Division of Motor Vehicles reports one conviction of speeding in October 1981. He has a good credit standing and handles his banking affiliations satisfactorily. He has no military or police experience but has 96 hours training by the State of New York in Industrial and Retail Security which was required for him to carry a weapon for his present job. The applicant worked for Brand Names Sales as a stock clerk while in high school and college, leaving to seek full-time employment. He is presently working two jobs, one as a Security Officer for Rite Aid Corporation and the other as a guard and driver for Armored Motor Service of America. All employers advised he is an excellent worker and very seldom if ever misses any work. They further advised he would make an excellent candidate for our Police Department and would not hesitate to re-hire him. He is twenty-one years old, five feet eight inches tall and weighs 190 pounds. His temperament is described as calm and collective and an even tempered person, and would be able to handle any situation he would encounter as a police officer. He was married on September 24, 1983 to Marguerite Earley, who is very much in favor of the applicant being a police officer and making the move to Virginia. The applicant if employed has arrangements made for residence in the county. The applicant enjoys a fine reputation and has been described as an "upstanding citizen". Virgil Alexander Forbes, Jr. POLICE OFFICER APPLICANT The applicant was born in Petersburg, Virginia and raised in Chester- field County at 3711 Dupuy Road in Ettrick. He is single and has five sisters. He attended Matoaca High School and graduated in June 1980. The applicant graduated from Virginia State College in May 1985 with a Bachelor of Arts in Administration of Justice majoring in Sociology. While in high school and college he was very active in sports and hobbies playing football, basketball, baseball, tennis, cross country and swimming. The applicant has no criminal record and the Department of Motor Vehicles shows one prior traffic citation in 1982 for running a red light. He has a good credit rating and handles his banking affiliations in a satisfactory manner. He has no military experience and his police experience was his Student Internship with this department while in college, and all officers who had contact with him have advised he would make a fine police officer. The applicant has worked full and part-time through out his high school and college years, holding such jobs as a stock clerk for Wynn Dixie, class instructor and camp counselor for the Petersburg YMCA, and the Head Student Trainer for the Athletic Director at Virginia State College. Ail former employers advise that he is an excellent employee and would hire him back without any questions. He is single, twenty-three years old, six feet tall and weigh~ 190 pounds. Neighbors, friends and character references all speak highly of him and his desire since high school to be a police officer for this county. The applicant enjoys a fine reputation and high morals of living. Robert Wayne Garber POLICE OFFICER APPLICANT The applicant was born in Richmond, Virginia on February 12, 1951. He is thirty-four years old and married to the former Mary Didlake of Chesterfield County. The couple have two children; Matthew, age four and Carey, age two. They reside at 5525 Upp Street in Chesterfield County. The applicant is a lifetime resident of Chesterfield County. He attended Meadowbrook High School and graduated in June 1969 and ranked 82 in a class of 248. He attended Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia and graduated May 18, 1974 with a Bachelor of Science degree. Since graduating from college, the applicant has established an excellent work record. He is currently working as a sales representa- tive for Dominion Service Company of Richmond, which deals in heating and air conditioning. The applicant has never been in trouble with the law and has a good driving record. He is a person of high morals, a devoted husband and father, and enjoys a fine reputation. He has no military experience but does have police exposure and experience. On 0anuary 28, 1985, he was appointed a Chesterfield County Special Police Officer. He has been training and working with the regular police while in that position. His superior officers in the Special Police report that he has done an excellent job and they recom- mend him for the position of police officer.. The applicant is five feet eleven inches tall and weighs 195 pounds. He dresses neatly and knows how to converse with people. He has a large vocabulary and speaks clearly. DANIEL JOSEPH GEARY Police Officer Applicant Applicant was born on July 1, 1959 to Mary Ann and David Patrick Geary in Hales Corners, Wisconsin. Applicants family moved around a lot due to father's occupation as Chief of Police. Applicant attended Catholic Memorial High School in Waukesha, Wisconsin and graduated 180th in a class of 202 in May 1977. Applicant continued his education at the Univer- sity of Wisconsin at Whitewater and graduated magna cum laude from Education Department in May 1981 with a grade point average of 3.63. Applicant is currently enrolled in the Graduate Program in Counselor Education at VCU and currently carries a grade point average of 4.0 in that program. Applicant has no police record and applicant's DMV record shows a speeding violation in 1980 in Wisconsin and two non-moving violations in Virginia in 1983. Applicant carries a plus two safe driving points on his DMV record. Applicant has handled his credit and banking affilia- tions in a satisfactory manner. Applicant presently works as a social studies teacher at Godwin High School in Henrico. Applicant was recommended highly by all past and his present employer. Applicant was generally given superior marks for his job performance. Applicant is single and lives at 1503 Glenside Drive in Henrico County with his younger brother. Friends, neighbors, co-workers and employers stated that applicant is a person of the highest morals and enjoys an excellent reputation. Based on the above investigation, I recommend that the applicant, Daniel Joseph Geary, be approved for the position of Police Officer. JAMES BARRY KENNEDY Police Officer Applicant The applicant was raised on a farm operated by his father in Dinwiddie County, Virginia. He is one of seven children. He attended Dinwiddie High School and graduated in June of 1982, where he finished 12th in a class of 377 students. He was a member of the National Honor Society (Chapter Chaplin, 1982) and was Senior Class Vice President in 1982. Since graduating from high school he has continued his education by attending John Tyler Community College and working towards obtaining an Associates Degree in Police Science. The applicant has no criminal record and the Division of Motor Vehicles reports.he has an excellent driving record with a balance of five safe driving points. The applicant has conducted his financial obligations in a satisfactory manner and the Credit Bureau reports no problems. He has no military or police experience but past employers and friends report that he is trainable and catches on quickly. The applicant has worked part time on his fathers farm in Dinwiddie County, Virginia most all of his life, and for the last three years he has been employed full time with the Continental Forest Industries as a scaler (responsible for weighing trucks in and out of the plant and also that of a sewage plant operator. He is twenty-one years old, single, five feet eight inches tall and weighs 136 pounds. He is reported to be an even tempered person, and one who does not get angered quickly. He is single and presently resides at Route 1, Box 51, Sutherland, Virginia. The applicant enjoys a fine reputation, and is reported to be a hard working and very sincere young man. 086 CHARLES RANDALL LEEDY Police Officer Applicant Applicant was born on April 13, 1964 to Beuilah C. and Charles Ribble Leedy in Galax, Virginia. Applicant was strongly influenced by his father, a Baptist minister, and has inherited his fathers conservative values. Applicant recently lost his father to a heart attack and now lives with his mother at 5801 River Road in Matoaca. Applicant is planning to marry Miss. Cathy Picardat sometime in the next twelve months and she is most supportive of applicants decision to become a police officer. Applicant has no criminal record and his DMV record shows one speeding violation. Applicant carries a minus two safe driving points on his record. Applicant has handled his credit and banking affilia- tions in a satisfactory manner. Applicant attended Matoaca High School and graduated 127th in a class of 179 in June 1982. He continued his education at John Tyler Community College where he has earned 94 credit hours with a grade point average of 2.365. Applicant currently works for the Ettrick Supermarket where he enjoys the confidence and trust of his employer. Applicants former employer spoke highly of him and would gladly rehire him. Applicants friends, neighbors, co-workers and employers stated that the applicant is a person of high morals and enjoys a fine reputation Based on the fact that no detrimental information was found pertaining to the applicant and that everyone I spoke to was positive toward applicants character, I recommend this applicant be appointed to the position of police officer. O8 7 JOSEPH FRANKLIN LECATO, JR. Police Officer Applicant Mr. LeCato is twenty-five years old and is single. He was born and raised in Franktown, Virginia on the Eastern Shore. He attended Northampton Senior High School and, immediately after graduation, served four years in the U. S. Navy, achieving the rank of E-4 before being honorably discharged in July of 1982. He has been attending Virginia Commonwealth University since September of 1982 in their Administration of Justice program and is scheduled to graduate in August of 1985 with a Bachelor's Degree. He has maintained a grade point average of 3.13 in addition to being employed to support himself and pay for his education. He hopes to continue his education and attain a Masters Degree. His internship with the Ocean City Police Depart- ment and his current employment as Security Coordinator for the Virginia Commonwealth University Department of Housing provide him with a good foundation for a career in law enforcement. The applicant is in good financial standing and is describ- ed by friends and co-workers as a hardworking, likeable and outgoing yound man, dependable and always well-groomed. GARY XAVIER LOVATT Police Officer Applicant Mr. Lovatt is twenty-five years old and single. He is a life-long resident of Rhode Island. He graduated from Coventry High School in Coventry, Rhode Island in June of 1980, and has earned three credits at Bryant College in Smithfield, Rhode Island. For the last three years he has served as an auxiliary officer on the West Greenwich, Rhode Island Police Department where he has performed the duties of a patrol officer and an undercover narcotics officer. Through that department he has rec6$ved training in their academy and has attended a narcotics seminar and a fingerprint classification school. Chief Andrews and Sergeant Malikowski of that department describe him as level headed, intelligent and industrious. Mr. Lovatt is in good financial standing, and has main- tained a good driving record. He has no criminal record and has established a good reputation in his community. Mr. Lovatt applied to this police department because his mother has recently relocated here from Rhode Island and also because he wants to become a member of a fast growing and progressive department. MALCOLM VAUGHAN LOWERY POLICE OFFICER APPLICANT The applicant was born in Chisledon Wiltshire, England of an American father and a British mother. He possesses both an American and a British Citizenship. The applicant attended Turnpike Secondary Modern School in Newbury Berks, England and graduated in July of 1974. The applicant has no criminal history in either England or The United States and the Division of Motor Vehicles reports him to have a good driving record. The applicant has conducted his financial obligations in a satisfactory manner and The Credit Bureau reports no problems. He served in the Royal Marines for eight years, and during his military career he saw fighting action in the Falkland Islands and for a period of nine months was stationed in Northern Ireland. Upon leaving the Royal Marines the applicant received a letter praising him for his excellent job performance from General Pringle, who is the Commandant General of the Royal Marines. After leaving the Royal Marines, the applicant held several jobs in England before moving to the United States with his family in February of 1985. The applicant twenty seven years old, five feet eight inches tall and weighs 150 pounds. He is reported to be even tempered, and one who does not get angered quickly. He is married and has two children ages three and four years old. The applicant and his wife presently reside at 4027 Chippendale Drive, Richmond, Virginia. The applicant enjoys a fine reputation, and is reported to be a honest and hard working young man who is devoted to his family. ROMAINE MARTIN, II. Police Officer Applicant Applicant was born on December 14, 1961 in Trenton, New Jersey to Romaine and Carol Martin. Applicants family moved to Eastville, Virginia where applicant's father became a deputy sheriff in the Northampton County Sheriff's Depart- ment. Applicant's father is still with the Sheriff's Department and is highly thought of as is the whole family according to Northampton County Sheriff William Belote. Applicant has no police record and his DMV record shows three moving violations, two for traffic signals and one improper turn, with two non-moving violations. Applicant carries a minus six safe driving points but this will be reduced to a plus three by hiring date. Applicant enjoys a good credit rating and has handled his banking affiliations in a satisfactory manner Applicant attended Northampton County High School and graduated 41st in a class of 169 in June 1980. Applicant went on to attend VCU from the fall of 1980 to the present and currently has a grade point average of 2.42. Applicant needs to complete two more courses to earn a B. S. degree in the Administration of Justice. Applicant was given good employment references by his past and current employers except for one business that cold not be reached as it had gone out of business. Friends, neighbors, co-workers and employers stated that applicant is a person of high morals and enjoys a fine reputation. I spoke to three law enforcement personnel who know applicant and all three advised that applicant would make a fine police officer and be an asset to Chesterfield County. Based on the fact that no detrimental information was found pertaining to applicant and that everyone I spoke to was positive toward applicants character, I recommend this applicant be approved to the position of police officer. WILLIAM HAROLD MORGAN Police Officer Applicant The applicant was born and raised in Richmond, Virginia where he was one of four children. He attended Lloyd. C. Bird High School and graduated in June of 1981. Since graduating from high school, the applicant has been taking classes as his working schedule will allow, at John Tyler Community College. The Division of Motor Vehicles reports a balance of three safe driving points on the applicant's driving record, and he has never been convicted of any criminal violation. The applicant enjoys a good credit rating and has handled his banking affiliations in a satisfactory manner. He has no military or police experience but is reported by his past employers and friends to be a hard worker who learns his job quickly. The applicant has worked part time at the Bellwood Drive-In and for the K-Mart stores while attending high school. After graduating from high school the applicant accepted employment with the Neighborhood Theatres and is presently employed by them as a relief manager for the Chesterfield Mall Cinema. The applicant is 22 years old, six feet tall and weighs 155 pounds. He is reported to have an even temper, and one who does not get angered quickly. He is single and present- ly resides with his parents at 6008 Barrister Road, Chester- field, Virginia. The applicant enjoys a fine reputation, and is reported to be a honest and hard working young man. Thomas James Page POLICE OFFICER APPLICANT The applicant was born in Portville, New York and raised in Olean, New York. He has one brother and one sister. He attended Archbishop Walsh High School in Olean, New York and graduated in June 1980. He has a Bachelor Degree in Criminal Justice from Mercyhurst College in Erie, Pennsylvania graduating in July 1984. He plays baseball, basketball, tennis and jogs and lifts weights to keep in shape. The applicant has no criminal record and the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles reports a speeding conviction in New York in June 1984 before receiving a Virginia license in September 1984. His banking affiliations are handled in a satisfactory manner and has a good credit rating from the Credit Bureau. He has no military experience and has had a ten week Student Intern- ship with the Olean New York Police Department. His advisor Chief Michael Luty advised he is an outstanding individual who showed alot of interest in his work, enjoying responsibility and carried out his tasks with enthu- siasm. The applicant worked for the Mercyhurst College Day Care Center while attending college as a child aid worker. After college the applicant moved to Richmond, Virginia and worked for J. Feldman Company as a ware- house worker and left to seek a full-time job. The applicant is presently employed as a child care worker for the Virginia Home for Boys. Ail employers advised he is an excellent worker and would take him back any time. All agree he would make an excellent police officer. He is twenty-two years old, six feet one inch tall and weighs 170 pounds. His temperment is described as even, patient and very much in control of himself even in stressful situations. The applicant is single and very enthusiastic about being a police officer. He enjoys a fine reputation and clean living and is known for his high morals. RICHARD STEPHEN PITTMAN Police Officer Applicant Mr. Pittman was born in Norfolk, Virginia on October 21, 1963 and resided in Virginia Beach until February 1974. Since that time he has lived in Chesterfield County where he married Cynthia Elizabeth Doyle on July 20, 1985. The applicant has no criminal record and the Division of Motor Vehicles reports a balance of plus five safe driving points. The applicant's financial background indicates he has a good credit rating and has handled his banking affiliations in a satisfactory manner. Mr. Pittman attended and graduated from Midlothian High School on June 11, 1982. He has also earned 13 semester credit hours at Virginia Commonwealth University. The applicant is currently employed at Armed Depository Incorporated as a run supervisor on an armored truck. The applicant was formerly employed at Total Plus as an Assis- tant Manager and worked part time at A&N Sporting Goods and Drug Fair. Friends, neighbors, co-workers and employers all spoke very highly of the applicant. Mr. Pittman has a fine reputation among all people contacted. GREGORY BLAIR TURPIN Police Officer Applicant The applicant is six feet, four inches tall and weighs 164 pounds and is 21 years old. He was born on November 18, 1963 in Atlanta, Georgia. His father taught college at Virginia Commonwealth University and is now the publisher of the Orlando Business Journal in Orlando, Florida. The applicant is a graduate of Douglas Freeman High School in Henrico County. He has completed 121 credit hours at Virginia Commonwealth University. His anticipated graduation date at VCU is December 1985 and he will receive a degree in the Administration of Justice. He has a 3.27 grade point average in college, and the head of the depart- ment of Police Science at VCU, Professor James E. Hooker, highly recommends the applicant. Professor Hooker stated that the applicant was an excellent student, hard worker, one who knows what he wants, and one who will make an excellent police officer. The applicant has no military or police experience but he does have four years of classroom training about law and police work at VCU. The applicant started working for Safeway Stores while he was still in high school, and he has continued to work at Safeway while attending college. His employers think of him as an excellent worker and one who is very intelligent. Friends, neighbors, co-workers and former employers all said that the applicant is a person of high morals and enjoys a fine reputation. The applicant was married on May 25, 1985 to the former Cheryl Baldwin, and they reside at 5544-D Cardiff Court in Henrico County. SUSAN TILSON WEIGAND Police Officer Applicant Susan Weigand was born in Lexington, Virginia on October 1, 1958 and currently resides in Chesterfield County. She graduated from Lexington High School and was ranked 87th in a class of 186. Ms. Weigand continued her education at Mary Baldwin College in Staunton, Virginia and also at Randolph Macon Woman's College. The applicant is presently a karate student and has obtained a brown belt ranking. She is currently working on her black belt and is considered to be a very good and dependable student. Ms. Weigand is employed as a customer service representative III/facility supervisor with Sovran Bank where she has been employed for six years. Her supervisors and co-workers stated that she is a good worker, is able to assume responsibility, gets along well with others and would be a desirable person to reemploy. There was never any question about the applicant's honesty or integrity. The applicant's background shows a person that once interested in a job or hobby dedicates her time and energy to that area and is successful in her endeavors. It is recommended that Susan Wilson Weigand be approved for the position of Police Officer. EDWARD MICHAEL WESSEL Police Officer Applicant The applicant was born in Freeport, New York on May 20, 1959, and is one of four children. He is married, no children, his wife, Leslie, is a secretary for the Borg Warner Corporation in Richmond, Virginia. He graduated from Half Hollow High School in Dix Hills, New York in June 1977. He also received an Associate Degree in Criminal Justice from the State University of New York at Farmingdale. The applicant is now living in Frederick Farms Subdivision in Chesterfield County. The applicant's financial status is in good order and he enjoys an excellent credit rating. The applicant has no military experience. The applicant has no criminal record and the Division of Motor Vehicles shows no accidents or violations and shows a balance of zero safe driving points. The applicant was a police officer in Charleston, South Carolina and gets high remarks as to his character and work habits. He is now employed by Waverly Textile Processing and is a supervisor there. Waverly Textiles also gave him a very good reference and stated he hated to loose him. His employers stated he was never tardy and hardly used any sick leave. The applicant appears to be in good physical condition. The applicant's friends, neighbors and co-workers all say he is a person of high morals and enjoys a fine reputa- tion. He is a hard worker and always neat and a dependable person. Judith Anne Williams POLICE OFFICER APPLICANT The applicant was born in Fort Eustis, Virginia and raised in Richmond, Virginia and presently living with her mother at 273 Circleview Drive in Chester, Virginia. She has two brothers and five sisters. She attended and graduated from Thomas Dale High School in Chester on June 10, 1983. The applicant has furthered her education by completing 39 credit hours in Police Science classes at John Tyler Community College. There are no criminal records on the applicant and the Department of Motor Vehicles shows a balance of plus three driving points with no convictions. She has a good credit status and handles her banking affiliations in a satisfactory manner. She has no military experience and was a member of the Chester- field Explorers for five years, serving as President for the post during one year, and her advisor stated she was one of the best they ever had. During that time with the Explorers she had the experience of riding with police officers on several occasions. The applicant is presently a dispatcher for the Police Department which started off as a part-time position in September 1983 which earned her a full-time position in January 1984. She has worked as a cook for Lendy's Chicken and a cashier for Golden Skillet while attending high school and presiding as President for the Explorers. The applicant left to work as a teacher's helper for the Childrens Corner Day Care. Past employers advised they would re-hire her and that she is a dedi- cated hard worker and feel she would be an excellent police officer. The applicant is twenty-one years old, five feet six inches tall and weighs 130 pounds. Friends, relatives and coworkers advise she could do the job and handle any situation she would encounter. Her mother advised this was a goal she set in high school and has strived for this position. She has a reputation of good clean living and high morals. CHESTEEFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE' August 14, 1985 SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance ITEM NUMBER; 10.F.2. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION' CLOVER HILL DISTRICT: Beckenham, Section B MIDLOTHIANDISTRICT: Powderham, Sections B and C ATTACHMENTS: YES [3: NO r'l PREPARED BY: . ; ~ ~'~"< DJ, rector Environmental Engineering SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM..: SUBJECT: ~ING DATE: Inchcape Road: Board of Supervisors Environmental Engineering State Road Acceptance - A portion of Beckenham, Section B August 14, 1985 Beginning where state maintenance ends, Inchcape Road, State Route #1242 and going southeasterly to a dead end. BECKENF~AM- SECTION MEMORANDUM MEETING DATE: Board of Supervisors Enviro~tal Engineering State Road Acceptance - Powderham, Sections B and C August 14, 1985 Ellesmere Drive: Beginning at intersection with Glendower Road, State Route 1069, and going northwesterly to intersection with F~uonthorpeRoad, then continues northwesterly to intersection with Cassaway Road, then continues northwesterly to tie into existing Ellesmere Drive, State Route 1069. Edmonthorpe Road: Beginning at intersection with Ellesmere Drive and going northwesterly to intersection with Cassaway Road. Cassaway Road: Beginning at intersection with F~uonthorpe Road and going northeasterly to a t~uporary turnaround. Again, beginning at intersection with Edmonthorpe Road and going southwesterly to intersection with Ellesmere Drive. ¥ - CHESTEEFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 10.F.3. SUBJECT: Contract for Engineering Services for Bon Air Landfill COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMA.Y OF , RMAT,ON: Raquasts for proposals for Emgineering Services for the rehabilitation work at the Bon Air Landfill were received on July 10, 1985. The proposals were reviewed by a selection committee and interviews were conducted with two of the responding firms. The comrittee selected Charles C. Townes and Associates as the most suitable firm to provide the engineering services. The estimated cost is $13,551. Punds for this work have been appropriated previously. Authority is requested for the County Administrator to contract with Charles C. Townes and Associates for engineering services on the Bon Air Landfill project. ATTACHMENTS: YES 1'3 NO ~/J William H. Howell, Director Department of General Services SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 102 CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE; August 14, 1985 SUBJECT: Highway Engineer ITEM NUMBER: 10 .G. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION This is the normal time for the Highway Engineer or his representative to discuss road matters with each individual supervisor. PREPARED BY; ATTACHMENTS: YES 12] NO I~ SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMI NI STRATOR CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE' Auqust 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT: Street Light Installation Cost Approvals 10.H.1. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OFINFORMATION: DALE DISTRICT: Locations approved April 25, 1985 Belmont Road and Sue Jean Drive Cost to Install Light - $351.00 MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT: Locations approved June 12, 1985 Cranbeck Road and Cranbeck Ter Cost to Install Light - $213.00 Coalfield Road and Genito Road Cost to Install Light - $1651.00 ATTACHMENTS: YES E] NO E] PREPARED BY: Ri;h;d M./~cElfish, Director I · Environmental Engineering SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMI NISTRATOR VIRGINIA POWER Chester, VA. 23831 June 27, 1985 Mr. Calvin L. Viar Principal Engineer Assistant P.O. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA. 23832 Dear Mr. Viar: The installation of street light at Belmont Rd. and SueJean Dr. has been approved. The cost analysis you requested was engineered to determine the installation fee. The cost for this project is $351.00. This cost is good for 60 days from the date of this letter. After the 60 day period if I have not heard from you the job will be cancelled and a new estimate needed upon your request. Sincerely, Duncan Mclver Service Representative VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWIER COMPANY 9121 Nidlothian Pike P. O. Box 3133 Bon Air, Virginia 2-3235 Mr. Richard M. McElfish Director, Environmental Engineering Chesterfield County Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Department Dear Mr. McElfish: The cost for installing the outdoor lighting you requested at ~3~'~__ 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 of 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, Customer Service Supervisor 106 Vepco VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY 912] Hidlothian Turnpike Richmond, Ya. 23235 July 9, 1985 Mr. Richard M. McElfish Director, Environmental Engineering Department Chesterfield County Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Mr. McElfish: The cost for installing the outdoor lighting you requested at Coalfield Road and Genito Road is $1651.00. This was calculated by applying four years of revenue to the cost of installing the facilities. We will proceed with construction upon receipt of a letter authorizing Virginia Power to bill the County of Chesterfield for the installation cost. 2031. If you have any questions, please contact me at 320-7811, Ext. TW/pp Sincerely,/ Tom Wimer Service Representative CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE; August 14, 1985 SUBJECT: Street Light Requests ITEM NUMBER; 10.H.2.. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: CLOVER HILL DISTRICT: Penn Acres Association wants county to take over 11 private street lights (only 4 qualify) MATOACA DISTRICT: Intersection of Greenbriar Drive and Windward Drive Beverly Acres Requests 4 lights of which 2 qualify. 1) 2) DALE DISTRICT: Intersection of Beulah Road and Hopkins Road. Intersection of Vernetta Lane & Serena Lane. Intersection of Vernetta Lane & Edwin Lane. ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO [] Richard M. M~lfish, P.E. Director EnVironmental Engineering SIGNATURE: c~ADM I N I STRATOR STREET LIGHT REQUEST Clover Hill District DATE OF REQUEST Ju]'y 2, 1985 TAX MAP 28-3 NAME OF REQUESTOR Penn Acres Civic Association (William C. Shifflett, Pres. ) 8318 Emerald Lane ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER - HOME WORK' REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF AND . REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE .PLACED PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE ~ OR SET POLE COMMENTS Penn Acres Wants the County to take over paymeht of eleven private street lights. The County is already payinq for three (3) street lights in the neighborhood. Of the eleven street lights, only four Qualify. ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch) 1. South Providence Road & Trout Iane 2. Trout Lane & Jade Road 3. Jade Road & Emerald Lane 4. Emerald Lane &Marble Road A So hal i,,,;s'"' ,,/ s~¢¥-] B;II T"f l9 'T'K ?o 8~31 eLI K o[,,~ .~. P,.o ,, / J -e ,,., c .e 8318 Emerald Lane Richmond, VA 23236 July 2, 1985 Mr. Calvin Via Chesterfield County Engineering Department P.O. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832 Dear Mr. Via: This letter is written on behalf of the residents of the 64 single family dwellings in Penn Acres subdivision. Our neighborhood is bounded on two sides by commercial properties on Midlothian Turnpike and Providence Road. We have fourteen (14) existing street lights, eleven (11) provided by contributions from the residents and three (3) provided by county funds. As energy costs have soared in recent years, it has been increasingly difficult for us to raise funds for the lights. Because we are one of the older, established neighborhoods in the county, many of our residents are elderly, retired couples or widows and widowers living alone. Their limited incomes make it difficult for them to contribute toward maintenance of the lights. By this letter, we are requesting that the county assume responsibility for total payment of the lights. Because of our proximity to a heavy commercial area which continues to expand, the lights are a necessity to deter crime and wandering traffic through the neighborhood. A map showing the location of the light poles is attached. Your consideration of our request is appreciated. Should you need addi- tional information, we will be happy to meet with you at your convenience. PENN ACRES CIVIC ASSOCIATION, William C. Shiflett, [resident Deborah L. Pearson, Treasurer STREET LIGHT REQUEST ~toaca D is trict DATE OF REQUEST July 12, 1985 NAME OF REQUESTOR Edith M. Guild ADDRESS 4460 Greenbriar Drive TAX MAP 148-7 PHONE NUMBER - HOM~ WORK REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF AND Windward Drive . Greenbriar Drive REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. · PLACED IT IS REQUESTED TO BE PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE COMMENTS Meets c~iteria OR SET POLE ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch) \0 t II ./ \ \ \ \ 45 46 16 17 / t5 13 ~0 -% IO 9 % ./ ,5 2 IO SECTION 148-7 JUL'I 2, 1985 Mr~ Calvin Viar Engineering P. 0. Box ~ Chesterfield, Virginia 2383~ 4460 Greenbriar Drive Chester, Virginia 23851 July 10, 1985 Dear Mr. Viar: Referring to the conversation I had with you today, I would very much appreciate your presenting to the Board of Supervisors a request for a street light at the intersection of Greenbriar Drive and Windward Drive in the Greenbriar Sub- division. This is a very dark area at night and a light would be of great benefit to all the residents of both streets. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Edith M. Guild (Mrs. J. Edward Guild) STREET LIGHT REQUEST Matoaca District DATE OF REQUEST Jul~ 8, 1985 NA/4E OF REQUESTOR Helen E. B. Hinton ADDRESS 20705 Vernetta Lane TAX MA~ 179-16 PHONE NUMBER - HOME 590-9586 WORK REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF AND Vernetta Lane . Serena Iane REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. · PLACED IT IS REQUESTED TO BE PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE ~ COMMENTS 2 intersections meet criteria. OR SET POLE Re~u. estin~ 4 lights. ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch) 79-12, ~ (I).-I 179 -!2 L;OUN iY 3 i I0 13 3 4 5 5 6 \ \ 7 xx 12 14 15 II I0 9 16 5 / 6 ot 7 ] I .~) [JEV£RLY ACRES SEC.Z R[SU~, L'1'18,9,10 BLK.B Recreotion Pts. 3 ! 185-4 MATOACA DISTRICT See 185-4-(I)-6 Mr. Calvin Viar Post Office Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 20705 Vernetta Lane Petersburg (Matoaca), Virginia 23803 July 1, 1985 Dear Mr. Viar: As a follow-up to our telephone conversation on Friday, June 28, 1985, I would like to request that the county of Chesterfield install street lights in Beverly Acres Subdivision. On behalf of the residents of this community, I would like to further request that in addition to lights at the intersection, that one light be installed midway between each intersection. It is hazardous to drive in or out of this area at night. Attached is a list of signatures of some of the other residents. Please give this request your immediate attention; I hope to receive a reply from you soon. Attachment:as Very truly your, Helen E. B. Hinton (Mrs. Jesse Hinton) Telephone 590-9586 ~ESIDENTS OF BEVERLY ^CRES ~L~_~AM E _ ADDRESS TELEPHONE ~~~~ ............. ~..,., .-,~,~ ~,.¢ . DATE OF REQUEST NAME OF REQUESTOR ADDRESS STREET LIGHT REQUEST Dale District August 8,. 1985 TAX MAP Mr. Daniel WORK 66-8 PHONE NUMBER - HOME REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF AlqD Hopkins Road . Beulah Road REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. .PLACED IT IS REQUESTED TO BE PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE % OR SET COMMENTS Intersection is now under construction by VDH~T. There is a good possibility that a stop light will be warranted at this intersection in the near future. ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch) -- /' !.-'] CH, ESTER Beulah School 14 3-4 Q 12 I0 ICO~N' Rd. ' 7-1 II ACRE&GE 2o0 11-3 \ 11-2 ,,~FUOUA FARMS- SECTION 0 0 R&VE N'~DA LE 7 4200 0 4 ~ SEC. E 66-12 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE' .. August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER; 10.H.3- SUBJECT: Agreement concerning Storm Water Management System for Courthouse Commons COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board of Supervisors is being requested to execute a storm water management agreement with the developer of Courthouse Commons. BACKGROUND: During the development of the Courthouse Commons construction plans, developers felt and calculations proved that Tyler's pond located downstream of the development needed protection from the increased storm water runoff and therefore, opted to detain water on-site. The detention basin was designed by a professional engineer to accommodate the storm water runoff and was approved by the County. The maintenance agreement consists primarily of a final inspection report, preventative maintenance inspections every three (3) years, and an Indemnification Agreement for the County. The responsibility for the integrity of the basins falls with the developers of the property and subsequently the owners. The County's only involvement is the assurance that the maintenance agreement is being followed by the owner. (continued on next page) ATTACHMENTS: YES IN NO [] ~iChard M~c-E~fish, P.E. Director EnVironmental Engineering SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMI NISTRATOR Board Agenda Item August 14, 1985 Environmental Engineering Page Two The agreement has been approved, as to form, by the County Attorney's Office and has been executed by the developers of Courthouse Commons. This is the same format and proce- dure that has been used in similar cases in the past (Ramsgate, Irongate Shopping Center). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Administrator to execute the Maintenance Agreement with the developer of Courthouse Commons, as approved by the County Attorney's Office. COURTHOUSE COMMONS AGREEMENT, FOR MAINTENANCE OF STORM WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM THIS AGREEMENT, dated as of this 10th day of July, 1985, be and between COURTHOUSE COMMONS ASSOCIATION, a Virginia corporation ("CCA"), and THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the County), recites and provides: RECITALS Magnolia Investment Associates, a Virginia partnership ("Magnolia") is the developer of certain real estate, Tax Map 95-8, Parcels 33 & 40 and Tax Map 95-12, Parcels 4, 13, 20, & 27 situated in Chesterfield County, Virginia, known as Court- house Commons, which is being developed for use as an office park and for general business purposes ("Courthouse Commons"). Magnolia has constructed within Courthouse Commons a storm water drainage system consisting of one storm water de- tention basin as shown and described on a plat entitled "Court- house Commons; Detention Basin", made by J.K. Timmons & Associ- ates, P.C., Civil Engineers, a copy of which plat is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Detention Basin"). Upon final completion and inspection of the Detention Basin, Magnolia will convey the same to CCA, which corporation has been formed for the purpose, among others, of maintaining and operating the Detention Basin and other common areas within Courthouse Commons. To comply with the conditions of zoning applied by the County pertaining to the Courthouse Commons, CCA desires to agree to maintain the Detention Basin in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual convenants and undertaking of the parties, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Maintenance of the Detention Basin CCA agrees that it shall maintain indefinitely the Detention Basin in a manner which will permit the Detention Basin to perform the purposes for which it was designed and constructed, and in accordance with the standards by which it was designed and Constructed. Specifically, CCA agrees that it shall: (I) remove silt and other debris from the Detention Basin as necessary to maintain the elevation of the bottom of the Detention Basin as shown on the approved plans, ~ (II) plant and mow grass or maintain a vegetative cover on the slopes surrounding the Detention Basin, and -2- (III) maintain in good order and repair the principal and emergency spillways which serve as the outflow devices for the Detention Basin. 2. Final Inspection Reports CCA agrees that, upon conveyance to it of the De- tention Basin, it will retain at its expense a Professional Engineer registered in Virginia and approved by the County to certify in writing to the County within 30 days of completion that the Detention Basin is constructed in accordance with the "As-Built" plans and that it meets the approved plans and specifications. 3. Inspection for Preventive Maintenance (a) CCA agrees to cause periodic inspections to be made at its expense of all infiltration systems and the Deten- tion Basin by a Professional Engineer registered in Virginia, retained by CCA, and approved by the County. Such inspections shall occur during the last 60 days of the first year of operation and at least once every three years thereafter. (b) Inspection reports shall be submitted in writ- ing to the County within 30 days after each inspection and shall include the following: (1) The date of inspection; (2) Name of inspector; (3) The condition of: (I) Vegetation; --3-- (II) (Ii ) (v) (w) (vii) (IX) (X) Fences, if any; Spillways (principal and emergency); Embankments; Reservoir area; Inlet and outlet channels; Underground drainage structures; Sediment load; Gates and Valves; and Any other aspect of the Detention Basin that could affect the proper function of the storm water management system. 4. Rights of the County in the Event of Default by CCA In the event of any default or failure by CCA in the performance of any of the covenants and warranties per- taining to the maintenance of the Detention Basin in accordance with the terms and conditions hereof which continues for a period of thirty (30) days after notice in writing thereof given to CCA by the County, the County shall have the right, at its option, to enter upon the properties owned by CCA and, for the account of CCA, maintain and repair the Detention Basin, as provided herein, and all costs thereof shall constitute a lien upon the properties owned by CCA. -4- 5. Indemnification of County CCA hereby agrees that it shall save, hold harm- less, and indemnify the County from and against all liability, losses, claims, demands, damages, costs, and expenses arising from, or out of, and default or falure by CCA to maintain the Detention Basin in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein or arising from, or out of, the construction, operation, repair, or maintenance of the Detention Basin. 6. No Benefits in Others The parties hereto expressly do not intend by exe- cution of this Agreement to create in the public, or any member thereof, any rights as a third party beneficiary or authorize anyone not a party hereof to maintain a suit for any damages or equitable relief pursuant to the terms or provisions of this Agreement. 7. Binding Effect The foregoing agreements shall be covenants which run with the land'and shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their respective successors and assigns, and all subsequent owners of the Detention Basin. -5- 127 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has caused this Agreement to be signed in its name by a duly authorized officer. COURTHOUSE COMMONS ASSOCIATION By: 'C. Porter Vaugha~, Jr/,~ President COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA By: ~' J~/ R~'dh~'rd L. Hedrick County Administrator Approved as to form: County Attorney' -6- STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY/CITY OF W~/(i¢ , to-wit: I, ~j-~l'~l'~_ /~j~C~i~JO~, a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the fore- going was acknowledged before me in the ~DL~ of ; ~Tr,'CL~> this /~'7~ ~day of 1985 by C. Porter Vaughan, Jr., President of Courthouse Commons Association, a Virginia corporation, on behalf of the corporation. expires: //~/~/_~ . My Commission / '~ No c -7- COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, to-w~: I, a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Richard L .Hedrick, who name as County Administrator, of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, is signed to the foregoing and annexed writing bearing date on the /~ day of~ , 1985, has acknowledged the same before me in my j~risdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand this~/~ day of ~_ , 1985. My Commission Expires: ~__.~~ ~"~~D~5.-~. .... ~ --' Notary Public -8- CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AG E NDA MEETING DATE' August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 10.H.4. SUBJECT: Amendment to Section 21-24 of the Zoning Ordinance related to Conditional Uses COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION On July 16, 1985, the Planning Commission considered the attached proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to Conditional Uses and unanimously recommended its approval. The general purpose of the amendment is to increase the flexibility of the Planning Director in his determination if master and schematic plans submitted have sufficient information for review. The effect of the amendment is to make the Ordinance consistent with the current practice of permitting master and schematic plans to contain less detailed information than required on site plans. This practice streamlines the development process and reduces the plan preparation cost borne by the development community. RECOMMENDATION Recommend the Board set September 11, 1985 as the date for public hearing on the proposed amendment. Attachment AGENII/AUG38/dem ATTACHMENTS: YES Ifa NO [] SIGNATURE:,, PREPARED BY/ James Direct COUNTY ADMI N1STRATOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTION 21-34(h) RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 21-34(h) of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted as follows: Division 2. Conditional Uses. Sec. 21-34. Generally. o o o (h) Planned developments. 0 0 0 (3) ~Re--p~mmme~--~e~e~epmcn~--s~-~-~--{~e The county general plan as determined by the board of supervisors shall be a seneral suideline for the uses and characteristics of the planned development. (4) Procedural requirements: 0 0 0 b. Master plan. A master plan shall indicate at an appro- priate scale, but not less than one inch to six hundred feet, the general location of streets (public or private) and land uses by type, function and intensity. This master plan shall also include, as deemed necessary by the director of plannin$, in a map or textual form, the applicant's preliminary plans for sanitary and storm sewage, water service, and other necessary public utilities and facilities. The master plan shall be reviewed by the planning commission for recommendations and submftted to the board of supervisors for final action. Amendments to the master plan may be made by the board of supervisors only after a public hearing thereon. Approval of the master plan shall constitute approval of the planned development. c. Schematic plans. The schematic plans shall be tentative subdivision plats for land within the planned development to be subdivided or be preliminary site plans for land to be developed otherwise. Schematic plans for land not to be subdivided shall include al~ information normally required on a site plan as required in division 12 of this article as deemed necessary by the director of plannin$. Ail schematic plans shall be submitted to the plannin$ commission for consideration unless determined by the director of planning to be substantially in accord with a previously approved schematic plan. A schematic plan shall be approved by the planning commission if they find such plan to be in accordance with the master plan, as amended, and other applicable ordinances. Prior to approval of the schematic plan, the planning commission may stipulate such conditions and restrictions upon the plan as are deemed by the planning commission to be necessary for the protection of the 1 ORDIN/MY1/dem 7,?~. public interest. The planning commission shall require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as proof that the conditions are being and will be complied with. If the planning commission finds that a schematic preliminary plan is not in accordance with the master plan, as amended, then the commission shall ~e~e~-~e-~ehema~e-p~am-~e-~e-be~-e~-~pe~se~ deny approval of the schematic plan. ~e--~ea~-e~-~~-~4~- hgvc-~4~e e~e~y-~--app~eve~--a~e~mU-e~-~r~y--~e-~mat~-p~__~__e~e_~__e~ ~Pe~se~-~-~4ee-~-i-e--~a~-me~-~e-~e-~--a~a~a~a~-~i-t-~-~e-mes~e~ 0o0 2 ORDIN/MY1/dem CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE: Au.gust 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER:. 10.H.5. SUBJECT: Fiorucci FoOds (U.S.A.), Inc. - Request for industrial access funding for Ruffin Mill Road COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Board action initiating a request for industrial access funding from VDH&T for the reconstruction of Ruffin Mill Road from 1-95 to the proposed Fiorucci Foods plant is requested. Also, the Board is requested to provide revenue sharing funds for this reconstruction. Fiorucci Foods (U.S.A.), Inc. has indicated their intention to construct a new processing plant off of Ruffin Mill Road approxi- mately 1.3 miles east of 1-95. This plant will involve a capital investment of over $10 million and will employ 100 people. In order to provide adequate access to the project, Fiorucci Foods has requested the County to consider upgrading Ruffin Mill Road from 1-95 to their proposed plant entrance. (continued on next page) ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO D The cost of reconstructing Ruffin Mill Road is estimated to exceed the available industrial access funding which can be provided by VDH&T. Based upon the estimated cost, the County could be responsible for providing up to $288,500 for the project. The Bermuda District Supervisor has committed the District's available revenue sharing funds for the)project. This leaves a balance of $190,000 which will have to be identified. As detailed plans are developed, more definitive estimates and funding options can be prepared. PREPARED BY;~/j. McCracken E~irector Transportation COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Board Agenda Item Transportation August 9, 1985 Page Two VDH&T staff has given tentative approval for industrial access funding for the project contingent upon a firm contract for the construction of the Fiorucci plant prior to allocation of the industrial access funds. Dependent upon the timing of the construction of the road improvements and the actual development of the plant, a surety ($450,000) may have to be provided so as not to delay the reconstruction of the road. Since official Highway Commission approval cannot be obtained until a contract or surety is provided, staff recommends that revenue sharing funds be used to initiate the project and that the Board indicate to VDH&T that it intends to request industrial access funding for the project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution designating the Bermuda District's 1985-86 revenue sharing funds for the preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisi- tion, and utility adjustments for the Ruffin Mill Road project and expressing the Board's intention to request industrial access funding for the project. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY: At the regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors held at the Courthouse on August 14, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. Whereas, Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virginia permits the State Highway and Transportation Commission to make an equivalent matching allocation to any County for designa- tions by the governing body of up to twenty-five percent or $500,000 whichever is greater, of funds received by it during the current fiscal year pursuant to the "State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972" for use by the State Highway and Transportation Commission to construct, maintain or improve primary and secondary highway systems within such County: and Whereas, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor- tation has notified the County that $425,889 is the maximum amount of Chesterfield County funds that will be matched by the State during FY 1985-86; and Whereas, the Fiorucci Foods (U.S.A.), Inc. will complete and occupy a new processing plant on Ruffin Mill Road (Route 746); and Whereas, in order to provide a safe access road to Fiorucci's plant Ruffin Mill Road must be reconstructed. Now therefore be it resolved that the Board designates $98,500 from its revenue sharing funds, to be matched by the State, for the preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisi- tion and utility adjustments for the reconstruction of Ruffin Mill Road. And be it further resolved, that the Board intends to request the Highway Department to reconstruct with industrial access funds Ruffin Mill Road from its intersection with 1-95 to the proposed Fiorucci plant entrance. Vote: Certified By: Joan S. Dolezal, Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors FlOROCC.\ Fo3'b$ StTP-. Islond Ilock Cs'elk Island CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 10.H.6. SUBJECT: Concrete curbing along Edgemere Boulevard (Route 2318) COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Mr. Chuck Nolte representing the Meadowbrook Estates Civic Association, has requested the installation of median curb along Edgemere Boulevard between Falstone Road and Drakeshire ~oad. On August 22, 1984, the Board appropriated funds from the Dale District 3~ road fund for the installation of concrete curbing along Edgemere Boulevard from Hopkins Road to Falstone Road and from Drakeshire Road to Monza Drive. VDH&T has a contract underway for the installation of this curb. The requested curb would be a continuation of these improvements. RECOMMENDATION: If the Board is interested in pursuing this request, staff recommends that $12,000.00 be appropriated from the Dale District 3~ road fund for the project and that the attached resolution requesting VDH&T to install the curbing on an accounts receivable basis be adopted. ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO [] PREPARED ~,/~<~ BY; R~J. McCracken D~rector ' Tr, ansportat ion SIGNATURE: · 'C6UNTY ADMINISTRATOR RESOLUTION - EDGEMERE BOULEVARD WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors is interested in pursuing the installation of concrete curbing along Edgemere Boulevard (Route 2318). NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors appropriate $12,000.00 from the Dale District 3¢ road fund for the installation of curbing along Edgemere Boulevard from Falstone Road to Drakeshire Road. FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors request the Virginia Department of Highways & Transporta- tion to construct these improvements on an accounts receivable basis. 3'0 'E~.I%~' lkl~ qO' FA~L~'To M E C.,uLv i$ r~l" CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF' SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE:, August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT: Beach Road Recreational Access Project 10.H.7. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION The Board is requested to appropriate $127,000.00 from the 1985-86 capital improvement fund for ind. ustrial/recreational projects to the Beach Road recreational access project. On December 12, 1984, the Board authorized the County Administrator to forward a letter of intent to VDH&T indicating the Board's desire to proceed with the Beach Road project providing funds were available in July of 1985. VDH&T's 1985-86 secondary road budget approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 22, 1985 contained a supplemental allocation to the Beach Road project for the right-of-way acquisition and utility adjustments. The County can resolve its commitment to the Beach Road project by taking one of the following actions: 1. The County can rescind its previous resolution commiting the County to be responsible for acquiring the necessary right-of-way and utility adjustments on the project since VDH&T's supplemental allocation in the 1985-86 secondary road budget will cover these costs. VDH&T may view this action as a failure by the County to honor a previous ~ 3. McCracken. ~irector ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO D Transportation SIGNATURE: ~ .... COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Beach Road Recreational Access Project August 14, 1985 Page Two commitment. This option is not recommended. 2. The County can continue to request VDH&T to acquire the right-of-way and handle the utility adjustments on an accounts receivable basis with the project placed on hold until an acceptable agreement can be developed between the County and VDH&T. The project was originally initiated in 1977. Any further delays would be undesirable. This action is not recommended. 3. The County can make a one time $127,000.00 contribution to the project from the 1985-86 CIP account for industrial/recreational access projects. The account balance is currently $140,000.00. The balance that would be left would not be sufficient to address other industrial access projects which have been requested. This option would satisfy the County's previous commitment, place a cap on the County's cost responsibility for the project and would eliminate the need for a "open end" agreement between the County and VDH&T. VDH&T's 1985-86 supplemental allocation to the Beach Road project would then be transferred to another County road project. Staff recommends that this option be selected. RECOMMENDATI©N: Staff recommends the attached resolution be adopted authorizing the County Administrator to provide VDH&T with a one time contribution in the amount of $127,000.00 for the Beach Road recreational access project. These funds to be provided from the 1985-86 CIP account for industrial/recreational access projects. RESOLUTION - BEACH ROAD WHEREAS, in June of 1977, the Virginia Department ef Highways and Transportation Commission approved a $200,000.00 allocation from recreational access funds for the improvement of Beach Road (Route 655); and WHEREAS, on May 11, 1983, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors requested the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to secure the right-of-way and adjust the utilities for the project on an accounts receivable basis; and WHEREAS, a mutually acceptable agreement regarding this arrangement has not been developed between the County and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors recognizes the need and desires to have Beach Road improved. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board will not acquire the right-of-way or adjust the utilities for the Beach Road project; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board authorizes the County Administrator to forward to VDH&T a one time $127,000.00 contribution to the Beach Road project. These funds to be appropriated from the 1985-86 capital improvement allocation for industrial/recreational access projects. · it I \ \ \ \ \ CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: Auqust 14, 1984 ITEM NUMBER: 10.H.8.a. SUSdECT: Resolution confirming the proceedings of the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield approving the issuance of revenue bonds to Fiorucci Foods (USA). COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OFINFORMATION: On July 31, 1985, the Chesterfield Industrial Development Authority held a public hearing to consider industrial revenue financing in the amount of $9~500f000 for Fiorucci Foods (USA). The Board needs to confirm the issuance by the adoption of a resolution. The resolution certifying the Authority's action will be prepared by McGuire, Woods and Battle, Counsel for Fiorucci Foods (USA), and will be made availble to Board members prior to the August 14, meeting. Fiorucci Foods (USA) is a meat processing firm planning to build on a site at Ruffin Mill Road and employing approximately 100 persons in the first phase. Eventually they plan to employ 225 persons by the completion of their second phase. ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO '~ PREPARED BY: /~DS ~t~cl~oY~ fB~clod~r, s~. Jr ' SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMI 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 Fiorucci Foods (USA) Inc. (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, construction and equipping of a meat processing facility consisting of approxi- mately 70,000 square feet (the "Project") to be located on approximately 190 acres at the northwest corner of Ruffin Mill Road, the western boundary of which is approximately 1/2 mile east of Route 620, in the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on July 31, 1985; 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 (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. 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 July 31, 1985, at 3:30 o'clock p.m. in the Board Room of the Chesterfield County Airport Terminal Building, in Chesterfield County, 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 Fiorucci Foods (USA) 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: William J. Strickland Claudio Colmignoli 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, 1985. Secretary, Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (SEAL) A - Copy of Certified Notice B - Summary of Statements C - Inducement Resolution EXHIBIT B TO CERTIFICATE Summary of Statements Messrs. Strickland and Colmignoli described the proposed project to the Authority and answered questions from the Authority's directors regarding the project and the proposed financing. Exhibit B FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT July 31, 1985 Date Fiorucci Foods (USA) Inc.' Applicant Meat Processing Facility Facility e 0 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 -- Average annual salary per employee $ 9~500f000 $ 6,500,000 $ 63,700 $ lf250' $ N/A $ 1,500,000 $ 100 $ 18~000 Authority Chairman Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield Name of Authority * Machinery and tool tax. In addition, the operating company will be leasing from independent third parties operating equipment having a value of not more than $5,000,000. 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 MEAT PROCESSING 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 Fiorucci Foods (USA) Inc., a Virginia corporation (the "Company"), requesting that the Authority issue its revenue bonds to assist in financing the acquisition, construction and equipping of a meat processing 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 $9,500,000. 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 $9,500,000 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 not issued, it is understood that all such expenses shall be paid by the Company and that the Authority shall have no responsibility therefor. -2- 7. In adopting this resolution the Authority intends to take "official action" toward the issuance of the bonds with.in 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 allocation or to allocate (if such power is delegated to the Authority) amounts available under any "private activity bond limit", a provided by Section 103(n) of the Code, to projects other than the Project. 10. No bonds may be issued pursuant to this resolution until such time as the bonds have received an allocation pursuant to Executive Order 54 (85) issued by the Governor of Virginia on January 23, 1985. 11. Before the final approval by the Authority of the issuance of the Bonds, the Company shall provide to the Authority evidence that the property on which the Project is to be located is appropriately zoned to permit the intended use. 12. This Resolution shall remain 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. 13. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. -3- Fiorucci Foods (USA) Inc. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVEL-.I OPMF-.NT BONO FINANCING BY INDUSTRIAk OEVELOleMENTI AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY CHESTERFIELD.. : ~ . a~ho~) w~ ~,~ ~ flna~g o~ Fl<:~J~ei FOOO~ (LI~A) Inc. (the Comply), c/o ~ F. McOu/l~ Wooel & Ba~e. 140~ 2321g. fe~ t~e auth~ m ~. p~Jrm~nt to the Vlrg~flm ~Ouat~N Act (the Act). up to $g,500.000 of its Jnduatrlll ~evelol3meo! bono~ to ~ the COmlg~V/ In acquiring, conltructlng and equipping an 70.000 ~flum'® foot me~t lng facility to be located on ~ proximately 1~O ~ at thl ~ west corr~r O{ Ruffln MM RO~I the v,,a~ern boue~laty o~ whk~ I, Koproximat~y 'A. mill ~ Route 620 I~ Chelte~qle~ VirgiNal. The public ma~/ he cootinued~ned. witl be held at 3:30 ~ p.m. oo July 31. 1985. b~ee th~ Auth~'- fll~d Co~mty ~ Teernmal Building. at C/~estecfle~l. Virginia. Al required by thai Act. the will no{ pledge tbe credit O¢ the taxing powl¢ O! Chl~llefl~d Co~o- ty or the Authority but will be ply- able sO~ly from revloo411 ~ from te Comoany end ~ t~efor. Any p~'~3o ilqtlrested ~ the issuance O{ the ~ o~ the posed project may ~ In~ heard. A copy of the Co~npam/~ the Autho~ity'$ offi¢.l at tbe Coun- ty Office of Economic ~ ment. at 7734 VVl~tl~l~ ~ Ch~$te~'fl~d RICHMOND NF-~$PAPERS, INC. Publisher of THE RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH Richmond, Va ..... .J..~...1,Z...2..4. A...1...9..8..5. .... This is to certify that the attached ........ .L..e..?.~ ?:....~..o...t..~.c...e. ........... was published in The Richmond Times-Dispatch, a newspaper published in the City of Richmond, State of Virginia. July 17, 24, 1985 r-,. July 17, 1985 ~h~ first insertion heine given .......................................................... Swo~n to andsubscribed before me ~ _ I ary Public ~INE JOHNSON State of Vir~nia, City of Richmond: · ~CTS RE~ TITLE CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERV:ISORS AGENDA 10.H.8.b. MEETING DATE' August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER' SUBdECT: Resolution confirming the proceedings of the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield approving the issuance of revenue bonds to Draw Company. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On July 31, 1985, the Chesterfield Industrial Development Authority held apublic hearing to consider industrial revenue financing in the amount of $505,000 for Draw Company. The Board needs to confirm the issuance by the adoption of a resolution. The resolution certifying the Authority's action will be prepared by Williams, ~ullen & Christian, bond counsel for Draw Company and will be made available to Board members prior to the Board meeting on August 14, 1985. Draw Company is involved in fabricating, distributing and installing various building products. They plan a 15,000 square foot building at Hasty Lane and Speeks Drive and will employ approximately 25 persons. ATTACHMENTS: YES ~/// NO ~ PREPARED BY: /'~~~- /S~an~ 1~. Balderson, Jr. Director of Econ. Dev. SIGNATURE' COUNTY ADMI NI STRATOR RES OL UT ION OF 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 Draw Co., a Virginia general partnership (the Applicant) for the issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $505,000 (the Bonds) to assist in the financing of the Applicant's acquisition and construction of a 15,000 square foot warehouse, shop and office facility (the Project) to be located at the northwest corner of Hasty Lane and Speeks Drive in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on July 31, 1985; and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board of Supervisors (the Board) of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the County), to approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended; 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; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield for the benefit of Draw Co., a Virginia general partnership, to the extent required by Section 103(k), to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Pr oj ect. 2. The aproval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by Section 103(k), does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Applicant, but, as required 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 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. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. -3- The undersigned Se. cretaty of the Industrial Development Authority of the Count} c~f Cf~esterfieid (the Authority) hereby certifies as roi lows: 1. A regular meeting of the Authority was duly called and held on July 31, 1985, at 3:30 o'clock p.m. in the Board Room at the Chesterfield County Airport Terminal Building, Chesterfield, Vlrginia. The meeting was o~n to the public, and persons of differing views were given an opportunity to be heard. At s~.~ch meeti~g all of the Directors of the Autho[ity we[e p~esen[ or absent throughout as follows: PRESENT: Wi]il~ F. Seymo~r, I~] Curtis C. Duke J. Thomas SEeger Gary W. Fenchuk James A. S~ncer Knox W. Ramsey Robert [,. R. Goyne, Jr. ABSENT: 2. The C. hai~i~,&h al~no~,i~,jed the coz.~mencement of a public hearing on ~ne a~,p~ i.~ation o~ Draw Co,, a V~rginia general ~rtnersbip, and that a notice of the nearing was published once a week for two consecutive weeks, the ~irst publication being not more th~ 28 days nor less th~ 14 days prior to the hearing in a newsier having general circulation in the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the Notice). A copy of the Notice and a certificate of publication of su~ Notice have been f~ed with ~e records of the Authority and are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. The following individuals appeared and addressed the Authority: R. Hart Lee, Bond Counsel Alan T. Wise, General Partner of Draw Co. and Vice President of Advance Insulation & Supply, Inc. A reasonably detailed summary of their statements together with the fiscal impact stat~nent required by the Industrial Development Revenue Bond Act is attached hereto as Exhibits B and C. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibi% D is a true, correct anG complete copy of a resolution (the Re.';o].ution) adopted at such meeting of the Authority by a majority of the Directors present at such meeting, with the aye~ an(J nays being recorded in the minutes of such meeting as follows: Vote William F. Seymour, III Curtis C. Duke J. Thomas Steger Gary W. Fenchuk James A. Spencer Knox Ramsey Robert L. R. Goyne, Jr. Aye &ze A~ e A ye Nay Aye The Resolution constitutes all formal action taken by nne 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. -2- WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Authority this 9th day of .Auqust , 1985. Secretary, I~dustrial ~ Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (SE~L) A - Copy of Notice, Certified by Newspaper B- Summaries of State~ents C- Fiscal Impact Statement D - Inducement Resolution -3- EXHIBIT A :~OTK~E OF PuBLiC HEARING ON PROPOSED INOUSTP4AL DEVEL- OPMENT BOND FI~I~ BY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUT~ OF THE COUNTY ~ CHESTERRELD ~ C~ ~~d (~ n~ ot ~ ~., A Virginia (t~ Ap~t)~ ~M pri~ipM for the Authority to issue. ~t to t~ Vlrg~la In~strl~ itl I~rial de~t re~ ~s to a~st t~ A~t m ~a~ c~str~g a w~ ~ c~ ol H~ La~ ~d C~, VirglmL T~ F~ty gl~. As ~ ~ ~ ACt, t~ C~ ~ ~ Aut~ ~t ~ ~ DRAW CO. RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. Publisher of THE RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH Ri('hmond, %a ..... .J..U..1. ~.,, .2..4.. ~,,..1..9..8..5. ..... .... Legal Notice This is to certify that the attacnea ............................................... was published in The Richmond Times-l)ispateh, a newspaper published in the City of Richmond, State of Virginia. July 17, 24, 1985 ~'~ July 17, 1985 : The first insertion being given ............. .~ ................................... [ Swor'h to aod subscribed bef~r~me [ , ~ ~- ""'"' ......... ........... I/State of Virginia, City of Richmond: TITI.E EXHIBIT B STATEMENTS BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD REGARDING APPLICATION OF DRAW CO. R. Hart Lee, of Williams, Mullen & Christian, proposed bond counsel introduced himself and Alan To Wise, General Partner of the Applicant and Vice President of Advance Insulation & Supply, Inc., proposed tenant of the project, and Robert L. Ward, General Partner of the Applicant and President of Advance Insulation & Supply~ Inc. Mr. Lee briefly described the Applicant, the proposed financing and the proposed facility. Mr. Wise then gave a brief history of Advance Insulation & Supply, Inc., and its parent company Ruppert Bros. of Maryland, Inc. Mr. Wise advised the members of the Authority that Advance Insulation had enjoyed economic growth over the past five years better than had been expected and needed a substantially enlarged facility to accommodate its operations. He described the layout and construction of the proposed facility and showed site plans and elevations to the Authority. Mr. Wise answered questions from the Authority regarding the company's area of operations, being primarily the central Virginia area, and its customer base, being primarily residential and commercial building contractors. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Lee advised the Authority that the pro- posed facility was probably not a "basic employment" project under the Governor's Executive Order No. 54, but allocation of the amount of financing requested by the Authority would not adversely affect the Authority's ability to secure future allocations from the State Reserve. EXHIBIT C FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT July 12 ? Date 1985 Draw Co. Applicant Warehouse, shop and office building for Advance Insulation & Supply, Inc. Facility Se Maximum amount of financing sought Estimated taxable value of the facility's real property to be constructed in the municipality Estimated real pro?erty tax ocr ','ear usinc present tax rates ' ~ - Estimated personal prcper%y ta:: 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 ofregular employees on year round basis ' ~ Average annual salary per employee $5 o5,ooo $490,000 4,802 $ 2,041 $ N/A ~ 30 12,000 ~,.ority Chairman Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield Name of Authority RESOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD R~GARDING INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS OR NOTES FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING A FACILITY TO BE LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the "Authority") is empowered by the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act (the "Act") to issue its revenue bonds or notes for the purpose of promoting industry, developing trade and inducing industrial and commercial enterprises to locate in or remain in this Commonwealth, for the benefit of the inhabitants of this Commonwealth and for the increase of their commerce, and to promote the safety, health, welfare, convenience, and prosperity of the citizens of Virginia; WHEREAS, the Authority has received a request from Draw Co. (the "Applicant"), dated July 12, 1985, requesting that the Authority issue its revenue bonds or notes to assist in the financing of acquiring and constructing a warehouse, shop and office facility (the "Project") on land located in the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "County"); WHEREAS, the Project will be leased to and operated by Advance Insulation & Supply, Inc., a Virginia corporation (the "Company") controlled by the Applicant; WHEREAS, preliminary plans for the acquisition and construction of the Project have been described to the Authority by a representative of the Applicant; EXHIBIT ................................ Page I Of ~.. WHEREAS, after dud publication of notice as required by the Act, the Authority has held a public hearing on the issuance of the Bonds, as required by the Act; WHEREAS, after careful study of the nature of the aforesaid undertaking, the Authority has determined that such assistance will induce the Applicant to locate its facility in the County and to create and maintain jobs and employment and thereby benefit the inhabitants of the 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, the estimated cost of the acquisition and construction of the Project and all expenses of issue will require an issue of revenue bonds or notes in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $505,000.00. 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 and construction of the Project will be in the public interest of the County, will bring additional revenues and employment into the County and will benefit the County and the Commonwealth of Virginia and its inhabitants through the increase of their commerce or through the promotion of their safety, health, welfare, convenience or prosperity. -2- 2. TO induce the Applicant to locate its facility in the County, the Authority hereby agrees to assist the Applicant in every reasonable way to finance the acquisition and construction of the Project and to undertake the issuance of its industrial development revenue bonds or notes in an amount not to exceed $505,000.00 (the "Bonds") upon terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the Authority and the Applicant. The Project shall be sold to the Applicant under an installment sales agreement or deed of assumption with payments sufficient to pay interest on and premium (if any) and principal of the Bonds. The Bonds will be issued pursuant to documents satisfactory to the Authority and a Trustee (or the purchaser of the Bonds) which will set forth the form and terms of the Bonds and which will mortgage the Project and either assign the Authority's rights to payments under the installment sales agreement to the Trustee (or the purchaser of the Bonds) or provide for the assumption by the Applicant of the Authority's obligation to pay the principal of and premium (if any) and interest on the Bonds for the benefit of the bondholders. The Applicant shall in turn lease the Project to the Company under a net lease with payments sufficient to pay principal of and premium (if any) and interest on the Bonds, which lease shall also be assigned to the Trustee (or the purchaser of the Bonds) for the benefit of bondholders. -3- Such Bonds shall be issued after the Authority has received the approving opinion of Bond Counsel as to the qualification of the Bonds under the Act. 3. It having been represented to the Authority that it is necessary to proceed immediately with the planning of the acquisition and construction of the Project, the Authority hereby agrees that the Applicant may proceed to develop further plans for the acquisition and construction of the Project, enter into contracts for the construction of and acquisition of materials and equipment for the Project, and take such other steps, including interim borrowing, as the Applicant may deem appropriate in connection therewith, including the location of a purchaser or purchasers for the Bonds, 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 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 so made and costs so incurred by it, insofar as such expenditures and costs are properly reimbursable under the Act and other applicable state and federal laws. 4. In connection with the issuance of the Bonds, if necessary, the Authority shall accept from or on behalf of the Applicant conveyance of parcels of or easements on land -4- in the County on which the Project is or 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 reconvey any 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, which costs shall be paid by the Applicant. 5. The Authority hereby appoints Williams, Mullen & Christian, P.C., of Richmond, Virginia, as Bond Counsel to supervise the proceedings and approve the issuance of the Bonds. 6. All costs and expenses in connection with the financing and the acquisition and construction of the Project, including the fees and expenses of the Authority, Bond Counsel, Authority counsel and advisory architectural consultant, if any, 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. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall remain in full force and effect, unless sooner modified, extended or rescinded by resolution of the Authority, until the first meeting of the Authority -5- held more than one year from the date of adoption of this r esol ution. 8. The Authority agrees that the Applicant may assign its rights and obligations hereunder to a partnership, corporation or other entity of which the partners of the Applicant are principals. 9. By adoption of this resolution, the Authority intends to take "official action" towards the issuance of the Bonds within the meaning of Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and applicable regulations thereunder. 10. The Authority hereby recommends that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "Board"), approve the issuance of the Bonds. 11. This resolution and the Authority's approval of the financing contemplated hereby are expressly conditioned upon the Bonds being issued within ninety (90) days after approval by the Board of the issuance of the Bonds. -6- CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION 1. A a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "Board") was held on August 14, 1985, at which meeting the following duly elected members were present or absent: PR ESENT: 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. AYE S: NAYS: 3. The resolution referred to above has not been repealed, 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 refenue bonds for the benefit of Draw Co., a Virginia general partnership. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, this day of August, 1985. ( SEAL ) Clerk, County of Chesterfield, Virginia -2- CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: __A_.u_SLU_S_t_......~.4_~ 19 8 5 ITEM NUMBER' 10.H.8.c. 8~: Resolution confirming the proceedings of the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield approving the issuance of revenue bonds to Noland Company. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS' SU~A~YOFINFORMATION: On July 31, 1985, the Chesterfield Industrial Development Authority held a public hearing to consider industrial revenue financing in the amount of $4,000,000 for Noland Company. On June 24, 1985, the Authority approved the application and the Inducement Resolution. The Board needs to confirm the issuance by the adoption of the attached resolution. The resolution certifying the Authority's action was prepared by John D. O'Neill, Bond Counsel for the Authority. The project will consist of two phases. Phase one will be a pipe, valve and fitting distribution center which will be the headquarters for the company. Phase two will involve the direct distribution of industrial products to major manufac- turers throughout Virginia. The anticipated employment for the project will be more than 75. They have obtained a letter of committment from United Virginia Bank. The project will include approximately 100,000 square feet in the two buildings on a site located on Bellwood Road in Chesterfield County. ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO [] SIGNATURE COUNTY ADMI NI STRATOI~ RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD WHEREAS, the Indur~rial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (t~e Authority), has considered the ap- plication of Noland Company (the Company) for the issuance of the Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $4,000,000 (the Bonds) to assist in the financing of the Company's acquisition, construction and equip- ping of warehouse/distribution facilities (the Project) to be located West of Interstate 95 on Bellwood Road in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on July 31, 1985; 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. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUN- TY OF CHESTERFIELD: -1- 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) of the Code, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. Approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by Section 103(k) of the Code, does not constitute an endorse- ment of the 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 Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the 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. 3. The Bonds shall not be issued unless they shall have received an allocation of any "private activity bond limit," as provided in Section 103(n) of the Code shall be made to bonds from the Project. Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as any assurance that such allocation will be avail- able or, if available, will be made. 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. -2- Transmittal Letter to Board of Supervisors August __1, 1985 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 Noland Company Noland Company (the Company) has requested that the In- dustrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the Authority), assist the Company in financing the acquisi- tion, construction and equipping of warehouse/distribution fa- cilities (the Project) in Chesterfield County, Virginia, by the issuance of its industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $4,000,000 (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 Sec- tion 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~i~ma~o f ~dust~a~ ~ Developm~ft Authority of the County of Chesterfield -2- Noland Company 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 July 31, 1985, 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: W.F. Seymour, III J.A. Spencer C.C. Duke J.T. Steger G.W. Fenchuk K.W. Ramsey Robert L.R. Goyne, Jr. ABSENT: no one 2. The Chairman announced the commencement of a public hearing on the application of Noland Company (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 publica- tion 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: Arthur P. Henderson, Jr. Vice President for Finance Noland Company 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 Vote W.F. Seymour, III Yes J.A. Spencer Abstain C.C. Duke Yes J.T. Steger Yes G.W. Fenchuk Yes K.W. Ramsey Yes Robert L.R. Goyne, Jr. Yes 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 31st day of July , 1985. (SEAL) Secretary, Industrial ~ Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield -3- NOLAND COMPANY NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVEL- OPMENT BOND FINANCING BYI INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF. CHESTERFIELD Notice ~s hereby given that the In- duslr a [:)eve opment Aq,~hority of the County of C.b,'~...m'fleld (the! Authority). wih%hOld s public hear- mg on the appliCation of Nolandl Company, a Virginia corporationI (the Company) whoSe principalI place of business is located atI 2700 Warwick Blvd., Newport News, Virginia 23607 for the Au- thority to issue, pursuant to th~ Virginia Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act its industrial development revenue Ponds in an amount not to exceed $4.000,000 to assist the Company in acquiring, constructing and equipDing warehouSe/distribution facilities of. approximately 86,000 square feet, to be located West of Interstate 95 on Bellwood Road on approximately 22.85 acres in Chesterfield County, Virginia· The oublic hearing, which may Oe con- tinued or adjourned, will be held at 3:30 O'ClOCk pm. 3n July 31, 1985, hefc[e file Authority. in the Board Room of the Chesterfield County Airport Terminal Building, Chesterfield, Virginia. As required Dy the Act, the Ponds will not pledge the credit or the taxing power of Chesterfield County, Vir- ginia, or the Authority but will he payable solely ~rom revenues derived from the Company and ested ~n the issuance of the bonds or ~he location or purpose of the Orol:)osed proiect may a0Pear and De heard A copy ol the Company's application may be in- specfe(I at the Authority's office al the County Cffice of Economic Development, at 7734 Whltepine Road, Chesterfield Air~ark, Ches- Industrial Development Authorit) of ~ne County of Chesterfield By: William F. Seymot~r, Chairmad RICHMOND NE~/SPAPERS, INC. Publisher of THE RICHMOND TIMES-DiSPATCH -. July 24, 1985 Richmond, * a ..................................... ...... Legal Notice This is to certify that zne a[[acneo ............................................... was published in The Richmond Times-Dispatch, a newspape~ published in the City of Richmond, State of Virginia. July 17, 1985 July 24, 1985 July 17, 1985 The first insertion being given .......................................................... Sworn to and subscribed,b~ ~.f~rjl me ! this : ~ ', 9:7 ~'3~it, I L--d-. · · '. ' · :i j :.; ,1 .,. !3,.; ..~ · Notary Public ~ .... S~a~e of Vir~nia City of Richmond' ~ My commission exptr~ - .: · · [ ....,..;..., .... , ........................................ ' -- TITI. E Exhibit B A~thur P. Henderson, Jr¥ appeared on behalf of the Company. They reviewed the information set forth in the application of the Company attached hereto. ~.- COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPME~C AUTHORI, APPLICATIQ'I FOR ~(~ AUltqOR[ZAT!C~I ~'~aJvlE OF. APPLI ~]DRESS: Noland Company 2700 Warwick Blvd., Newport News, WA 23607 C~NTACT ~EPRESENTATIVE: Arthur P. Henderson, Jr. TE~NE Nt~SER: (804)-244-8441 PRDPOSED ~CATION: Bellwood Road (Site Plan Attached) CURRENT ZON I NG: Industrial IS REZO,qING REQUIRED: None PRESENT LOCATION: (IF FORE THAN ONE, LIST ON SEPARATE PAGE) See Annual Report Is APPLICA~fi' OWNER OF LAND? Yes IF NOT, FURNISH COPY OF OPTION, OR CONTRACT, TYPE OF INDUSTRY: Wholesale distributor of meC~an'ica'l and 'industrial building products PRODUCTS PRODUCED: None WILL THIS PROJECT RESULT IN A NEW PRODUCT LINE: No YES, NAME PRODUCT: NL~BER OF EMPLOYEES AT NEW LOCATION (ESTIMATED): TYPE OF BUILDING TO BE CONSTRUCTED: (DESCRIBE ODNSTRUCTION, SQUARE FOOTAGE, AFOLN'F FOR EACH OPERATION SUCH AS MANUFACTURING, STORAGE, OFFICE, E'i'C, :) See attached schedule $ 4,000,000 J~ICJ~IT OF BONI) AUTHORI~TION REQUESTED: ASS I ~ OF LOAN PROCEEDS: (IF NOT KNC~m, ESTIMATE) NOTE: STATE POLUTION CONTROL EXPENDITURES SEPARATELY. ARCH I'FECT/ENGI NEER .... ... AO~ITHN~,NRCH I NERY/EQU I W'ENT ~ING ~XPENSE See Attached Schedule .~TIMATE]] V,~LUE OF b~D ;~] BUILDING FOR COUNTY REAL TATE PbRPCSES ;',HF,,,' CO,'~LETE $ 4,20O-,ooo .... DESC)IPTION OF PURPOSk ,<}R WHICH ]~O,ND REv-~UE WILL BE boED: two-phase industrial distribution complex BOND RATING OF APPLICANT N/A BY BANI< REFERENCE To construct a United Virginia Bank, Sovran, Central Fidelity Bank CREDIT RATING EXP~IN HC~FiN~CIALASSISTANCE FROM IND3STRIALAuDtORITYWI[LENABLEAPPLiCA~ TO LOCATE OR REMAIN IN ~ESTERFIELD[O~UY: The use of industrial revenue bonds to finance this project'sh0uid provide'the cost effeCtive capital to ensure the economic success of this project. BE4EFITSTO BE DERIVEDBYCOLNTY: increased real estate taX'base. Fifty to sixty-five additional jobs, IS AFPLIC. ANT A SUBSIDIARY OF ANY C(DMP~: IF YES, GIVE NAME: N/A /~)DRESS: ,- ' ......... TELEPHONE NL~ER: ~ OF APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: Mr. Jack Spain, Hunton & Williams A[I~SS: 707 East Main Street, Richmond, .Virginia 23212 TFJ_SPHONE NL~ER: (804)-788-8200 ~ OF BOND COUNSEL D~SIRSD: Mr." Jack Spain ADDRS~: Same TELEPHONE NL~ER: same NA~E OF ARC]-tITECT OR ENGINEER (IF RETAINED): 'waiter 'w~lclman- ADDRESS: 166 Cardinal Lane, Tabb~ Virqinia 23602 T~LSPHONE N[~SR: (804)-867-8030 NAFE OF CONTRACTOR (IF RETAINED): ADmESS'. Contract not yet awarded. TELEPHONE NL~ER: HAS APPLICANT EVER DEFAULTED ON A LOAN: No HAS APPLICANT EVER DECLARED BANKRUPTCY: No IF YES TO EITHER PRECEDING QUESTION, PLEASE EXPLAIN IN DETAIL: WHEN WAS APPLICANT FORMED.9 (DATE) 1915 STATE IN Y4-iICH INCORPORATED: Virginia NON LONG HAS APPLICANT D3NE BUSINESS IN VIRGINIA? OTHER REMARKS: 70 ~ears ~ILL THE PROJECT BE LEASED TO AFtY OTHiR ORG~NIZATI6N? No NAMES OF ALL ORGANIZATIONS EXPECTED TO USE AT LEAST 10% OF THE PROJECT SPACE OR TAKE AT LEAST ][0% OF THE PROJECT'S OUTPUT, Noland Company PLEASE ENCLOSE A COPY OF YOUR LATEST A~NUAL REPORT, 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 CONNECTI©N 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 ANALYSISz 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 ($500,00)j AS WELI..A$ A...DEPOSIT AGAINST PUBLICATION COSTS OF ~250, FOR A TOTAL OF $125U,UU 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. 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 FURNISHL~ WITH THIS APPLICATI.ON OR ON SUPPORTING PAPERS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO ITS BEST KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, THIS APPLICATION APPROVED BY THE Vice President,Finance (AU,THORIZED AGENT) OF THE Noland Company. (OFFICIAL NAME OF APPLICANT) WHOSE MAILING ADDRESS IS 2700 Warwick Blvd., Newport News, VA 2360' THIS " 'S'Eh' DAY OF ........... ~d~J ................... ,' 19 ~ ........ ,' ~ TITLE Vice President-Finance DATE June 5, 1985 ADDRESS REPLY TO- MR. W. F. SEYMOUR, CHAIRMAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 609 EAST GRACE STREET, 4TH FLOOR RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219 E HIBIT 13 FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT June 5, 1985 Date Noland Company Applicant Warehouse/Distribution Facilities Facility 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 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 wil% be purchased locally Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis 8. Average annual salary per employee $4f000r000 $4f200,000 $ 41,160 $ 302,400 $ N/A $4,000r000 65 $ 25,000 /s/ W. F. Seymour, III Authority Chairman Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield Name of Authority I HIBIT D Adopt:ed: 7/31/8_5 Public Hearing Resolution Noland Compan~ RESOLUTION OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the Authority) adopted on June 24, 1985 a resolution (the Resolution) approving the plans of Noland Company to acquire, construct and equip warehouse/distribution facilities (the Project) in Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the Code), and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Code of Virginia (the Act) require the Authority to hold a pub- lic hearing; and WHEREAS, a public hearing with respect to the Project has been held as required by the Code and the Act. BE IT RESOLVED by the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield: 1. It is hereby found and determined that the Project shall serve the purpose of the Act and the Resolution is reaf- firmed. 2. The Authority hereby r~commends that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia approve the issu- ance of the Bonds described in the Resolution. 3. The resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Noland Company CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION 1. A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield (the Board) was held on __, 1985, 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 Noland Company. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Board of Supervi- sors of the County of Chesterfield, this day of , 1985. (SEAL) Clerk, Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield -2- CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETINGDATE:_ Auqust 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER; 10.H.8.d. ~_~..~J_: Resolution confirming the proceedings of the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield approving the issuance of revenue bonds to Riway of Virginia. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: $U~MARYOFINFORMATION: On July 31, 1985, the Chesterfield Industrial Development Authority held a public hearing to consider industrial revenue financing in the amount of $700,000 for Riway of Virginia. On June 24, 1985, the Authority approved the application and the Inducement Resolution. The Board needs to confirm the issuance by the adoption of the attached resolution. The resolution certifying the Authority's action was prepared by John D. O'Neill, Bond Counsel for the Authority. Riway of Virginia is currently leasing space in the City of Richmond. As a result of their success and growth they plan to construct and equip a 13,900 square foot facility on Ramblewood Road in Chesterfield County. Riway of Virginia removes bones from chicken. ATTACHMENTS: YES F:I NO D PREPARED BY; Stan!¢y' R. Balderson, Jr. DireCtor of Econ. Dev. 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 Riway of Virginia, Inc. (or Clayton D. Eaglin and Jeffrey W. Marshall, for lease to Riway of Virginia, Inc.) (the Company) for the issuance of the Authority's industrial devel- opment'revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $700,000 (the Bonds) to assist in the financing of the Company's acquisition, construction and equipping of a poultry further processing fa- cility (the Project), including appurtenant offices, to be lo- cated on Ramblewood Drive in the Seaboard Small Farms subdivi- sion, in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on July 31, 1985; 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. -1- BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUN- TY OF CHESTERFIELD: 1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Chester- field, approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Industrial De- velopment Authority of the County of Chesterfield, for the ben- efit of the Company, to the extent required by Section 103(k) of the Code, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. Approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by Section 103(k) of the Code, does not constitute an endorse- ment of the 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 Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the 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. 3. The Bonds shall not be issued unless they shall have received an allocation of any "private activity bond limit," as provided in Section 103(n) of the Code shall be made to bonds from the Project. Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as any assurance that such allocation will be avail- able or, if available, will be made. 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. -2- August 1, 1985 Board ob Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield P. O. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield Proposed Financing for Riway of VirGinia, Inc. Riway of Virginia, Inc. (or Clayton D. Eaglin and Jeffrey W. Marshall, for lease to Riway of Virginia, Inc.) (the Company) has requested that the Industrial Development Authori- ty of the County of Chesterfield (the Authority), assist the Company in financing the acquisition, construction and equip- ping of a poultry further processing facility (the Project), including appurtenant offices, in Chesterfield County, Vir- ginia, by the issuance of its industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $700,000 (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 Sec- tion 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 gi-~m ar[ o f/~ndu s t r~ka-~~ Develop~Znt Authority of the County of Chesterfield -2- Riway of Virginia, Inc. 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 July 31, 1985, 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: W.F. Seymour, III J.A. Spencer C.C. Duke J.T. Steger G.W. Fenchuk K.W. Ramsey Robert L.R. Goyne, Jr. ABSENT: no one 2. The Chairman announced the commencement of a public hearing on the application of the Riway of Virginia, Inc. (or Clayton D. Eaglin and Jeffrey W. Marshall, for lease to Riway of Virginia, Inc.) (the Company) and that a notice of the hear- ing 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 circula- tion 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: Jeffrey Marshall, Vice President Riway of Virginia 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 Vote W.F. Seymour, III Yes J.A. Spencer Abstain C.C. Duke Yes J.T. S~eger Yes G.W. Fenchuk Yes K.W. Ramsey Yes Robert L.R. Goyne, Jr. Yes -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. 31st day of July (SEAL) WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Authority this , 1985. Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield -3- RIWAY OF VIRGINIA, INC. NOTICE OF PUBL!C HEARING ON uROPOSED !NDUSTRIAL DEVEL- OPMENT BOND FINANCING BY !NDUSTR~AL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTER¢IE,.D Not,ce ,S hereb~ ~4ven that the In- dush,a,~D~Topment Authority of ne County o Chesterf e d Ithe Authority) will hold a public hear- mg on the application o! Riway of Virginia. Inc. {or Clayton D. Eaglin and Jeffrey W. Marshall. for lease ~o Rrway of Virginia, Inc.) (the Company) whose principal place of business is located at 1601 Overbrook, Richmond, Virginia 23261 tot the Authority to ,ssue, pursuant to the Virgtma Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act !the Act), ~ts industrial develop- nlent revenue bO~dS tn an amount ~ot to exceed $700.000 to assist the C..mpsny Jn acquiring, con- str-Jctmg and eqmppmg a poultry ~urt~er orocessing fatality, includ- ing appurtenant Offices, of approxi- ,'n,~tely ~4,000 square feet, to be ~ca*ed on approximately 2.45 acres on Ramble*wood Drive in the Seaboard Smalt Farms subdivi- sion, ,n Chesterfield County Vir- ginia. The public nearing· which may be conhnued or adjourned, will be ;leld at 3:30 O¢"OCR pm on J'~ly ~'t. ~91~5 he'.ore' the Author- it},, in the Board Room of the Ches- terfield County Airport Terminal Building. Chesterfield, Virginia. AS rec!mred by Ihe Act, the bonds w~ll not pledge the c~'edit or the taxing power of Chesterfield County. Vir- G~ma. or the A~thonty but will be '..~ayable solely from revenues :./er*ve,l from the Company and ~!eoqed therefor An'/person inter- 1 es~e~ ~n the msuance the bonds or the location ~r purpose of the pro- posed pro~ect may appear and be heard. A copy of ~he Company $ aDplicat,on may be inspected at the Autho,lty s uffice at the Coun- ty Office of Economic Devetoo-- ~ent, at 7734 Whitepine Road, E. heslerfield Airpark, Chesterfield, Virgima during buSiness hours. Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield ! By: William F Seymour, III Cha rman RICHMOND NE~'SPAPERS, INC. Publisher of 'THE RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH Richmond, %'a ..... July 24, 1985 Legal Notice 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. July 17, 24, 1985 July 17, 1985 The first insertion being given .......................................................... Sworn to and subsoribed before me this ,'·. ' -' i'~ , /, .' /. ~, ./ I · -< .'~ - ' .C,~ do-~,. · .'.~..'f~..' · · · ,,-~, · · '. :~.: .-. .'w. .& .'~. - -': ........... :~ .... ~- ..... :.-.'..--.'-,-.--; ...... ~..;..:~-..,.; ! .otary Public State of Virginia, City of Richmond: - J , M-g, Eomm~smn. exptr~as: , TITI.E Exhibit B Jeffrey Marshall and appeared on behalf of the Company. They reviewed the information set forth in the application of the Company attached hereto. -- COLIY17 OF CHESTERFIELD INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENI' AIJTHORI~ / PLICATIO'I FOR gq, AbT ORIZATIO'I f{~ME OF ~PPLI~$: claYton Eaglin~Riway of Virginia /~DDRESS: 1601 Overbrook Road, Richmond, VA 23261 CONTACT REPRESENIATIVE: Clayton Eaglin/Rod Word' TELE~NE NU~ER: 359-1424 PROPOSED ~CATION: On Ramblewood Drive in the Seaboard ~mall Farms Subdivision in cnesterfie±d county CURRENT ZONING: Is REZONING REQUIRED: No PRESENT LOCATION: (IF MORE -tHAN ONE, LIST ON SEPARATE PAGE) Richmond, VA 23261 '' 1601 Overbrook Road, IS APPLICANT OWNER OF LAND? No ' IF NOT, FURNISH COPY OF OPTION, OR coNTRACT, TYPE OF INDLSTRY: Fur%her poultry prOcessing. '~P~Ul'~r'y mechanical deboning) PRODUCTS PRODUCED: Comminuted chicken' " " " WILL THIS PROJECT RESLLT IN A NEW PRODUCT LINE: Possibly/yes IF YES, NAME PRODUCT: Chicken breakfast Sausage N~BER OF EMPLOYEES AT NEW LOCATION (ESTIMATED): 20 (18 full/time` -'2' part-time) TYPE OF BUILDING TO BE CONSTRUCTED: (~SCRIBE coNSTRUCTION, SQUARE FOOTAGE, AMOLNT F0R EACH OPERATION SUCH AS ~NUFAC/URING, STORAGE, OFFICE, ETC. :) total footage 13,900 ft. pre-enqineer building - 1 story; processing - 2400 ft.2; cold storage 4,800 ft. 2 .... . ; dr~ storage 1,000 ft.; i'~b i','0'0'0'ft.; 0ffice'l 560 ft 2 .tenance ref. room- welfare 3,200 ft. , · ; misc.--main- /~DL~T OF BOND AIJll-DRIZATION REQUESTED: $ ?00 ,·0~0 ..................... ......... /~SS I GNiVENT OF LOAN PROCEEDS: (IF NOT KNG',~, ESTIMATE) ~bTE: STATE ~OLIFFION C/'.Aq'ROL EXPENDITURES SEPARATELY. ~]~UCTION i~kRCH ITECT/~GINEER ~i CH INERY/~QUI PMENT O~l~N~ I NG J~XPENSE EXPLAIN Sewage water, misc. building cost ~TIMATED V,a~UE OF I_~I) ~lD BUILDING FOR COIJNiY REAL TATE PbRPCoES ;',HFN CD~PLETE ~25,000 38',000 .... I~40,000 12,500 16,500 $493,000 ....... ~ESCRIPTION OF PURPOSE FOR WHICH I~O,ND Pt-VENUE N~LL 2E USED: buildinq, en~ineerin~ cost and equipment RATING OF APPLICANT N/A BY REFERENCE United Virginia Bank Purchase of land, CREDIT RATING N/A EXPLAIN HOW FINANCIAL ASSISTAZqCE FROM INDUSTRIAL. i~LFFI-iORITY WILL ENABLE APPLICANT TO LOCATE OR REMAIN IN ~ESTERFIELD CDL~FFY: Current lease expires 12/31/85. Owner plans to sell BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED BY COUNTY: in taxes Additional manufacturing, employment; increase IS APPLICANT A SUBSIDIARY OF ANY CCMPANY: IF YES, GIVE ~: ........... /bDRESS: " TELEPHONE I~UFBER: ~VE OF APPLIC~T'S ATTORNEY: Hunton ~ Wiiiiams ADD,SS: 707 East 'Main Street, Ric~J~6n'd, VA. 23219 TELEPHONE ~I3.1BER: 788-8406 NAME OF BOND COUNSEL DESIRED: Hunt'6n '& wiii'fams ' AE~RE~: 707 East Main· S~re'e~,'' Ri~u~ond, "V~" 232~9' TELEPHONE ~';U~ER: 788-84'06 ~A~ OF ARCHITECT OR ~GINEER (IF REAINED): CharleS'R.' Bu~chman'; P.E. ~DRESS: 4420 Burnt' ~e'd~r, L0u'is~il~e'~ 'KY' '402'19 ............. TELEPHONE NU~ER: (502) 96J1'-i939' NA~E OF ~CTOR (IF RETAINED): AbBEss. Nohe' a~' p~sent .... TELEFt-~E NL~ER: HAS APPLICANT EVER DEFAULTED ON A ~AN: No HAS APPLICANT EVER DECLARED BANKRUPTCY: "Nj " IF YES TO EITHER PRECEDING (DUESTION, PLEASE EXPLAIN IN DETAIL: ~HEN WAS APPLICanT FOR~D? (DATE) June' i98i STATE IN Y~I~ INCORPORATED'. Virqinia ~ L~G ~ APPLI~ ~NE B~INESS IN VIRGINIA? 5 ~ear~ ~ER ~AR~: Our business requires special ~uilding requirements when lease expires 12/85. Riway will need to move. ~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, PLEASE ENCLOSE A COPY OF YOUR LATEST A~NUAL 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 WITH THIS APPLICATION WILL BE PAID BY THE A.?LICANT, 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. AN APPLICATION FEE AND DEPOSIT AGAINST LEGAL FEES, EACH IN THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00), AS WELL.AS A DEPOSIT AGAINST.PUBLICATION COSTS OF ~250. FOR A TOTAL OF$12bU,uu.... 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 ~F A NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THIS APPLICATION. JHE ' 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 President· OF THE (AUTHORIZED AGENT) .Clayton D. Eaglin/Riway of ............................................... Virginia,. Inc ....... ' ............. (OFFICIAL NAME OF APPLICANT} W.HOSE MAILING ADDRESS IS THIS iTth DAY OF WITNESS ' ' June 19 85 , ..... B¥~ (SEAL) TITLE ..... DATE June 17~ 1985 ADDRESS REPLY TO - MR, W, F. SEYMOUR, CHAIRMAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC ~EVELOPMENT P,0, Box 40, CHESTERFIELD, VA 23832 EXHIBIT C FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT June 17, 1985 Date Clayton D. Eaglin/Riwa¥ of Virginia, Inc. Applicant Poultry Further Processing Facility Facility 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 $700~000.00 $493,000.00 $ 4,831.40 $ 18.00 $ N/A $462,500.00 20 $ 13,500.00 /s/ W. F. Seymour, III Authority Chairman Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield Name of Authority ~ubl:c ~ea~i~g Resolu~:ion Riway of Virginia, Inc. RESOLUTION OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the Authority) adopted on June 24, 1985 a resolution (the Resolution) approving the plans of Riway of Virginia, Inc. to acquire, construct and equip a poultry fur- ther processing facility (the Project) in Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the Code), and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Code of Virginia (the Act) require the Authority to hold a pub- lic hearing; and WHEREAS, a public hearing with respect to the Project has been held as required by the Code and the Act. BE IT RESOLVED by the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield: 1. It is hereby found and determined that the Project shall serve the purpose of the Act and the Resolution is reaf- firmed. 2. The Authority hereby recommends that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia approve the iSsu- ance of the Bonds described in the Resolution. 3. The resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Riway of Virginia, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION 1. A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield (the Board) was held on · 1985, 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 the ~iway of Virginia, Inc.. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Board of Supervi- sors of the County of Chesterfield, this day of , 1985. (SEAL) Clerk, Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield -2- CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA August 14, 1985 MEETING DATE: ITEM NUMBER: 10.H.9. SUBJECT: Resolution to Set a Public Hearing Date to Consider a Conveyance of a Parcel in the Airport Industrial Park to Michael J. Pausic and to Authorize the County Administrator to Execute a Contingent Sales Contract COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Michael J. Pausic has agreed to purchase a two acre parcel on Whitepine Road in the Airport Industrial Park at the rate of $32,500 per acre (see attached plat). A purchase agreement has been prepared and the County Administrator should be granted authority to execute it on behalf of the County. Closing has been set for September 19, 1985 in order to allow sufficient time to advertise for a public hearing. It is recommended that the Board set the public hearing to consider this conveyance for the September 1~, 1985 Board meet- ing. ATTACHMENTS: YESES' NO [] PREPARED BY; i Steven ~.. Micas. ,County Attorney SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ..% t Attachment ,< CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: Sewer & Water Revenue Bonds 10.I.l.a. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION The plan of financing for the sewer and water capital improvements is to defease (refund) the outstanding debt and issue new revenue bonds for the capital improvements needed. The Board is asked to appropriate $31,705,872 with $27,205,872 coming from cash and cash reserves of the utilities system and $4,500,000 coming from the proceeds of the Virginia Resources Authority to accomplish the defeasance of the outstanding debt. Background: The plan of financing for the sewer and water system is to defease all outstanding debt. The County's underwritters have determined that the best way to defease the old debt is to use cash on hand as much as possible because these funds are not limited for investment purposes in the defeasance escrow account. The effect of this is that it takes less money to defease the old debt than if refunding bonds are used. The defeasance will be accomplished as follows: ATTACHMENTS: YES ~/// NO [] ne B. Ramsey, D~ector Budget & Accounting SIGNATURE: ; '~'-~~' COUNTY ADMI NISTRATOR Agenda Item - Sewer f'"ater Revenue Bonds August 14, 1985 .~,age 2 Outstanding Sewer & Water Debt Defeasance is accomplished by: o Portion of Virginia Resources Authority $20M bond sale o Cash from Utilities System Amount which defeases (refunds old debt) $40,605,000 4,500,000 27,205,872 $31,705,872 Schedule: The schedule for the completion of the financing is as follows: August 16, 1985 August 16, 1985 August 26, 1985 - August 28, 1985 - September 20, 1985 - Closing on Virginia Resources Authority Bond Sale of $20,000,000 Defeasance escrow is created which relieves County of all outstanding debt County Sale of $61,215,000 Board approves sale Closing on County sale Action Required: To appropriate $27,205,872 from existing cash in the Utilities funds for the purpose of defeasing outstanding debt. CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 10.I.l.b. Approval of Four (4) Engineering Firms to Perform Work as Required for a Period of Two (2) Years COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Staff requests the Board approve four (4) Engineering firms for the Annual Engineering Services Agreement. Due to the requirements of law to obtain professional services, the Utilities Department now has used an Annual Engineering Services Agreement for one (1) year. This has worked out well for both the County and the Engineering firms. This year the time service has been expanded to two (2) years and twenty-two (22) firms responded. From this group, four (4) firms have been recommended for selection as follows: 2. 3. 4. Austin Brockenbrough & Associates R. Stuart Royer & Associates Wiley & Wilson Carrouth & Associates/Baldwin & Gregg Staff recommends approval for County Administrator to execute agreements with the four (4) firms for Engineering Services. Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES r-I CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: ,,, SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER; 10.I.l.c. Request for Additional Appropriation for Willis Road Area Tank COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Staff requests an additional appropriation in the amount of $190,814.00 in order to cover change orders required to move the location of this 2 MG water tank from Pams Avenue to Norcliff Avenue. The following is a breakdown of the additional cost and change orders: Wiley & Wilson Halifax Builders, Inc. Hydrostorage, Inc. Land Acquisition & Drainage $ 43,200.00 54,825.00 52,789.00 40,000.00 Total $190,814.00 We recommend appropriating $190,814.00 from 5F Bond surplus to 5H-5835-432N, and the County Administrator be authorized to sign the necessary change orders. District: Bermuda Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES r'l SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 10.I.l.d. Award of Water Contract W84-40B, Beulah Road Water Line with Pressure Regulator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff requests that water contract W84-47B for construction of a water line along Beulah Road including a pressure regulator be awarded to the low bidder, Richard Crowder Construction, Incorporated, in the amount of $201,092.86 based on ductile iron pipe. This is the lowest of three (3) bids ranging from $201,092.86 to $336,080.07. There has been a prior appropriation in the amount of $120,000.00 on previous C.I.P. budgets. We request that $100,000.00 be appropriated from 5F Surplus (Water Bond Fund) to 5H-5835-440N, and transfer $1,185.00 from 5E-2461-997 (Advances from Developers) to 5H-5835-440N. This additional appropriation and transfer includes a 10 percent contingency. This water line is a portion of the construction required in order to abandon Falling Creek Water Plant. District: Dale Recommend Approval PREPARED By; . ~?~,~ ~ ATTACHMENTS: YES ~// NO [] SIGNATURE: ! COUNTY ADMIN STRATOR .7£6 ~o q75 O0 75.55 ~q,SS ZO . c~ I ~,~5 II £qo z CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF' SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: Emergency Item: Authorize County Administrator to Sign a Letter Restricting the Dates Upon Which the County Could Redeem the $20 Million Sewer and Water Bond Issue COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Under the terms of the First Supplemental Resolution ("Resolution") authorizing the issuance of $20 Million Principal Amount of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1985A, which the Board adopted on July 24, 1985, the County may elect to redeem the bonds as a whole at any time on or after November 1, 1995. However, the Indenture of Trust Agreement between United Virginia Bank, as Trustee, and the Virginia Resources Authority ("VRA"), which is purchasing the Series 1985A bonds, provides that redemp- tion may occur only on a date on which interest on the bonds is due ("interest payment date"). The likelihood that the County could redeem the entire $20 million bond issue in 10 years is remote; however, in the event the County was able to redeem the bonds in whole and chose to do so on a date other than an interest payment date, a conflict would occur between the terms of the agreements. In order to resolve this inconsistency without amending the complex Agreement or Resolution, Don Gurney, bond counsel for the County, advises that the County Administra- tor sign a letter stating that if the County chose to redeem the bonds in whole between November 1, 1995 and, October 31, 1996, (Continued)PREPARED BY:'~ a County Attorney ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO [] SIGNATURE: (::o~uNfy ADMINI STRA~'OR~ /- Emergency Agenda Item August 14, 1985 Page 2 it would only do so on an interest payment date. Staff has determined that this one-year limitation on redemption will not adversely impact the County. Although this commitment limits the County's future ability to alter the utilities system financing by restricting redemption to the two interest payment dates between November 1, 1995 and October 31, 1996, it does not effect the County's ability to refinance the bonds through defeasance or some means other than redemption. Thus, should advantageous market conditions exist making it desirable to redeem the bonds at a time other than an interest payment date, the County could defease the $20 million bond issue and accomplish the same favorable financial results as redemp- tion would. Recommendation: The Board should authorize Administrator to execute the attached letter. the County 1ii.5 -~ August 15, 1985 Virginia Resources Authority P.O. Box 1300 Richmond, Virginia 23210 Dear Sirs: COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, %4ATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1985A, $20,000,000 In consideration for the purchase by the Virginia Resources Authority of the above-referenced Series 1985A Bonds, the County of Chesterfield (the "County") hereby agrees that, in the event the County shall exercise its option to redeem the Series 1985A Bonds ia whole during the period from November 1, 1995 through October 31, 1996, such redemption shall be made only on an interest payment date for the Series 1985A Bonds. Very truly yours, COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA unty A~i'nis trator CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER; 10.I.2. Intervention in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Proceeding Affecting Appomattox River Water Authority COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Attached is a "Motion to Intervene in Applicant's Applica- tion for Major Water Power Project 5 Megawatts or Less" that the Appomattox River Water Authority is asking that Chesterfield County file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. For almost five years now the Authority has been trying unsuccessfully to become a hydroelectric producer and, thereby, reduce its overall water costs with hydroelectric revenues. As part of this process the Authority filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") to obtain an exclusive license to develop and operate a hydroelectric facility at the Brasfield Dam. However, a private developer had already filed its own application with the FERC for an exclusive license and, being filed first, this application is the only one now being considered. As a result, the Authority filed a Motion to Intervene in the application review proceeding which is now pending before the FERC. ATTACHMENTS: YES~ NO [] SIGNATURE: PREPARED BY;, County Attorney COUNTY ADMI NI STRATOR Intervention in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Proceeding Affecting Appomattox River Water Authority August 14, 1985 Page 2 The Authority has now contacted the County and the other Authority members asking that they also intervene. The attorney representing the Authority in Washington advises that interven- tion by member localities will help promote the Authority's opposition to the developer's application. Since granting of the developer's application will effectively prevent the Authority from becoming an electricity producer itself, staff believes that the County should show its support by interevening in the FERC proceeding. BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the attached Motion to Intervene and that it be transmitted to the appropriate agencies. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Brasfield Development, Ltd. Project No. 3612-OO3 MOTION TO INTERVENE OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA Chesterfield County, Virginia moves to intervene in this proceeding pursuant to the Commission's Rule 214 and its notice of application issued June 26, 1985. The notice specified August 26, 1985 as the due date for comments, protests, and petitions to intervene. 1. Communications. Pleadings, correspondence, or other communications regarding this matter should be served on: Chesterfield County requests that the Secretary place the foregoing on the official service list for this proceeding. 2. Interest of the County of Chesterfield. The County of Chesterfield is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia. As an established County, the County of Chesterfield is delegated with the responsibility of providing a public water supply meeting Surface Water Standards for Surface Public Water Supplies to its residents. The County is a member of the Appomattox River Water Authority. The Authority built, owns and operates Brasfield Dam, for which Brasfield Development, Ltd. seeks CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 10.I.3.a. SUBJECT: Authorization to Purchase Two (2) Parcels of Land along Reams Road and Set a Public Hearing for the Conveyance of a Portion of this Property COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Staff requests the Board to approve the purchase of two (2) parcels of land along Reams Road for $4,000.00 and to set a public hearing to convey a portion of this property. In negotiating for easements for the Reams Road water line, Mr. and Mrs. Frank E. Watkins and Mr. and Mrs. George L. Hicks, Jr. refused to grant an easement, but stated they would sell the parcels of land they owned. (Watkins' parcel 0.24 acres, $1,000.00; Hicks' parcel 0.98 acres, $3,000.00.) Mr. and Mrs. Raymond L. Brown, III and Agnes E. B. Cain, who own property abutting Reams Road and the Watkins' and Hicks' parcels, have agreed to grant the necessary water easement across their property without cost, in exchange for the property to be acquired from Watkins and Hicks, less and except 45' from the centerline of Reams Road, which is the ultimate right of way on the Plan 2000. The value of that easement exceeds the cost for these purchases. ATTACHMENTS: YES [~// NO 12] SIGNATURE: ~ COUNTY ADMI NISTRATOR August 14, 1985 Page 2 Staff recommends that the Board approve the following: Purchase of a parcel of land containing 0.24 acres from Frank E. Watkins and Frances L. Watkins for $1,000.00 Purchase of a parcel of land containing 0.98 acres more or less from George L. Hicks, Jr. and Vivian J. Hicks for $3,000.00 Set a public hearing September 25, 1985, to convey a portion of this property to Mr. and Mrs. Raymond L. Brown, III and Agnes E. B. Cain. Authorize the County Administrator to execute any and all necessary documents for these transactions. Clover Hill District Recommend Approval ROAD GOt r COURSE / / 17 \\ \\ CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 10.I.3.b. SUBJECT: Authorization to Proceed with Condemnation of a Water Easement across the Property of Robert Lee Floyd and Doris J. Floyd COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OFINFORMATION: Staff requests the Board to deny a counteroffer for the purchase of a water line easement from Robert Lee Floyd and Doris J. Floyd and authorize the County Attorney to proceed with condemnation. On March 21, 1985, an offer of $536.00 was made to the above owners for a 15' permanent water easement and a 10' temporary construction easement for the extension of a water line along Beulah Road. This offer was rejected and a counteroffer of $1,400.00 made by the owner. Since the contract for the installation of the water line is scheduled to be approved today, it is necessary to proceed with condemnation on an emergency basis. Staff feels that the counteroffer is excessive, and recommends that the Board reject the counteroffer and authorize the County Attorney to proceed with condemnation on an emergency basis and exercise 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 owner by certified mail on August 15, 1985, of the County's intention to take possession of the easement. District: Clover Hill Recommend Approva~ ATTACHMENTS' YES I~ NO O PREPARED BY; (~-~, ~' SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SCH KI EVELAKE RD -% C£NTRALIA ~0 o?~ I LLWO 0 D 0.4 t RD IYNN &VE 0 ! RD S E~ D ASSOCIATES '27"W jLL ~m z -c PL_AT CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE : Auqust 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 10.I.3.c. SUBJECT: Consideration of a Request to Declare a 31¼ Acre Parcel Surplus Property and Offer it for Sale by Public Bid COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff requests the Board to declare a 31¼ acre parcel of land owned by the County, north of Iron Bridge Road, to be surplus and authorize the property to be offered for sale by sealed bid. The County owns a landlocked parcel containing 31¼ acres more or less near Iron Bridge Road and Chalkley Roads. On April 13, 1983, the Board rejected an offer by an adjacent owner to purchase the parcel for $1,500.00 per acre and made a counteroffer for a period of sixty (60) days for $2,000.00 per acre. The owner did not accept the counteroffer during that period. In recent months considerable interest has been expressed by persons wanting to purchase this parcel. The Right of Way Manager has obtained comments from the County Departments and finds no need for the property to be retained by the County or the School Board. ATTACHMENTS: YES / NO [] PREPARED BY; ..v - . ~ SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR August 15, 1985 Page 2 Staff recommends that the Board declare this parcel to be surplus property and authorize staff to advertise the sale and receive bids for its purchase. District: Matoaca Recommend Approval ~iG'z Chesterfield o~° / / / $OU TH E ,qW 4 RE4 £4 NDF/L L /I I \ \ // Poge 40 130 40 RD ~EADO- CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF' SUPERVISORS AGENDA August 14, 1985 MEETING DATE: ITEM NUMBER: i0.I.3.d. SUBJECT: Consideration of counter-offer from Virginia Department of Highways Concerning State Highway and Transportation Commis- sioner v. County of Chesterfield COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In 1982, the Highway Department filed a condemnation action against the County to obtain title to land at the Falling Creek Sewer Treatment Plant which was used by the Department in 1975 for improvements to the 1-95/Chippenham interchange. (See attached map) The Highway Department originally offered $10,902 as compensation for the 4.99 acres and various additional easements which were taken ultimately used to construct the interchange~ The Board of Supervisors has previously authorized a counter-offer of $51,124. Subsequent, negotiations between our office, the Right of Way Department and VDH&T resulted in a new offer of $40,000 from the Highway Department. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board accept the $40,000 counter-offer and authorize the Chairman and County Administrator to sign the necessary documents to transfer the property to the Highway Department. ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO [] pREPARED By; ~. (~(cu'~ Steven L. Micas County Attorney SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER; 10.I.4.a. Approval of Water Contract Installation of Water Lines for Hunters Landing, Sections 1, 2, and 3 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Staff requests that the Board approve the following contract- Water Contract Number W85-124CD, Hunters Landing, Sections 1, 2, and 3 Developer: Contractor: Total Contract Cost: Total Estimated County Cost: Estimated Developer Cost: Number of Connections: 120 Code: 5E-2511-997 Roper Land Corporation Castle Equipment Corporation $104,384.94 4,290.50 (Refunds through Connection Fees) $100,094.44 Staff recommends approval of the contract and refunds for the 12" oversized water line that is a portion of a water line that will provide an additional feed to the Genito Road area, south of Route 360. Refund will be through connections. District: Matoaca Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES/ NO [] SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMI NISTRATOR CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AG E NDA MEETING DATE' SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 10.I.4.b. Approval of Water Contract Installation of Water Lines for Brandon, Section A COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR"S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Staff requests that the Board approve the following contract: Water Contract Number W85-128CD, Brandon, Section A Developer: Contractor: Total Contract Cost: Total Estimated County Cost: Estimated Developer Cost: Number of Connections: 48 Code: 5E-2511-997 Brandon Development Corporation RMC Contractors, Incorporated $89,670.00 16,352.00 (Refunds through Connection Fees) $73,318.00 Staff recommends approval of the contract and refund for the oversized 12" water line. Refund will be made through connections. District: Clover Hill Recommend Approval PREPARED BY; ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO [] SIGNATURE: , COUNTY ADMI NISTRATOR ,,/ CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AG E NDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 10.I.4.c. Approval of Sewer Contract for West Branch Trunk Sewer, Phase I COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Staff requests that the Board approve the following contract: Sewer Contract Number S85-84CD/7(8)584M, West Branch Trunk Sewer, Phase I Developer: Contractor: Total Contract Cost: Total Estimated County Cost: Estimated Developer Cost: Number of Connections: 6 Code: 5N-2511-997 Investors Woodlake Development Corporation RMC Contractors, Incorporated $130,330.00 28,335.65 (Refund through Connection Fees) $101,994.35 Staff recommends approval of the contract and refund for the oversizing of the sewer to allow for sufficient capacity to serve the adjoining properties. Refund will be made through connections. District: Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES~'/ Clover Hill NO I-I SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMI NISTRATOR CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE' SUBdECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 10.I.4.d. Award of Sewer Project for Brighton Green - North Pinetta Drive Sewer Extension COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OFINFORMATION: Staff requests the Board award the project for construction of sewer lines to serve Brighton Green - North Pinetta Drive; S85-16C/7(8)516E On August 5, 1985, we received two (2) bids for this project ranging from $37,809.00 to $72,877.00. Our engineering consultants have reviewed the bids and recommend we award this project to the low bidder, in the amount of $37,809.00. The amount previously appropriated was $35,000.00; therefore, an additional appropriation is needed in the amount of $9,000.00, which provides for a 10 percent contingency. Staff requests transfer of funds from the 5N surplus to 5P-5835-516E in the amount of $9,000.00. District: Midlothian Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES D NO-J[~ ! Staff recommends that the Board: Award this project to the low bidder, G. L. Howard, Incorporated, in the amount of $37,809.00. Authorize $9,000.00 be transferred from 5N surplus to 5P-5835-516E. And authorize the County Administrator to sign the contract on behalf of the County. SIGNATURE: ~'- C~UNTY ADMINISTRATOR CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AG E NDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 10.I.4.e. Acceptance of Deed of Dedication along Little Road from Robert P. Perkins and Pamela E. Perkins COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Staff requests the Board accept the conveyance of a 5' wide strip of land along Little Road from Robert P. Perkins and Pamela E. Perkins. 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 the conveyance of this right of way and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. District: Matoaca Recommend Approval / ATTACHMENTS: YES ~'/ NO [] PREPARED By; , ~/~/~ SIGNATURE: Y/~ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 50~ '"*-- 830.92~T0 PICKHURST COURT O. 79 ~C/?E N/F JOHN W. ELKO D.B. 464-61 LITTLE t _ Note: Dwelling Number Not Physically Founa In I:'"~el~ ROAD- STATE 'IRON Z -"r' 0 RON Note: Pr'q:er~ls Not W~hln A HUD Defined Flood Plato PLAT t .% '1 I I / UNION GROVE APP' g CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE' SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 10.I.4.f. Acceptance of Deed of Dedication along Little Road from John William Elko, Jr. and Ruth Louise E~ko COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Staff requests the Board accept the conveyance of a 25' wide strip of land along Little Road from John William Ecko, Jr. and Ruth Louise Ecko. 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 the conveyance of this right of way and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. District: Matoaca Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES / NO I-I SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 0 Ld Ld Z N/F JOHN W. ELKO D.B. 464-61 ~ .iRON O. 7.9 ACRE 0 LLI Z --r- 0 ~601 Note: Dwelling Number Not Physically Found Ir, Flel~ ~ote: Prq:er~ Is Not W~ihm A HUD Defined Flood PLAT t I I I ! 7 , I 1 ! I '! I ! % UNION GR'OV E 6O RD '1 I I I I I I I I I 18,' 186 CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE' SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 10.I.4.g. Acceptance of Deed of Dedication along Reams Road from Merle P. Condrey and Irene J. Condrey COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff requests the Board accept the conveyance of a 45' wide strip of land along Reams Road from Merle P. Condrey and Irene J. Condrey. 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 the conveyance of this right of way and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. District: Clover Hill Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES NO [] SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR b~ I E,707 .Sq: FT, ----I ~C.~I.E:- 1"= qO' ~L,\Y lq, 1955. (For j~rol~t)sed R/h' lane) This is to cerli~ t~t ~ }I:~Y 1 n 1(~ q ! made ~n sccur~le ~eld Survey of the promises shown hereon, that ~ll improvemenls *nd eesemenls [nown or visible /_%~'- ~ ~re shown hereon; ihnt thor..re no encroachments by improvemenls either from.aioi.;., p,.mi,o~ rem~ses o lmr }ton ~s shown heroo~ ' ,.*.' , 's u on adio'ning p ' , ~, GO[ F COURSE A 17 · Cr ~M I, CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 10.I.4.h. Acceptance of Deed of Dedication along Little Creek Lane from Walter O. Troupe III and Sharon L. Troupe COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: /- SUMMARY OF INFORMATION' Staff requests the Board accept the conveyance of a 30' wide strip of land along Little Creek Lane from Walter O. Troupe III and Sharon L. Troupe. 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 the conveyance of this right of way and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. District: Matoaca Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES / NO I-I PREPARED BY; SIGNATURE: C OU NTY ADMI N! STRATOR 150 % q' LI'T'TLF. L~ruE ~T'~ 3,1' tO D~WE ~YEY OF LOFA~[ED OM THE ~ODTH L/'ITL£ CREEK LRME 1.D55 ACRE L~UE C Ft [- ST 7"7 GWYNN AVE 29 I KI RD CENTRALIA )ELLWOOD 0,4 t. O0 072 RD CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE; SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER; 10.I.4.i. Acceptance of Deed of Dedication along Woolridge Road from Richard W. Stopf and Linda K. Stopf COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION; Staff requests the Board accept the conveyance of a 35' wide strip of land along Woolridge Road from Richard W. Stopf and Linda K. Stopf. 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 the conveyance of this right of way and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. District: Matoaca Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES / NO r-i PREPARED BY; ~_~~ ~~/ SIGNATURE: CO'U~'~ ADMINISTRATOR UTILITIES DEPARTMENT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGIN RI ,VISIONS IA C M E"C:KE D ~ 41 RD MID. MAT. Z4 C) ~ Pmg~ 24 CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF' SUPERVISORS AG E NDA MEETING DATE' SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER; 10.I.4.j. Acceptance of Deed of Dedication along Woodpecker Road from Richard L. Jordan and Frederick M. Loehr COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Staff requests the Board accept the conveyance of a 35' wide strip of land along Woodpecker Road from Richard L. Jordan and Frederick M. Loehr. 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 the conveyance of this right of way and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. District: Matoaca Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES / NO [] SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADM I N I STRATOR Z ~ 0 -- ~ RICHARD .L. JORDAN ond F. M. LOEHR T.M. 161-I (I} 17 D.B. 1694, Pg. 1417 -'---'--N 37000' O0"W 250'"' TO S'I'.IZ'I'.'.~63,I .... VVQ(]31::ECKER ROAD - STATE ROUTE ,,-¢- 626 OF 35' STRIP TO BE DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY OF' CHESTERFIELD FOR ADDITICNAL WIDENING CF WOODPECKER ROAD - STArF_ ROUTE .,-t. 6,26 MATOACA DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA Morgore! I oeo I I 52 Greeewoo~ Church CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER; 10.I.4.k. Acceptance of Deed of Dedication along Taylor Road from Steven L. Worley and Shelia Worley COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Staff requests the Board accept the conveyance of a 30' strip of land east of the centerline of Taylor Road from Steven L. Worley and Shelia Worley. 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 the conveyance of this right of way and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. District: Matoaca Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO 12] SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR I I I // I / Page 35 107 Plat showing a thirty (30') Zoot strip along the center line of Taylor Road to be dedicated to Chesterfield County, Virginia Matoaca District UTILITIES DEPARTMENT CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE : .. , August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER; 10.I.4.1. SUBJECT: Acceptance of Deed of Dedication along Hopkins Road from the Chesterfield County School Board COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Staff requests the Board accept the conveyance of a 20' wide strip of land along Hopkins Road from the Chesterfield County School Board. 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 the conveyance of this right of way and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. District: Matoaca Recommend Approval ATTACHMENTS: YES / NO [] SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMI NISTRATOR o~ R I C h M 0 N C BELLS ...... Page 19 DUPO~4T i CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AG E NDA MEETING DATE SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER; 10.I.4.m. Authorization for County Administrator to Execute Permit COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OFINFORMATION; DAvid Treb0ur is requesting permission to encroach on the sewer construction easement in order to develop Lot 9, Riverbirch Trace Road. Because of the unique configuration and topography of the lot, Mr. Trebour's proposed home encroaches upon the County's impoundment easement for the Swift Creek Reservoir and a construction easement for a sewer trunk line. Mr. Trebour has been working with Environmental Engineering to solve the impoundment easement encroachment problem and has applied and been approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance from the County's flood plain management ordinance. An agreement has been drafted which would permit Mr. Trebour to construct a deck and fishpond within the sewer construction easement, on the condition that he must remove these improvements if and when the County constructs the sewer line. Under the agreement, if he fails to remove the improvements in 30 days, the County may (1) remove them and bill Mr. Trebour for the cost of removal or (2) work around them and bill him for increased construction costs. Either cost will become a lien on the real estate. ATTACHMENTS YES / NO [] David H. Welchons Director of Utilities SIGNATURE: (~O~)~I'TY ADMI N! STRATOR Au?U~st 14, 1985 Page 2 BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: Staff has reviewed the draft agreement and recommends that the Board authorize the County Administrator to execute a finalized agreement on behalf of the County, subject to appoval of the County Attorney. CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE; August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT: EMERGENCY ITEM: Authorize the County Administrator to Execute a Contract to Acquire a Parcel for the Willis- Coach Road Industrial Access Project. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION The County must acquire additional right-of-way along Willis Road for the Willis-Coach Road Industrial Access Project from Leo Myers and other trustees who have agreed to convey the property to the County for $135.00. This parcel is the last to be ac- quired for this project, and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation requires completion of the project prior their consideration of the County's request for funding for the Ruffin Mill Industrial Access Project at the Highway Commission's September, 1985 meeting. Upon approval by the Board, the real estate closing for the Willis Road property will occur on Monday, August 19, 1985 to comply with the Highway Department deadlines. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board authorize the County Administrator to execute the contract and accept the deed on behalf of the County. ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO I-I SIGNATURE: Steven L. Micas' ,County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AG E NDA MEETING DATE' SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: 10.I.5. 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. 1. W85-117D/6(8)5173 Handling Services Company, Incorporated Developer: Handling Services Incorporated Bermuda Contractor: Mechanicsville Utilities, Incorporated Number of Connections: 0 $5,780.00 2 W85-113D/6(8)5133 Johnston-Willis Center, Phase I Developer: CVH Partnership Clover Hill Contractor: J. H. Martin & Sons Contractors, Incorporated Sub Contractor: Castle Equipment Corporation Number of Connections: 0 $24,093.50 3. W85-118D/6(8)5183 Woodland Pond, Section I Developer: Contractor: Number of Connections: Midlothian Enterprises Incorporated Matoaca RMC Contractors, Incorporated PREPARED BY; [ ATTACHMENTS: YES / NO r'l SIGNATURE: '~ ? ,~ CO DMI NISTRATOR August 14, 1985 Page 2 W85-112D/6(8)5123 Millcreek, Section 2 Developer: Pioneer Financial Corporation Matoaca Contractor: Shoosmith Brothers, Incorporated Sub Contractor: IPK Excavating Company, Incorporated Number of Connections: 36 $44,870.46 W85-120D/6(8)5203 Roxshire, Section 8 Developer: P & L Company Contractor: RMC Contractors, Incorporated Number of Connections: 46 Midlothian $42,365.00 S85-82D/7(8)582D Queenspark, Sections A1 and A2 Developer: Queensmill Corporation Midlothian Contractor: Shoosmith Brothers, Incorporated Sub Contractor: IPK Excavating Company, Incorporated Number of Connections: 53 $116,255.43 S84-176D/7(8)4H6D Craddock Point, Section 4 Developer: South Side Service Corporation Contractor: William M. Harman Contractors Number of Connections: 53 Bermuda $79,644.02 S85-83D/7(8)583D Bailey Ridge Estates, Section A Developer: Marco Investment, Incorporated Contractor: J. Steven Chafin, Incorporated Number of Connections: 37 Matoaca $54,279.00 S85-85D/7(8)585D Stonecrop Developer: R. F. and Iris Bodde Contractor: Taylor Development Corporation Number of Connections: 8 Midlothian $9,840.00 10. S85-87D/7(8)587D Brandon, Section A Developer: Brandon Development Corporation Contractor: RMC Contractors, Incorporated Number of Connections: 51 11. S85-86D/7(8)586D Willow Glen, Phase II Clover Hill $66,802.00 Developer: Investors Woodlake Development Corporation Contractor: RMC Contractors, Incorporated Clover Hill Number of Connections: 18 $33,371.00 CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA REPORTS MEETING DATE : August 14, 1985 10.J.1. REPORT ON: GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY ATTACHMENTS: YES I~x NO ri SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADM I NI STRATOR CHESTERFIELD COUNTY STATUS OF GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT August 9, 1985 Date 7/01/85 7/10/85 7/10/85 7/19/85 7/24/85 7/26/85 Department/Description Amount OriginaI FY86 Budget Appropriation Rescue Squads - $20,000 donation to each of four. 80,000.00 Old Creek West - Completion of roads. 34,497.00 MH/MR - Travel expenses for trip to Hannover, West Germany. 5,000.00 Sheriff - Cost of air conditioning for new jail kitchen. 22,000.00 Budget and Accounting - Color plotter to prepare information for November 1985 Bond Issue. 10,000.00 Balance $500,000.00 420,000.00 385,503.00 380,503.00 358,503.00 348,503.00 CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA REPORTS MEETING DATE: Au,~3st 14, 1985 10.J.2. REPORT ON.' ROADS ACCEPTED ,INTO THE STATE SECONDARY SYSTEM ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO C] SIGNATURE: COUN~I~ ADMI NI STRATOR HAROLD C. K~NG. COMMt?~IONER ........................... COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA ROSERT A. QUICKE. BLACKSTO.E.~rL~Ge'.~U~L DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 July 24, 1985 OSCAR K. MABRY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER J, M. WRA Y. JR. CHIEF ENGINEER J, T. WARREN g}lR ECTOR OF OPERATIONS H. W. WORRALL DIRECTOR OF FINANCE JACK HOg}GE DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SALLY H. COOPER DIRECTOR OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION J. G. RIPLEY DIRECTOR OF PLANN lNG ANO PROGRAMM lNG Secondary System Additions Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors County of Chesterfield P. O. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832 Gentlemen: As requested in your resolution dated May 8, 1985, the following additions to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County are hereby approved, effective June 28, 1985. ADDITIONS AFTON SUBDIVISION, SECTIONS 5&6 Sara Kay Drive - From Route 2752 to 0.02 mile west of Edington Drive - S Sara Kay Drive - From Fox Run Drive to 0.04 mile west of Edington Drive - N Fox Run Drive - From Sara Kay Drive - S to Sara Kay Drive - N Edington Drive - From Sara Kay Drive - S to Sara Kay Drive - N LENGTH 0.12 Mi. 0.11 Mi. 0.13 Mi. 0.15 Mi. Sincerely, Oscar K. Mabry ~ Deputy Commissioner TRANSPORTATION -- AMERICA'S LIFELINES HAROLD C. KING, COMMISRIONER EDGAR BACON, JONESVILLE,BR/ETOL D/STRICT ~ T. GEORCE VAUGHAN, ~.R., GALAX,$ALEM D[$TRICT JAMES L. DAVIDSON. JR,, LYNCHBURG, ~YNCHBURG DI3TRICT WM, M. T. FORRESTER, R lC HMON D, RICHMOND DISTRICT R~HARD G, BRYDGES. V~RGiNIA BEACH,SUF~LK DISTRICT ~ H R HUMPHREYS JR. WEEMS. FREDERICKSBURGDISTRI~ CONSTANCE R. KINCHELOE~ CULPEPER, CULPEPER DISTRJ~ ROBERT W. SM~LLEY, BERRYVILLE,STA~WTONDISTR[CT .............. ......... COMMONWEALTH O[ V RGINIA T. EUGENE SMITH, MCLEAN,ATLARGE-URBAN .o~.x~.o~,c~,~c~c~o.~,ar~E.~U~z DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND. 23219 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER J. M. WRAY, JR. CHIEF ENGINEER J. T. WARREN DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS H. W, WORRALL DIRECTOR OF PINANCE JACK HODGE DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SALLY H. COOPER DIRECTOR OF RAiL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION J. G. RIPLEY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING July 22, 1985 Secondary System Additions Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors County of Chesterfield P. O. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832 Gentlemen: As requested in your resolution dated March 13, 1985, the following additions to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County are hereby approved, effective July 22, 1985. ADDITIONS LENGTH KINGS FOREST, SECTIONS 7 & 8 Cyrus Street - From Route 739 running south to a cul-de-sac Amasis Court - From Cyrus Street running 0.18 mile to a east cul-de-sac MacBeth Court - From Cyrus Street running 0.16 mile to a east cul-de-sac Dorius Drive - From Cyrus Street to 0.17 mile east of Cyrus Street 0.25 Mi. 0.18 Mi. 0.16 Mi. 0.17 Mi. Sincerely, Deputy Commissioner TRANSPORTATION -- AMERICA'S LIFELINES HAROLD C KING, COMMISSIONER EDGAR B~ACON, JONl~;lqU~;, 8RISTO£ DL~JCT COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 August 6, 1985 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER J M WRAY, JR CHIEF ENGINEER J T WARREN DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS H W WORRALL DIRECTOR OF FINANCE JACK HODGE DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING · SALLY H. COOPER DIRECTOR OF RAIL AND PtJBUC TRANSPORTATION ALBERT W COATES, JR DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION Secondary System Addition Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors County of Chesterfield P. O. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832 Gentlemen: As requested in your resolution dated June 12, 1985, the following addition to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County is hereby approved, effective August 6, 1985. ADDITION CAMERON RUN, SECTION 4 Castlebury Drive - From 0.13 mile east of Route 3280 to a northeast cul-de-sac LENGTH 0.38 Mi. Sincerely, Oscar K. Mabry ~ Deputy Commissioner TRANSPORTATION -- AMERICA'S LIFELINES HAROLO C KING, COMMISSIONER EBGAR BACON, JONS$VIU.~, BRISTf)£ COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 O S C.~R K. MABRY OEPU~ COMMISSIONER J M WI~AY, JR CHIEF ENGINEER J T WARREN DIRECTOR OF O~(~RAT~ONS H. W INORRAU. OIRECTOR OF FINANCE JACK HODGE DIRECTOR OF ENGINEER)NC August 6, 19 85 Secondary System Additions Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors County of Chesterfield P. O. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832 Gentlemen: As requested in your resolution dated June 12, 1985, the following additions to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County are hereby approved, effective August 6, 1985 ADDITIONS SOLAR I, SECTION 2 Scottingham Drive - From 0.06 mile west of Route 3359 to. 0.12 mile east of Route 2725 Scottingham Terrace - From Scottingham Drive to a southwest cul-de-sac Eastwood Drive - From 0.03 mile north of Route 2730 to Route 2664 Eastwood Court - From 0.05 mile northwest of Route 2669 to a northwest cul-de-sac Eastwood Terrace - From Eastwood Drive to a southeast cul-de,sac LENGTH 0.14 Mi. 0.04 Mi. 0.13 Mi. O. 09 Mi. 0.04 Mi. Sincerely, Oscar K. Habry Deputy Commissioner TRANSPORTATION -- AMERICA'S LIFELINES CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: August 14, 1985 Executive Session ITEM NUMBER: 10.K. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Executive Session for consultation with legal counsel regarding HMK v. Chesterfield County and Plantation Pipeline Company v. Chesterfield County pursuant to ~2.1-344(a) (6) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, as well as the condition, i acquisition or use of real property for public purposes pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (2) of the Code of Virqinia, 1950, as amended~ and Personnel Matters pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (I) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. ATTACHMENTS' YES 'E~ NO r-I Steven L. Micas County Attorney SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE' August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT: Budget Amendment - Economic Development COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION The County's Economic Development Office has requested additional funding for a part-time employee and other office expenses. Action Required: Transfer $60,000 of the 1985-86 appropriation from the General Fund Contingency account to Economic Development. The current balance of the contingency account is $348,503. ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO [] SIGNATURE: PREPARED BY; ~)~' Ramsey, Dir~tor Budget & Accounting Departmer CO ADMINISTRATOR CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETIN6DATE: August 14, 1985 ITEM NUMBER:~ SUBJECT: Budget Amendment - Economic Development COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The County's Economic Development Office has requested additional funding for a part-time employee and other office expenses. Action Required: Transfer $60,000 of the 1985-86 appropriation from the General Fund Contingency account to Economic Development. The current balance of the contingency account is $348,503. ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO ra Lane B. Ramsey, Dir~tor Budget & Accounting Departmel SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADM I NI STRATOR BOAR~ OF SUPERVISORS G.H. API~E~_~ATE, CHAIRMAN Cl. DYIUI HiLL ~I~T j~ j. ~~ ~1~ R. GARLANO OOOO II~NMUOA OIITRIGT JOAN GIRONE MIO~ O~TRICT CHESTER FIELD COUNTY P.O. BOX 40 CHESTERFIE:LO,VIRGINIA 25832 RICHARD L. HEORICK MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Honorable Members Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors Richard L. Hedrick Administrator County Stanley R. Balder Director of Eco~ic Development July 1, 1985 -- Employment of European Representative for Industrial Development Recruitment The administration has investigated hiring an agent to recruit European manufacturing firms for location in Chesterfiel4 County. We believe that this service will advance the County's economic development and hone a competitive recruitment edge for Chesterfield in this region. This resource would make contacts with European firms offering them market research, banking and legal advice, communication service, information about insurance, tax and labor laws. The resource would answer custom duties and import questions and provide detailed information and assist with logistics supporting the companies move to Chesterfield. This agent would serve as a liaison between the County and European firms. Specifically by the following up on contacts made during the trip to the "Hanover Fair". Preparation of documentation and an information package about Chesterfield County would be accomplishe4 and the agent would research the kinds of European companies best targeted and identify which countries Chesterfield should target for approach. This agent would also advise which trade fairs would be best to advance our interests. In order to expedite this matter the competitive bid process should be waived. /blc cc- e Jeffrey B. Muzzy Asst. County Administrator contrade international of america lnG. Mr Richard L. Hedrick Box 40 CHESTERFIELD, VA 23832 Midlothian, VA, May 29, 1985 Richard, Thank you for a giving meeting. I feel certain that a cooperation between Chesterfield County and my company would benefit the Coun- ty's interest to luther activate its Industrial Development to bring new foreign companies to Chesterfield and also foreign investors and companies, who are not satisfied with their present location in the USA. I think that your positive attitude to bring new business into your county is the necessary base. The contacts taken during your trip to Germany can be assisted by our company in many practical matters and with legal advice. Our company can be a complement to the County and we belive that the following services are important for prospective companies: 1. Marketing research for their products. 2. Banking, legal advice, telex, insurance, tax laws and labour laws. 3. Custom duties and import questions. 4. Detailed information for the investor,$ personel inclu- ding possible move here. 5. Reexport to other areas. I want to point out that the apporach for us should be to inform com- panies about the potential market in the US and the importance of ma- nufacturing here. We are talking about increases in their sales, which often means 40 - 60% of their annual volume and investments to be ma- de that should partly be made here. It is very important to inform the companies about codes and regula- tions for them to adjust to the American market. ;#ONI TILIX contrade contrade international can speak from own experience of what is nessecary to establish business in a foreign country. We have made contacts in many countries and speak English, German and Swedish. These languages enables us to work in most of the Eu- ropean, highly industrialized, countries. am born in Germany and grew up there but later moved to Sweden. have worked internationally for many years. An eventual engagement with Chesterfield County will not interfere with my other engagements, which are sales and management. To be able to plan ahead we would very much appreciate a fairly rapid decision in this matter. Sincerly yours, con~ade international of america inc. " contrade BRIEF COST AND TIME PLAN. Per hour $ 65.- Haximum8 hours/day will be invoiced. Per month 60 - 50 hours. WORKING PLAN. June 1985 to December 1985. Follow up on contacts made by the Representatives of the Board of Advisors during their trip to the Hannover Fair. Preparation of documents and a brief information about Chesterfield County today and in the future. Research what kind of European companies would have the best oppor- tunities to work out of Chesterfield. Which countries should be tar- geted for approach. Which Fairs should be of interest. Different stages for moving businesses to the County after approach: 1. Presentation a/ location in relation to Washington, New York, Norfolk, Atlanta, Florida and Chi- cago. "b/ labour and tax laws, unions. c/ banking and money transfer. d/ t~igration for management personel. e/ legal advice. 2. Visits; to the country where the company is located and visits by company personel in Chesterfield. 3. Salespossibilities in Virginia, Eastern US and expansion. 4. Forming of company in Virginia with base in Chesterfield. Sales office and warehouse. 5. Investments (Bonds). 6. Manufacturing (contacts With subcontractors in the County). 7. Groups of companies. contrade Amount of companies to work with in different stages: Stage 1. 40 - 50 companies. " 2. 20 - 30 " " 3. 18 - 25 " " 4. 10- 15 " " 5. 8 - 12 " " 6. 5 - 7 " " 7. 1 - 3 " January 1986 to May 1986. Continuing with stages 1 through 7 and prepare fo~ the next Fair in Germany and visits to potential companies. Follow up on new contacts by personal contacts, information and in- viting them for visits. June 1986 to December 1986. Working with stages 1 through 7 and continue follow up of trip to Europe. November 1986. Planning how to continue in the future. EXPECTATIONS. To have 10 - 15 companies settle in Chesterfield County and create new investments, Jobs and business for the future. Costs: Minimum $ 2.600.-/month. Maximum $ 3.250.-/month, dep. on hours. InCluding al.1 costs except travelling expenses. RECOMMENDATION Mr R. Hunter Manson BROWDER, RUSSELL, MORRIS and BUTCHER Suite 1200 Ross Building RICHMOND, VA 23219 Phone: 804 - 771 9314 COPY contrade International of america inc. Hr Jeff Hezzy Box 40 CHESTERFIELD, VA 23832 Hidlothian, VA, Hay 29, 1985 Dear Hr Hazzy, I would like to confirm to you our asreenent made over the phone to neet on Tuesday, June 4th, et 2.30 p.m. in your offfice. As esreed vithltz Hedrick ye are to discuss the opportunities for some European coupanies to locate their future business in the US to Chesterfield County. The companies are: Ben,a. Sveden. Opcicont. Sweden, Nordiska Piano, Sweden and APH, France. Friendly resards, Copy to Hr Redrick ~.O. Sos 1111 Mldlothlen VA ~31t~ TILEX I04-744 1041 MEETING DATE: July ~,,-4-';'""'19 8 5 SU JgCT: CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY E)OARO OF' ,.SUPERVISORS F'"'! AGENDA (\ '[') ~'l,~ Budget Amendment - Economic Development COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION' Appropriation of $60,000 for Economic Davelopment consultant services. The purpose of this appropriation is to fund recruit- ment services for industrial development. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Amend the County's 1985-86 budget and appropriate $60,000 from the General Fund contingency and transfer these monies to the Economic Development budget. 2. Authorize the County Administrator and Director of Economic Development to proceed with employing the aforementioned recruit- ment service. ATTACHMENTS: YES El NO E] PREPARED BY,,,.., ../(/':~'_...~ ~ ' SIGNATURE COUNTY ADMI NI STRATOR aUPERVISORS .,;,ATE, CHAIRMAN ,. MAY~,VICE CHAIRM~ ~ G. OANI~ ~[ DICTET 4. ~RLAND ~ J~ GI~E ~LO~N ~ICT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY P.O. BOX 40 CHESTERFIELD,VIRGINIA 2~8~2 RICHARD L. HEDRICK MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Honorable Members Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors Richard L. Hedrick County Administrator Stanley R. Balderso~, Jr. Director of Economic Development July 1, 1985 Employment of European Representative for Industrial Development Recruitment The administration has investigated hiring an agent to recruit European manufacturing firms for location in Chesterfield County. We believe that this service will advance the County's economic development and hone a competitive recruitment edge for Chesterfield in this region. This resource would make contacts with European firms offering them market research, banking and legal advice, communication service, information about insurance, tax and labor laws. The resource would answer custom duties and import questions and provide detailed information and assist with logistics supporting the companies move to Chesterfield. This agent would serve as a liaison between the County and European firms. Specifically by the following up on contacts made during the trip to the "Hanover Fair". Preparation of documentation and an information package about Chesterfield County would be accomplished and the agent would research the kinds of European companies best targeted and identify which countries Chesterfield should target for approach. This agent would also advise which trade fairs would be best to advance our interests. In order to expedite this matter the competitive bid process should be waived. /blc cc: Jeffrey B. Muzzy Asst. County Administrator Board of Supervisors July 24, 1985 Page 2 Economic Development (Continued) Budget & Accountin.$. Comments The balance is the General Fund Contingency account is $385,503. Lane B. Ramsey, Director Budget and Accounting Department