Loading...
02-12-1992 PacketCHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUB41~CT: February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER' 5. Worksession on Projected FY93 Revenues COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION A worksession on the FY93 budget has been scheduled for this date. The topic of discussion is projected revenues. Attached are copies of charts which will be presented at the worksession. ATTACHMENTS: YES J~ NO [] PREPARED BY~ James J. L. Stegmaier, Director, Budget & Management SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMI NISTRATOR 00 002 BOS-9891 0 ~oO ~0 O0 003 DRAFT 3OO 26O 2O0 160 lO0 60 0 Millions Total Revenue 1988- 1993 1988 1989 1990 1991 ~ Local Revenue ~'~ State Revenue 1992 1993 Adopled ProJeoted Federal Revenue Local State 1988 80.7% 16.8% 1989 83.2% 14.6% 1990 82.5o/o 15.0% 1991 82.9o/o 14.1O/o 1992 82.80/0 14,4o/o 1993 82.8% 14.2o/o Federal 2.5% 2.1% 2.5% 3.00/0 2.8% 3.1% O0 004 DRAFT 26O 2O0 1{;0 100 $0 0 Millions Local Revenue 1988 - 1993 1988 1989 Real Property Looal 8ales Tax 1990 1991 Personal Properly Permits, Fees, Int. 1992 1993 Adopted ProJeoted ~ All Olher Looal 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Real Property 49.6% 47.4% 50.5% 52.6% 55.2% 55.40/0 Local Personal Sales Tax Property 9.3% 18.3% 8.70/0 19.6% 8.5% 18.1% 7.8% 17.0% 7.9% 17.4% 7.7% 15.2% Permits & Fees 5.80/o 5.8% 5.40/0 4.0% 4.7o/~ 4.4% All Other 17.0% 18.5% 17.5o/~ .18.6% 14.8% 17.3% O0 00§ DRAFT PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF INCREASES IN ASSESSMENTS FOR 1/01/92 New Construction Commercial/Industrial Residential/Agricultural Total New Construction $48,126,700 240,453,900 $288,580,600 (17% of New Construction) (83% of New Construction) (77% of Total Increase) Revaluations Commercial/Industrial Residential/Agricultural Total Revaluations Total Increase $2O,373,7OO 63,463,215 $83,836,915 $372,417,515 (24% of Revaluations) (76% of Revaluations) (23% of Total Increase) Increase in Commercial/Industrial Increase in Residential/Agricultural Total Increase $68,5OO,400 303,917,115 $372,417,515 (18% of Total Increase) (82% of Total Increase) O0 006 0 ~'~ 0 ~ 0 O0 007 O0 008 O~ ~U ................................... JlJJiJJJJ liliJiilZllIIIltllFlIl~ ~,,,J~,jj ............................. III I o~ O0 010 DRAFT Projected Sources of New Funds (In Millions) FY92 Adopted FY93 Budget Proiection Increase FY92 To FY93 Proiection Taxes: Real Estate $109.1 $112.2 $3.1 Personal Property 34.4 30.9 (3.5) Local Sales Tax 15.7 15.7 0.0 Consumer Utility 6.3 6.6 0.3 All Other Taxes 21.6 22.0 0.4 Total Taxes: 187.1 187.4 0.3 Permits & Fees 5.6 5.7 0.1 Fines 1.0 1.1 0.1 Use of Money & Property 2.7 2.0 (0.7) Service Charges 2.8 3.3 0.5 Miscellaneous 2.9 3.1 0.2 State 34.3 34.6 0.3 Federal 6.8 7.5 0.7 Use of Reserves & 1.8 0.3 (1.5) Fund Balance TOTAL REVENUE $245.0 $245.0 $0.0 O0 011 Projected Uses ~w Funds (In Millions) State Sales Tax Local School Operating Local School Debt FY92 Adopted FY93 Budget Projection $19.8 81.4 22.4 $20.0 81.4 24.4 Increase FY92 To FY93 Proiection $0.2 0.0 2.0 Total Transfer To Schools 123.6 125.8 2.2 County Debt County Departments Annual ClP, Reserves, & Fund Balance 13.6 105.3 2.5 13.6 104.6 1.0 0.0 (0.7) (1.5) Total County 121.4 119.2 (2.2) TOTAL GENERAL FUND 245.0 245.0 0.0 O0 012 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE: SUB4ECT: February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: Regional Solid Waste Management 6.a. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION This item presents the regional plan for solid waste management. Chesterfield County has joined with 12 other jurisdictions in the Richmond and Tri-Cities area under the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority (CVWMA) to promote a regional approach to solid waste management. The Authority has been recognized by the Virginia Department of Waste Management as the regional organization for the purpose of planning for and disposal of solid waste,..to include recycling. CVWMA, with the assistance of RRPDC, CPDC and a private consultant has prepared a Central Virginia Solid Waste Management Plan to map the region's plan for waste management through the year 2010 and meet the requirements of Virginia Regulations 672-50-01. Representatives from RRPDC will brief the plan and the County staff will outline Chesterfield's role as a participant. The Board of Supervisors will be asked to adopt the attached resolution in support of the plan. ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO r-I SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADM I N I STRATOR 00 013 BOS-9891 Page 2 February 12, 1992 Action Required by the Board: The Board is asked to endorse the Central Virginia Solid Waste Management Plan by adoption of the attached resolution. O0 014 WHEREAS, the Virginia Waste Management Board has adopted regulations which require every city, county, and town or region in the Commonwealth of Virginia to develop a solid waste management plan in accordance with VR 672-50-01 and that this plan demonstrate how the locality or region will meet State mandated recycling objectives; and, WHEREAS, on May 31, 1991, the Director of the Virginia Department of Waste Management designated the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission and Crater Planning District Commission as the entities responsible for the development of a regional solid waste management plan for the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority (CVWMA) service area and designated the CVWMA as the legal entity responsible for implementation of the plan; and, WHEREAS, the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission staff, with assistance from the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority and Crater Planning District Commission staffs and input from the Authority's Technical Advisory Committee and Planning District Commission's citizen Advisory Committee, has prepared a draft Central Virginia Solid Waste Management Plan in accordance with the VR 672-50-01; and, WHEREAS, achieving State mandated recycling objectives and meeting the solid waste management needs of the CVWMA service area require local government support of and commitment to the implementation of the Central Virginia Solid Waste Management Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield adopted a resolution on June 13, 1990, indicating the County of Chesterfield support for the development of a regional solid waste management plan; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield has considered the draft Central Virginia Solid Waste Management Plan; now therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield supports the Central Virginia Solid Waste Management Plan and is committed to its successful implementation; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield agrees to cooperate with the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority, Crater and Richmond Regional Planning District Commissions, and other member governments to maintain, update, and implement the Plan adopted by the Authority; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield recognizes that in order for the Plan to be successfully implemented, each jurisdiction has an obligation to meet the recycling and other solid waste management programmatic commitments in the adopted Plan and that integrity O0 015 of the Plan may require regional coordination of major local solid waste management programs through a process to be mutually established among the three participating regional agencies and 13 local governments. O0 016 . CENT_ IML VIR GINLS WASTE PLAN //'~~ DRAFT Prince~/ Executive Summary Submitted By: Central Virginia Waste Management Authority Prepared By: R~hmond Regional Planning District Cormnission Crater Planning District Commission DRAFT CENTRAL VIRGINIA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLaN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Submitted to the Virginia Department of Waste Management By: Central Virginia Waste Management Authority Prepared By: Richmond Regional Planning District Commission Crater Planning District Commission Printed on Recycled Paper December 1991 O0 018 INTRODUCTION The major elements and recommendations of the Central Virginia Solid Waste Management Plan are summarized in this document. For complete details on the Plan, the reader is referred to the Plan document and its Technical Appendix. Purpose The Central Virginia Solid Waste Management Plan was prepared to meet the requirements of Virginia Regulations 672-50-01. These regulations require that every locality or region within the Commonwealth of Virginia prepare a solid waste management plan for approval by the Virginia Department of Waste Management. In meeting this requirement, each plan must demonstrate how the locality or region will meet State mandated recycling objectives of 10 percent by December 1991; 15 percent by December 1993; and, 25 percent by December 1995. Scope The Central Virginia Solid Waste Management Plan addresses all elements of solid waste management including generation, collection, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal. It does not include management recommendations for infectious medical, hazardous, or radioactive wastes. Furthermore, although the Plan does address both private and public sector solid waste management issues and encourages public-private partnerships, its primary focus is on governmental actions and initiatives to meet the area's solid waste management needs. The Plan stresses voluntary approaches for meeting State mandated recycling objectives, rather than regulatory and mandatory ones. The geographic scope of the Plan is the 2,442 square mile service area of the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority (CVWMA) shown on Map 1, which had a 1990 population of approximately 858,000. The service area contains the following 13 local jurisdictions located within the boundaries of the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission (RRPDC) and the Crater Planning District Commission (Crater PDC): · RRPDC Jurisdictions * Charles City County * Chesterfield County * Goochland County * Hanover County * Henrico County * New Kent County * Powhatan County * City of Richmond * Town of Ashland · Crater PDC Jurisdiction~ * Prince George County * City of Colonial Heights * City of Hopewell * City of Petersburg O0 019 (D (D ./ O0 020 Participants In Plan Development After receiving resolutions from the 13 local governments in the CVWMA service area, the Director of the Virginia Department of Waste Management designated on May 31, 1991, the RRPDC and Crater PDCs as the planning entities responsible for development of the regional solid waste management plan and the CVWMA as the legal entity responsible for implementation of the plan. The joint responsibilities and duties of the two planning district commissions and the CVWMA are spelled out in memoranda of understanding between the three regional agencies. A 17-person Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) was established by the two planning district commissions (PDCs) to provide formal citizen input in the development of the Plan. The CVWMA's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), consisting of appointed technical representatives from each local government and private sector waste industry representatives, provided technical review and comment to the planning district commission staffs in development of the Plan. Development and Adoption Process DeveloDment Process. general steps: The Plan was developed following these Baseline information of regional waste management system was collected and evaluated; Estimates and forecasts of waste generation were made; A regional policy framework was prepared to guide plan development and implementation; Existing and future solid waste management needs were identified; Alternative waste management options to meet needs were developed and evaluated; Waste management options were selected and incorporated into a preferred regional solid waste management system; and, Plan strategies and actions with an implementation schedule were prepared. 00 021 Adoption Process. The Plan adoption process is as follows: e Action by the Crater and Richmond Regional PDCs in December 1991 and January 1992 recommending Plan adoption by the CVWMA; e Holding of public hearing(s) by the CVWMA in January 1992; e Action by local governments on resolutions of support for the Plan and its implementation during the months of December and January 1992; and, Adoption of Plan by the CVWMA in January 1992 and submittal to the Department of Waste Management by February 3, 1992. S,~mmary of Key Plan Concepts The key concepts of the Central Virginia Solid Waste Management Plan are: Establishment of recycling rate objectives to meet or surpass State mandated recycling goals. / Des~gnatio~of the Richmond Regional PDC an~ the Crater PD~ as th~ entities ~espons_~ie for p~an development and m~intena~ce in 9Ooperat~on with/, the ~A.; and ~esig~a~ion of th~ CVWMA ~s the en~ity responsible for ~lani~plementati~n. ~ ~ Establishment of a formal institutional framework and process for plan development, maintenance, and implementation that may eventually require regional review of local solid waste management activities, such as proposals for new landfill facilities, significant changes in landfill tipping fees and operations, and proposals for waste-to-energy and other volume reduction and waste disposal, projects. Reliance on local governments, working in close cooperation with the CVWMA, to both fund and ensure the implementation of recycling programs within their respective jurisdictions and meet service coverage target levels identified for these programs in the Plan. [Local governments will be asked to adopt resolutions of support for the Plan and a general commitment to carrying out their responsibilities for Plan implementation.] Establishment of a process and framework to improve the region's solid waste management data base and estimation 4 00 022 techniques, including the passage of mandatory waste reporting ordinances by each local government. Reliance on a plan maintenance and evaluation process that provides for the evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the Plan's implementation actions and programs on a periodic basis to ensure that the region is meeting its State mandated recycling goals and to determine the need for Plan amendments and updates to · respond to changing conditions. Implementation of a preferred regional solid waste management system for the CVWMA service area that: provides for regional media and public education programs under the leadership of the CVWMA in coordination with local governments to promote and enhance source reduction, reuse, and recycling efforts for residential, commercial, and special wastes in the region; relies on voluntary recycling programs until such time that it is determined that in order to meet State recycling goals the effectiveness of regional recycling programs needs to be improved through the implementation of mandatory recycling ordinances; emphasizes public sector leadership and funding for residential recycling programs, while encouraging private sector initiatives in the recycling of commercial and industrial wastes through the use of public sector mass media and education programs; recognizes that the public sector may have to more actively promote and facilitate private sector commercial recycling efforts through expansion of its public education and outreach programs, if the region is unable to meet its recycling objectives; provides for a minimum level of recycling for the entire CVWMA service area by the end of 1993 and the full implementation by December 1995 of comprehensive residential recycling programs within all 13 jurisdictions for the collection and recycling of plastics, aluminum, bi-metal cans, glass, and newspaper to ensure the region meets State mandated recycling goals and to increase the diversion of waste from landfill disposal; 5 O0 023 proposes comprehensive residential recycling programs (estimated annual cost of $4.9 million) that provide: regional drop-off centers to serve all rural, low density areas; curbside service for all medium density areas; and, local drop-off centers to serve all high density areas (multi-family and group quarters); calls for the gradual implementation of a yard waste collection and composting program within medium density areas and for the future evaluation of the need for the enactment of yard waste prohibitions at landfill facilities; supports continuation of the region's existing waste collection and transportation system with some improvements, but recognizes the need to enhance and promote a competitive environment for these services with contingency strategies for limiting potential risks resulting from increased reliance on the private marketplace for solid waste collection and disposal; relies on existing public and, increasingly, private landfills within and in close proximity to the service area to meet the region's waste disposal needs through 2010; and, calls for the future evaluation of waste-to- energy and other waste reduction alternatives, should these alternatives become more cost competitive with landfill disposal options. Development of specific recommendations in 1992 to identify feasible options for local governments to fund recycling programs. Provision of sufficient staffing and funding resources for the CVWMA to carry out its Plan implementation responsibilities, particularly public education and outreach programs enhancing and promoting residential and commercial recycling. Support for regional recycling programs under sponsorship of the CVWMA rather than locally sponsored programs due to the marketing advantages and risk sharing advantages of regionally operated programs. 6 00 024 PLAN BACKGROUND INFORMATION pOpulation and Employment Projections The population of the CVWMA service area is projected to increase to almost 1.09 million by the year 2010. The highest jurisdictional growth rates during the 20- year planning period (1990-2010) are forecast for: New Kent County (66.7 percent); Hanover County (66.1 percent); and, Chesterfield County (57.8 percent). The employment of the CVWMA service area is projected to increase by over 41 percent in the planning period from an estimated 493,400 in 1990 to 696,490 by the year 2010. In terms of absolute numbers, the highest jurisdictional employment growth during the 20-year planning period is forecast for Chesterfield County (+104,210), Henrico County (+58,520), Hanover County (+16,620), and the City of Richmond (+12,440). Waste Generation and Composition The CVWMA service area generated over 1.57 million tons of waste in 1990, which translates into 1.8 tons per capita. Of this total, approximately 1.0 million tons were generated by households, commercial businesses, and institutions. The annual tonnage of waste generated in the region is expected to grow to over 2.0 million tons by 2010. [See Figure 1.] The projected annual tonnages of household (residential), and commercial waste generated by locality for the years 1990 and 2010 are shown in Figure 2. The growth of waste is directly related to the increase in each jurisdiction's population and employment base. Excluding industrial wastes, paper products account (by weight) for 42 percent of the total waste generated followed by ferrous metals and auto bodies (18 percent), and yard waste (10 percent). The composition of the total 1990 waste stream is shown in Figure 3. An estimated 363,000 tons of waste within the CVWMA service area were recycled in 1990; however, if ferrous metals and automobiles are excluded only 158,000 tons were recycled. Of this total, approximately 34,800 tons were residential principal recyclable materials and O0 025 I I I 0 (iD (iD 0 0 0 0 cq 0 O0 026 FIGURE 2 COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL WASTE GENERATION CENTRAL VIRGINIA WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY SERVICE AREA TONS/YEAR (TPY) 1990 AND 2010 Jurisdictions (< 20,000 TPY) (1000'S) Ashland Charles City Co. Colonial Heights Goochland Co. New Kent Co. Powhatan Co. 5 10 15 Jurisdictions (20,000 - 100,000 TPY) (1,000's) Hanover Co. Hopewell Petersburg Prince George Co. Jurisdictions (> 200,000 TPY) (1,000's) Chesterfield Co. Henrico Co. Richmond 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 I 200 250 300 350 400 I ~ I I I 100 450 I Source: RRPDC projections, June 1991. 9 O0 027 Figure 3 1990 Landfilled and Recycled Waste Tonnages/Year CVWMA Service Area Private Landfills 8©7,000 Source: RRPDC Staff Estimates, June I991. Figure 4 1990 CVWMA Service Area Total Waste Stream Composition (in Thousands of Tons) Plastics 91 Paper Produgls 543 Ferrous/Non Ferrous 248 Glass 60 Yard/Land Debris 154 Industrial 287 Other 128 Supp. Recyclables 52 Source: HDR Waste Projecllons & RRPDC and Craler PDC Recycling & Induslrlal Surveys 00 028 49,400 tons were commercial principal materials. recyclable In 1990, 23 percent of all solid wastes generated in the CVWMA service area was recycled. The remainder (1.2 million tons) was disposed of in public and private landfills. [See Figure 4.] The existing background recycling rate (1990), calculated per State guidelines, is 13.7 percent (if ferrous metals and automobiles are excluded) or 26.8 percent if these two recycled materials are included, as permitted under existing State regulations. Existing Regional Waste Management System Waste collection services in the CVWMA service area are provided by a mix of public and private waste hauling and collection services. Approximately 74 percent of the area's residential waste is collected through' local government programs, about 40 percent of which is collected through voluntary citizen drop-offs at green boxes and public landfills. The overwhelming majority of commercial and industrial waste is collected by private waste haulers. Existing public regional recycling programs (curbside and drop-off centers) are provided by private waste management firms through contracts with CVWMA. Smaller scale recycling programs are operated by individual local governments. In addition, numerous private sector recycling programs are in operation. 20 private recycling processing centers have been identified in the CVWMA service area. Landfill disposal of non-recycled waste is provided at seven public and four private sanitary landfills located within the CVWMA se~¢ice area. Construction debris is disposed of at 10 private debris landfill facilities. POLICY FRAMEWORK The following is a synopsis of major concepts advanced in the goal, objectives and policies for the Central Virginia Solid Waste Management Plan: ~oal The overall goal of the Plan is to provide "a comprehensive, integrated system of solid waste management in the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority service area that achieves specific service, 11 O0 O29 health and safety, financial, environmental and institutional objectives, yet balances these public values in a manner that brings maximum benefit to the service area as a whole." objectives and Policies #1 Establish a Regional Plan and planning process that meets State regulations and fulfills regional and local needs and priorities, and outlines a program of implementation. #2 Meet the solid waste management needs of the CVWMA service area and individual member localities through the year 2010 in an efficient, cost-effective, and equitable manner, while providing adequate flexibility in meeting unforeseen needs and integrating new and innovative processes. #3 Support a regional solid waste management planning process based on the State's adopted hierarchy of strategies: planning, source reduction, reuse, recycling, resource recovery, incineration and landfill disposal. #4 Support and encourage public and private partnerships in meeting solid waste management needs. #5 Meet or exceed the State mandated recycling goals for the CVWMA service area of 10 percent by December 31, 1991, 15 percent by December 31, 1993, and 25 percent by December 31, 1995. #6 Protect the public health and the environment, while meeting regional solid waste management needs. #7 Secure maximum public support for the regional solid waste management planning and implementation process through public participation and education programs. NEEDS ABBESBMENT Through the planning process, the most significant solid waste management needs were identified as: Diversification of the solid waste management practices and technology through establishment of comprehensive residential and commercial recycling programs to meet the State recycling mandates and to reduce reliance on disposal of wastes in landfill facilities. Definition of public and private waste reduction and reuse programs appropriate for meeting the region's solid waste management needs. 12 O0 030 Identification and securing of stable markets for recyclable materials and the expansion of existing public and private recycling programs. Establishment of recycling targets for the region higher than required by current State law and regulations to: ensure that progress is made in diversion of wastes from landfills; meet public and political expectations; and, place the region and local governments in a flexible and advantageous position for responding to changes in State regulations and other uncertainties. Reliance on landfill disposal as the preferred alternative for disposal of unrecyclable wastes with the recognition that waste-to-energy and other disposal options need to be evaluated in the future, if conditions and market factors significantly change. Reliance on existing public and private landfill capacity within and in close proximity to the CVWMA service area to sufficiently handle disposal of the region's projected waste needs through the 20-year planning period. MANAGEMENT OPTIONS EVALUATION AND SELECTION In developing the preferred solid waste management options to address the identified solid waste management needs, the participants in the planning process followed a two-step process: Step One: A series of waste alternative scenarios were prepared by a consultant engineering firm and screened by the CAC and TAC. These scenarios focused on front- end waste management options, such as source reduction/reuse and recycling. In addition, information was prepared by the consultant on back-end alternatives, such as waste transfer, volume reduction, and waste disposal, which could be combined with each of the front- end scenarios. Step Two: Based on an evaluation of these scenarios, specific management options were selected for further analysis and evaluation. The results of this analysis provided the management options, which were selected by the CAC and TAC for incorporation in the preferred regional solid waste management system and the Plan strategies and actions. RECOMMENDED PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM The key policy elements of the Central Virginia Solid Waste Management Plan consist of: recycling and waste diversion 13 00 objectives; preferred regiOnal solid waste management system; and the Plan strategies and actions with an implementation schedule. Recycling objectives The following recycling rates have been established as objectives to be met in implementing the Plan: (The recycling rates calculated in strict conformity with State regulations are shown in brackets [].) · December 31, 1991: 14 % [27 %] · December 31, 1993: 17 % [29 %] · December 31, 1995: 19 % [30 %] · December 31, 2000: 21% [32 %] · December 31, 20].0: 24 % [33 %] Preferred Regional Solid Waste Management System The elements of the preferred regional solid waste management system are described in the following sections: [Map 2 identifies key facilities for the preferred system including landfill and transfer facilities and the general extent of existing medium/high density residential areas, excluding institutional centers in low density areas, which are to be served by curbside and local drop- off center recycling programs.] Source Reduction and Reuse. Source reduction and reuse would be encouraged in the service area through public media and education efforts of the CVWMA acting in cooperation with local litter control and recycling coordinators. Technical and volunteer assistance would be sought for these programs from the Virginia Departments of Waste Management and Education, Virginia Cooperative Extension Service, local schools, recycling organizations, businesses, and volunteer groups. These programs would focus on source reduction/reuse practices, such as convincing households to leave grass clippings on lawns and/or compost leaves and grass, and on consumer education and non-residential waste reduction/reuse. Recycling Proqram~. The preferred recycling program calls for establishment throughout the CVWMA service area of regional residential recycling programs for the collection of glass, newspaper, bi-metals, aluminum, and plastic. Low density areas (less than 300 persons per square mile-13 percent of the region's population) would be served by regional drop-off centers. Medium density areas (more than 300 persons per square mile in primarily single family and duplex housing-72 percent of the region's population) would be served by curbside recycling programs. High density areas (multi-family and group quarters-15 percent of the 14 O0 O32 region's population) would be served by local drop-off centers. [The general areas to be served by curbside programs and local drop-off centers are shown on Map 2.] In addition, a comprehensive yard waste recycling program to provide curbside collection services in medium density areas would be instituted. When fully implemented, this program would provide weekly collection of leaves during fall and spring, monthly on-call collection of brush throughout the year, and weekly collection of grass during growing seasons for composting. This program would possibly require three to four sites for centralized composting of collected yard waste. At some time in the future, some evaluation of the need to prohibit yard wastes from disposal at the area's landfills should be considered depending on the success of voluntary yard waste collection programs. Commercial recycling programs would be the responsibility of the private sector, until it can be ascertained that more public involvement is required to meet higher recycling rates. The CVWMA, through its public education and media efforts, would encourage and assist these private recycling programs. The commercial recycling education programs will target cardboard, office and computer paper, yard waste, glass, metals, and other materials. Waste Collection and TransDortation. The existing waste collection and transportation system would continue to be relied upon. Techniques of collection and service providers would not be changed, although improvements to the system would be pursued to reduce costs, increase level of service, and support regional recycling programs. As publicly owned landfills are phased out, it may become advantageous for the CVWMA and its member jurisdictions to provide publicly accessible transfer stations to ensure a competitive waste management market. Waste Disposal. The preferred method for disposal of unrecyclable waste would continue to be landfilling. Within the service area, disposal of the region's waste would be at the following private and public facilities, with anticipated closure date for public facilities shown in parentheses (Map 2 reference number is shown in brackets): Public Facilities · Hanover County (may expand) · Goochland County · Henrico County-Springfield Rd · Henrico County-Charles City Rd (may become active in future) Chesterfield County-Northern Area Chesterfield County-Southern Area (may become active in the future) Hopewell Petersburg (1994) [1] (2030-new) [2] (2005) [3] (1991) [3A] (2010) [4] Inactive [5] (1994) [6] (2000) [7] 17 O0 034 · Prince George County (1994) [8] Private Facilities · BFI [1] · BFI [2] · Chambers [3] · Shoosmith Brothers [4] In addition, further landfill space would be available at new private landfills being constructed or planned in nearby Sussex County, King and Queen County, Amelia County, and Cumberland County. Major Plan Strategies and Actions The Plan identifies numerous broad policy statements, called strategies, intended to guide efforts in the implementation of the Plan. Actions are identified that delineate specific activities and programs for implementing each strategy. The responsibilities of the three regional agencies and local governments for carrying out actions are specified in the Plan. A summary of the major actions and milestones for implementation of the Plan are presented in Figure 5. The implementation program provides a schedule for completion of actions. The following paragraphs briefly summarize the key actions: (For detailed information, the reader is referred to the full plan document.) Plan Maintenance. Actions under Plan maintenance formally establish the regional planning process for plan development, maintenance, update, and implementation. As proposed in the Plan, the two PDCs would be responsible for plan development and maintenance and the CVWMA would be responsible for plan implementation, including necessary consistency reviews. The actual assignment of duties and responsibilities is to be worked out between the three regional agencies. The citizen Advisory Committee is to be made a permanent body. Its responsibilities for providing formal public input in the planning process are to continue, but would be expanded to include providing advice to the CVWMA on its programs. A critical element for successful implementation of the Plan is commitment from local governments 'to support the Plan adopted by the CVWMA and to meet their responsibilities for Plan implementation. To ensure these responsibilities are met, 18 O0 O35 036 037 0 O0 039 significant local government solid waste management programs would be subject to some level of consistency review by the CVWMA. Therefore, local government resolutions of support for the Plan will be sought, including recognition of each locality's responsibilities for Plan implementation. Lastly, but very importantly, actions are proposed to annually update the solid waste management data and to complete necessary studies to improve waste and recycled materials estimates. The enactment of local mandatory waste reporting ordinances is called for to significantly improve the information used for the regional solid waste management data base and planning process. Recyclinq Proqrams. A major element of the regional recycling program and the handling of special wastes is the establishment of media and public education programs through the auspices of the CVWMA. Due primarily to budgetary limitations, the Plan initially calls for the creation of at least one new full-time staff position to coordinate media and public education activities. Further personnel additions, particularly to promote and facilitate non- residential recycling programs, may be required in the future. To meet the recycling objectives established by the Plan, the preferred regional waste management system's recycling program for collection and recycling of aluminum, glass, bi-metals, newspaper, and plastics is proposed for full implementation throughout the CVWMA service area by December 1995. Local governments are charged with meeting the specific service coverage target levels for these programs, shown graphically in Figure 6. [The estimated annual costs (1991 dollars) for full implementation of these programs for each locality are provided in the figure.] To ensure progress is being made on meeting the region's recycling objectives, the Plan requires that the entire CVWMA service area be provided some minimum level of residential recycling services by the end of 1993. The minimum level of service is considered regional drop-off facilities for the collection of the five principal recyclable materials cited in the previous paragraph. The Plan highly recommends that the recycling programs be operated through the CVWMA; however, local governments may implement them on their own, as long as it can be demonstrated that such efforts meet target and performance levels established by the Plan. Local governments with medium density populations are also called upon to collect and recycle specific tonnages of yard waste during the next four year period, as shown in Figure 6. In 23 00 040 Page 1 of 3 FIGURE 6 RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING TARGET LEVELS CENTRAL VIRGINIA WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY SERVICE AREA Jurisdiction PD 15 Ashland* Charles city Chesterfield* Goochland** Hanover* MD HD LD LD MD HD LD HD LD MD HD Residential Non-Yard Wastes ~ Population Served ($1,000) 1995 Annual Costs 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% [Total [Total 26.5 3.5 30.0] 25.0 25.0] 69.9 1,342.1 [Total [Total 25.3 1,437.3] 46.5 1.7 43. ] 118.5 193.2 3.4 [Total 315.1] LD - Low density coverage: regional drop-off centers MD - Medium density coverage: curbside collection HD - High density coverage: local drop-off centers 24 00 041 Page 2 of 3 Jurisdiction PD 15 Henrico* LD MD HD New Kent LD Powhatan LD HD Richmond* PD 19 MD HD Colonial Hgts.* MD HD Hopewell* MD Petersburg* MD HD Prince George* LD MD HD Residential Non-Yard Wastes ~ Population Served 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% ($1,000) 1995 Annual Costs REGIONAL TOTAL: 49.6 1,105.1 55.6 [Total 1,210.3] 47.6 [Total 47.6] 54.4 3.2 [Total 57.6] 1,002 · 2 82.3 [Total 1,084.5] 1~5.3 2.7 [Total 108.0] 158.1 [Total 158.1] 242.3 5.5 [Total 247.8] 41.3 87.3 4.6 [Total 133.2 ] 4,902.7 LD - Low density coverage: regional drop-off centers MD - Medium density coverage: curbside collection HD.~- High density coverage: local drop-off centers 25 O0 042' Page 3 of 3 Residential Yard Wastes Tons Recycled/Year (1000,s) Jurisdiction 1991 1993 1995 PD 15 Ashland 1.0 1.0 1.0 Chesterfield 7.0 7.9 8.9 Hanover 0.2 0.5 1.0 Henrico 5.0 6.9 7.9 Richmond 7.0 7.5 8.0 PD 19 Colonial Heights 1.0 1.0 1.0 Hopewell 1.5 1.5 1.5 Petersburg 1.5 1.5 1.5 Prince George -- 0.3 0.6 REGIONAL TOTALS 24.2 28.1 31.4 Notes: * By 1993, all medium density areas not served by curbside recycling service and high density areas will be served by regional drop-off centers until either curbside recycling service (medium density areas) or local drop-off centers (high density areas) are provided to these areas by 1995. Does not show provision of curbside recycling programs in scattered subdivisions within Goochtand County [approxi- mately 1,400 people served in 1991]. 26 O0 043 addition, the Plan calls for evaluation of existing yard waste programs in the near future to determine need for prohibition of yard waste disposal at landfills. At some future date, the region may have to move more aggressively to implement the comprehensive residential yard waste program proposed under the preferred regional solid waste management system, if recycling objectives cannot be met. Specific recommendations on funding regional/local recycling programs are to be prepared within the next nine months to enable local governments to expand needed recycling efforts in their respective jurisdictions. System Manaqement. The anticipated closure dates of public landfills are indicated in Figure 6. In addition, specific studies are proposed to address the potential problems associated with the multitude of small waste haulers and the potential problems related to increased reliance on private landfill facilities. KEY PLAN BENEFITS If the Plan were successfully implemented, it would provide the following benefits and results to the region: State mandated recycling objectives for the years 1991, 1993, and 1995 would be met, and the region and its local governments would be in an excellent position to anticipate and react to any likely changes in State legislation and regulations or other unforeseen problems and opportunities. Approximately 160,000 tons (double the 1990 tonnage) of residential and commercial waste would be diverted annually from regional landfills by 1995, conserving landfill space and natural resources, and resulting in an increased annual savings from 1990 of $3.42 million in avoided landfill costs. The promotion of increased privatization of the region's solid waste management system and enhancement of a competitive market environment for waste management services should result in overall lower public waste management costs and less encumbrance of public debt. 27 O0 044 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AG E NDA MEETING DATE: February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: Street light Installat ion Cost Approvals 6.Bo COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Chesterfield County Streetlight Policy was revised by the Board of Supervisors on August 22, 1988. Streetlight requests from individual citizens or civic groups are received in the Department of Environmental Engineering. Staff requests cost quotations from Virginia Power for each request received. When the quotation is received, staff re-examines each request and presents them at the next available regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors for consideration. Staff provides the Board with an evaluation of each request relative to the three evaluation criteria set forth in the Policy: 1. Streetlights should be located at intersections; o There should be a minimum average of 600 vehicles per day (VPD) passing the requested location if it is an intersection, or 400 VPD if the requested location is not an intersection; ATTACHMENTS: CONTINUED NEXT PAGE YES ::~ NO [] Richard M~ McElfish, P E Director Environmental Engineering SIGNATURE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 0 0 045 St reet light Cost Approvals February 12, 1992 Page 2 Petitions are required and should include 75% of residents within 200 feet of the requested location and if at an intersection, a ma3ority of those residents immediately ad3acent to the intersection. Cost quotations from Virginia Power are valid, in general, for a period of 90 days. The Board, upon presentation of the cost quo- tation may approve, defer, or deny the expenditure of funds for the streetlight installation. If the expenditure is approved, staff authorizes Virginia Power to install the streetllght. A denial will cancel the pro3ect and staff will so notify the requester. A deferral will be brought before the Board again when specified. BERMUDA DISTRICT: Locations approved at the November 13, 1991, meeting: Intersection of/A~stin Road and Whitley Street Cost to install'-~treetligh~ - Does not meet minimum criteria for petition. Intersection of Whitley Court and Whltley Street Cost to install streetlight: $2,007.00 - Does not meet minimum criteria for vehicles per day. Location approved at the December 11, 1991, Board meeting: Intersection of Chesterfield Meadows Drive and Old Wrexham Road (southern end of Chesterfield Meadows Drive loop) Cost to install streetlight: $1,109.00 - Does not meet minimum criteria for vehicles per day. DALE DISTRICT: Location approved at the January 8, 1992, meeting: Shillcutt Road in the vicinity of the dead end at 4510 Cost to install streetlight: $1,623.00 - Does not meet minimum criteria for intersection or vehicles per day. O0 046 Board of Supervisors Agenda Item Subject: Streetlight Installation Cost Approvals Date: February 12, 1992 Page 3 BUDGET .M~ID MANAGEMENT COMMENTS The current balance of the Bermuda District S~reet Light Account is $10,280. If all the requested street lights are approved, $4,754 will be expended from this account leaving a balance of $5,526. The current balance of the Dale District Street Light Account is $11,316. If all the requested street lights are approved, $1,623 will be expended from this account leaving a balance of $9,693. James J. L,f::~tegrnaier, Director ~-~Budget anal Management 00 04 7 B0132.wp1/Bos#4 REQUEST RECEIVED: October 15, 1991 STREETLIGHT REQUEST Bermuda District ESTIMATE REQUESTED: November 20, 1991 ESTIMATE DAYS ESTIMATE RECEIVED: January 21, 1992 OUTSTANDING: 62 COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: $1638.00 NAME OF REQUESTOR: Mary Anne White ADDRESS: 14708 Whitley Street, Chester, VA 23831 PHONE NUMBER: HOME - 530-3278 WORK - 866-8901  IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF REQUEST Austin Road and Whitley Street REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATION IS POLE ALREADY EXISTS AT THIS LOCATION POLICY CRITERIA: INTERSECTION: VEHICLES PER DAY: PETITION: Qualified Qualified Not Qualified, less than 75% of residents within 200 feet COMMENTS: Requestor states: "We live on a street that has several small children. Has had stolen bike, break-in, and concrete figures stolen out of my yard. We request a minimum of 3 lights, but would like more if possible. This location is a school bus stop." Location was approved at the November 13, 1991, Board meeting. At t achment s ? No O0 048 REQUEST RECEIVED: October 15, 1991 STREETLIGHT REQUEST Bermuda District ESTIMATE REQUESTED: ESTIMATE DAYS ESTIMATE RECEIVED: January 21, 1992 OUTSTANDING: COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: $2007.00 NAME OF REQUESTOR: Mary Anne White ADDRESS: 14708 Whitely Street, Chester, VA 23831 PHONE NUMBER: HOME - 530-3278 WORK - November 20, 1991 62 REQUEST LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF IS Whitley Court and Whitley Street REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATION IS POLE ALREADY EXISTS AT THIS LOCATION POLICY CRITERIA: INTERSECTION: VEHICLES PER DAY: PETITION: Qualified Not Qualified, less than 600 VPD Qualified COMMENTS: Requestor states: "We live on a street that has several small children. Has had stolen bike, break-in, and concrete figures stolen out of my yard. We request a minimum of 3 lights, but would like more if possible. This location is a school bus stop." Location was approved at the November 13, 1991, Board meeting. At t achment s ? No 00 049 STREETLIGHT REQUEST Bermuda District REQUEST RECEIVED: November 20, 1991 ESTIMATE REQUESTED: December 14, 1991 ESTIMATE DAYS ESTIMATE RECEIVED: January 21, 1992 OUTSTANDING: 38 COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: S1109.00 NAME OF REQUESTOR: William Wright ADDRESS: Wrexham Homeowners' Association, 6115 Chesterfield Meadows Drive Chesterfield, Va 23282 PHONE NUMBER: HOME - 751-0236 WORK - 748-5859 REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF Chesterfield Meadows Drive and Old Wrexham Road (South) REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATION IS POLE ALREADY EXISTS AT THIS LOCATION POLICY CRITERIA: INTERSECTION: VEHICLES PER DAY: PETITION: Qualified Not Qualified, less than 600 VPD Qualified COMMENTS: Requestor states: "This area has been a problem due to people from outside the neighborhood parking, meeting others (at all hours of the night), dumping trash, & drinking alcoholic beverages. The police must be called frequently to report these incidents." Location approved at the December 11, 1991, Board meeting. Attachments? No O0 050 REQUEST RECEIVED: December 3, 1991 STREETLIGHT REQUEST Dale District ESTIMATE REQUESTED: January 10, 1992 ESTIMATE DAYS ESTIMATE RECEIVED: January 27, 1992 OUTSTANDING: 17 COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: S1623.00 NAME OF REQUESTOR: Sarah Fulcher ADDRESS: 4510 Shillcutt Road, Richmond, VA 23237 PHONE NUMBER: HOME - 275-1927 WORK - 743-5785 REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF REQUEST AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATION IS IS NOT Shillcutt Road, vicinity of 4510, at dead end POLE ALREADY EXISTS AT THIS LOCATION. POLICY CRITERIA: INTERSECTION: VEHICLES PER DAY: PETITION: Not Qualified, location not an intersection Not Qualified, less than 400 VPD Qualified COMMENTS: Location approved at the January 8, 1992, Board meeting. Requestor states: "I live at 4510 Shillcutt Road, which is the end of the street, with woods on three sides of me and need a streetlight. Teenagers and young adults go into the woods all times of the day and night. Often at 12 midnight, 1 A. M. and later there are unoccupied cars parked in front of my house. The people that did occupy the car(s) are still in the woods. Many mornings there are beer bottles/ cans and other trash on the street and yard where in car parties have taken place." (Please see continuation page) Attachments? Yes O0 051 Requestor's statement continuation.. "Two weeks ago Chesterfield County Fire Department was called by someone in the neighborhood when they spotted a barn fire in the woods. This was between 11P. M. and 12 midnight. "Someone has marked trees in the woods with red paint which lead to an old cabin. The cabin has been torn up and is filled with empty beer containers. "My husband works from 4 P. M. to 12 midnight, therefore, I am alone in the evenings. My in-laws live on the other side of Shillcutt and are 70 and 72 years of age. "We have put a posted sign in our yard, which looks tacky, and this has not helped the problem. "I would greatly appreciate any action you can take to have a street light installed at the end of Shillcutt Road..." 00 052 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: 6.C.1. Appointment of Airport Advisory Board Members COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION This item requests Board Appointments/Reappointments to the Airport Advisory Board. At the January 2, 1992, Board of Supervisor's organizational meeting, the following appointments/retentions were made to the Airport Advisory Board with all terms to expire on February 14, 1992. New Appointments Replacinq Mr. Samuel B. Thomas Mr. Richard M. King Mr. John Mazza, Jr. - Matoaca Dr. W. Gene Kilbourne - Bermuda Retained Mr. Roger Burns - Clover Hill M~M~affer - Dale Although no formal action has been taken by the existing Board, Mr. Philip EVans representing Midlothian District is still a member until February 14, 1992. ATTACHMENTS: YES [] .o 1[ William H. Howell Director of General Services SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMI NISTRATOR O0 053 BOS-9891 Page 2 February 12, 1992 The terms of all members, both new appointees and retained members, expire on February 14, 1992 which was the expiration date of the terms of all former Advisory Board members. This item requests appointments/reappointments to be effective February 14, 1992, for a new three (3) year term to the Airport Advisory Board for all five magisterial districts. O0 054 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: ~: APPOINTMENTS John Tyler Community College Local Board 6.C.2. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION,: During the discussion of appointments at the Board meeting on January 2, 1992, the term for Mr. Jack Howe serving on the John Tyler Community College Local Board was inaccurately reflected. His term is effective through December 31, 1992 and, therefore, the Board needs to rescind their action appointing him to serve through December 31, 1995. ATTACHMENTS: YES ~, NO J~ SIGNATURE:: ~ADMINISTRATOR O0 O55/ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA February 12, 19 9 2 MEETING DATE: ITEM NUMBER: 6. D. ,~,IBJECT: Amending of Contract with PlanGraphics, Inc. for Consulting Services Relating to the County Geogra- phic Information System (GIS) Project. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OFINFORMATION: The Board of Supervisors is requested to allow the County Administrator to amend the County's existing contract with PlanGraphics, Inc. to include additional services related to the continued implementation of the County Geographic Information System. BACKGROUND: In November, 1988, the Board of Supervisors approved funding for a CountY-wide GIS, a collection of computer hardware, software, and geographic data designed to efficiently capture, store, update, analyze and display all forms of geographically referenced data. On January 24, 1990, the Board of Supervisors approved awarding a contract to PlanGraphics, Inc. for GIS Consulting Services. Perceived budget constraints early in the project precluded County staff from including several services in the contract. Technological advances, coupled with the current economic climate have resulted in decreased costs for GIS hardware and software. These same factors have also reduced costs associated with property parcel conversion. (Continued on next page) ATTACHMENTS: YES r'l Richard M. McE~fish, P.E.. Director Environmental Engineering SIGNATURE COUNT~ O0 056 Board Agenda Item Environmental Engineering Page Two SUBJECT: Amending of Contract with PlanGraphics, Inc. for Consulting Services Relating to the County Geogra- phic Information System (GIS) Project. These costs decreases have resulted in there now being adequate project funds remaining to continue GIS implementation with additional services from PlanGraphics, Inc.. PlanGraphics, Inc. would be utilized in the following areas: 1. parcel conversion database quality control and parcel update procedures; 2. sup- port for defining system testing and documentation procedures; 3. support facility database, conversion and development to include water and sewer facilities, proposal evaluation support, contractor selection support, pilot area conversion and quality control support, and defining facility update procedures. We expect these additional services to be completed within a 22 month period. The services performed by PlanGraphics, Inc. have been, and continue to be conducted and completed in a timely and satisfactory manner. Funding for these additional services would be from the existing project. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors authorize the County Administrator to amend the existing contract with PlanGraphics, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $40,000 to provide additional consulting services related to the continued implementation of the County GIS project. O0 Board of Supervisors Agenda Item Subject: Amending of Contract with Plangraphics, Inc. for Consulting Services Relating to the County Geographic Information System (GIS) Project. Date: February 12, 1992 Page 3 BUDGET/~AVD MANAGEMENT COMMENTS This action would leave an uncommitted project balance of $1,781,895. In addition to extended work from Plangraphics, remaining project tasks include: completion of the pilot project, applications programming, development of the water/sewer layer, and purchasing independent/dependent workstations. The project is expected to be completed by mid-FY94. /~es J~L.~. Stegrnaie~, Director ~Budget & Management B0133.wpl/Bos#4 00 058 CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: 6.E.1. SUBJECT: Donation of a surplus brush truck skid unit to the Powhatan County Fire Department. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION The Board of Supervisors is requested to approve the donation of a surplus brush truck skid unit to the Huguenot Volunteer~'Fire Department (Powhatan Company #2), which is located approximately 2 miles west of the Chesterfield-Powhatan line on Route 60. Chesterfield and Powhatan have an automatic interjurisdictional response agreement that will allow Chesterfield to receive benefit from this unit fighting brush fires in the northwestern part of the county. BACKGROUND: The Fire Department has a 12 year old brush truck skid unit that has been removed from service. This unit is different from all the other units in service and parts are not interchangeable. The Fire Department does not anticipate having any future need for this unit. Powhatan Fire Department has a need for the skid unit to mount on a vehicle that was donated to them. This unit would not only serve Powhatan County, but would be used on mutual aid calls to northwest Chesterfield County. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the donation of this unit to Powhatan County Fire Department. Ro~er t 'L.' February 6, 1992 ATTACHMENTS: YES:~ NO I-I SIGNATURE: C...~ '-" \ 0 0 COUNTY ADM I NI STRATOR 059 January 1 ?, I992 Mr. Lane B. Rar, lsey, County Adnlinistrator County of Chester"field P. O. Box 40 Dca r- On behalf of Powhatan County Fire Departnlent I ask that your county donate to our fire depart~ent the surplus 150 gallon brush truck skid unit that is in storage by your fire depart~ent. Our Huguenot Firm Depart~ent is in the process of equipping a four-wheel drive pickup that was donated to the~ to be used as a brush truck. This brush truck will not only serve Powhatan County but also will be used in northwest Chesterfield County when our Huguenot Co~pany responds there on ~utual aid. If you have any questions, please call n~e. Si ncerel y, County Ad~li ni stra tot cc: County Chief Floyd E. Greene, Jr-. Co~pany Chief 0. D. Colleft: O0 060 P O BO;4 2 !9 ',, POWI-tATAN, VIRGI!,IIA 23139 '. TELr. ir'HOi'.4E B04-598-561 ! BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HARRY (3. DANIEL, CHAIRMAN DAI..~ DISTRICT ARTHUR S, WARREN, VICE CHAIRMAN CLOVER HILL DISTRICT J, I__ MCHALE, III BERMUDA DISTRICT WHALEY M, COLBERT MATOACA DISTRICT EDWARD B. BARBER MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY P.O. Box 40 CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832-0040 LANE B. RAMSEY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Chief Robert~L. Eanes F~ ./2 /~ - --, Deputy Chief David E. Barfiel~ January 28, 1992 SUBJECT: SURPLUS BRUSH TRUCK SKID UNIT The brush truck skid unit referred to by Mr. Lawrence is an old unit approx- imately 12 years old. It was originally purchased from Slagle's to replace the rotary gear pump on old 118. It does not match any of our current brush truck skid units which are all Western States so none of the parts are interchangeable. I don't believe we would ever have a need for it. When current 118 was purchased we purchased a new Western States unit for it and the Slagle unit has been stored for about 3 years. I have discussed it's value with shop personnel and we doubt that it is worth more than $300 to $500. Because Powhatan has a need for the unit and Chesterfield will benefit from the mutual aid aspect I recommend we donate the unit to Powhatan. c: File /wb O0 061 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: 6.E.2. Set Public Hearing for Proposed Amendment to Streetscape Standards for Midlothian Village District COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: On December 17, 1991, the Planning Commission held a public hearing as requested by the Board of Supervisors to consider a draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing unique streetscape standards for the Midlothian Village District. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the attached amendment which requires compliance with these standards. If approved, all new development within the Midlothian Village District (see boundaries map) will be required to conform to the Village of Midlothian Streetscape Plan requirements for installation of trees and low plant materials, sidewalks, light fixtures, benches and trash receptacles. This public hearing followed-the completion of a contract for professional services approved by the Board on October 24, 1990. The consultant team worked closely with staff, citizens, business owners, the Virginia Department of Transportation and utility companies to prepare detailed plans and specifica'Cions for the installation of aesthetic improvements in the Village of PREPARED BY~homas E. Jato~~~~~ Director of Planning ATTACHMENTS: YES lie NO [] BOS-9891 SIGNATURE: COUNT~ ADMINISTRATOR O0 062 AGENDA ITEM SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED AMRND~ TO STREETSCAPE STANDARDS FOR MIDLOTHIAN VILLAGE DISTRICT FEBRUARY 12 , 1992 PAGE 2 Midlothian with special emphasis along a 1.2 mile segment of Route 60. The products include a set of plan drawings for Midlothian's Village District (see boundaries map) and a technical manual containing drawings and specifications of the plan's recommendations for trees, plants, sidewalks, benches, decorative lighting, etc. These documents have been reviewed by staff and approved by the thirty (30) member Midlothian Citizen Beautification Advisory Committee who contributed toward their development. As a result of extensive community participation, the Village of Midlothian Volunteer Coalition was formed on July 10, 1991, for the purpose of implementing this streetscape plan. As funds are raised, such improvements will be made on public as well as private land. To date, nearly $20,000 in grant funds have been awarded by the Virginia Department of Forestry for project construction and over $10,000 has been contributed by the Chesterfield Business Council, local businesses, civic organizations and individuals. The Village of Midlothian Volunteer Coalition recommends that these landscape and streetscape standards be adopted as part of the Zoning Ordinance so that developers of new buildings within the Midlothian Village District will install trees and low plant materials, sidewalks, light fixtures, benches and trash receptacles according to the plan's construction drawings (sample attached). Copies of these detailed drawings are available to the public at the County Planning Department and from the Village of Midlothian Volunteer Coalition. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Board set March 11, 1992, for a public hearing to consider this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relative to development standards in the Midlothian Village District. Attachments: Midlothian Village District Boundaries Map Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sample Technical Manual Construction Drawings Project Information Brochure 3FEB1292/A: AGENDA2/gok 00 0~8 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 21-67.33.1 AND 21.1-255.4 RELATING GENERALLY TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN VILLAGE DISTRICTS BE IT ORDAINED Chesterfield County: by the Board of Supervisors of (1) That Section 21-67.33.1 of Chapter 21 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted to read as follows: Section 21-67.33.1. Ya~ Setback and landscaping requirements. For Ma~--~e~eme~s setbacks and landscaping requirements within such setbacks, see chapter 21.1, article 6, division 4, section 21.1-255.5 for B Districts a~ Section 21.1-255.6 for M Districts and sections 21.1-255.4 and 21.1-255.8 for B and M Districts. (2) That Section 21.1-255.4 of Chapter 21.1 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted to read as follows: Sec. 21.1-255.4. Exceptional development standards. o o o (b) Landscaping. For landscapinq within setbacks alonq major arterials and within front and corner setbacks alonq riqhts-of-way other than major arterials, ali development in the Midlothian Villaqe District shall conform to the recommendations set forth in The Villaqe of Midlothian Technical Manual dated September 1991. In ali other Villaqe Districts, A~t least one (1) large deciduous tree, as defined in section 21.1-224(b) (2), shall be included in each landscaped area, in lieu of the one (1) small tree required by section 21.2-225(b). All other landscaping requirements of section~ 21.1-225, 21.1-255.5, 21.1-255.6 and 21.1-255.8 shall apply as-~ese~e~ in all Villaqe Districts. 0700:265.txt (12/4/91) -1- O0 064 Key Map - Village Boundaries O0 06~5 The Village of Midlothian Page 4 066 Columnar Trees with Daylilies and Sidewalk (outboard side of ROW) 3' Otto Luyken Cherry Laurel Light Fixture ROW ' 12' 12' New Sidewalk Daylilies .-" ,2' Columhar Hornbeam Reference Details Route 60 Tree Planting Page Number Shrub Planting 30 Daylily Planting 31 Bulb Planting 3 3 34 Daylily Bed Curve Geometry 35 Daylily Planting Location Guide Village Fringe 36 Daylily/Bulb Planting Plan / Village Fringe Yellow 37 Daylily/Bulb Planting Plan / Village Fringe . Gold 38 Daylily/Bulb Planting Plan / Village Fringe Pink 39 Daylily/Bulb Planting Plan / Village Fringe . Red 40 Light Fixture 46 Sidewalk with Planted Utility Strip 49 Curb Cut for New Sidewalk Specifications 51 Plant List 53 54 The Villa~ge otr Midlothian 23' Grass O0 067 Midlothian's residents and businesses have always nurtured a strong sense of community. This special pride has now initiated a bold effort to protect and enhance our historic Virginia village. The landscaping plan Community volunteers working with a landscape architect and county, professionals have developed a flexible, phased landscap- ing plan for Midlothian. This unique plan responds to the aesthetic needs of the growing community while reinforcing Midlothian's long history as a working village. Better defining the village is a primary goal. Therefore, on the east end (U.S. 60 at Old Buckingham) and west end (nbar Winterfield Road) of the village area, the streetscape plan establishes dramatic entrances with flowers and trees. Colorful trees and broad sweeps of low-maintenance perennial flowers planted along new sidewalks will extend toward the heart of the village. These new walks will be separated from the road by trees and flowers. Trees are located so that they 'frame busi- nesses and complement existing landscaping. In the village center, existing sidewalks will be extended and groups of flowering trees such as crab apple and crape myrtle added. Between the curb and existing side- walks hardy flowering perennials tha~ can survive the difficult environment will be installed. Options include the use of evergreen hedges or wrought iron fences behind the sidewalks to complement adjacent buildings within the heart of the village. Decorative light fixtures may someday line all of the sidewalks. How will this happen? The community must raise funds for the trees, flowers, sidewalks and other improvements· No public dollars have yet been allocated for construction. Chesterfield County provided the funds for the landscape architect's plan. The Pocket Parks Shady sitting areas are planned for the village. The first will be located at the Midlothian Middle School, where the coal mines' historical marker stands. Looking east on Route 60-existing view of village core (above) and proposed view (below). ~ -;':t~ ~ r~'~~ '" concept was refined during the spring of 1991 as a group of interested citizens worked with utilities, county and state officials and the landscape architect. The Midlothian Village. Beautification Advisory Committee was composed of representatives from neighborhoods, churches, professional offices, civic groups, and local businesses. On June 6, 1991, this committee established a formal organization--the Village of Midlothian Volunteer Coalition-- to raise funds from the community and oversee construction. Since the project involves so man), people and groups--homeowners, busi- nesses, civic groups, property owners, government--the plan is designed to be flexible so that improvements can be installed as funds are raised. Future developments Simultaneous to our community effort, Chesterfield County will adopt this plan and advise developers building in the village area on complying with the plan's landscaping standards. Maintenance, utility lines, A multi-year maintenance contract will be obtained from the professional landscape services to insure healthy growth of all plantings. All work will be monitored by volunteers appointed by the Village of Midlothian Volunteer Coalition. The design and materials selected were chosen for their Iow maintenance requirements and sturdiness. Most of the landscaping improve- ments will be made in the publicly con- and other details trolled rights-of-way, greatly reducing liability concerns. All improvements are designed to fit with existing facilities as well as a~comodate future needs. The project has been designed in close cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), Chesterfield County and re- viewed by the utility companies. VDOT has agreed to maintain the sidewalks following their construction. Cooperation and participation by village property owners and businesses will be vital. Within the central village, the plan proposes some trees on private lands since the existing right-of-way is very narrow. Of course, some flower beds, sitting areas, and entryway plantings will likely be 'adopted' and maintained by civic groups in cooperation with the Coalition. Crosswalks, pedestrian streetlights, wrought iron fences, and benches may also require a special public-private effort, coordinated by the Coalition. Looking west on Route 60--existing view of village fringe (above) and proposed view (below). The Village of Midlothian, Va. Founded in the early 1800's, Midlothian was one-,of this country's first centers of coal .mining activity. A few of the old mines are still intact today. In 1831, the state's first railroad began moving coal from the mines in Midlothian to the James River Wharves in Manchester (now south Richmond). After the decline in coal mining, other indus- tries such as sawmilling, spool making, and summer tourism followed. Many of the historical buildings remaining in the village today were "company houses" constructed for sawmill employees between 1900 and 1920. Also surviving are significant religious and commercial structures which date from the coal mining era. Midlothian has retained its historical village identity thanks in part to new buildings tastefully complementing the design of existing older buildings and monuments. Today, our growing community is a mixture of retail shops, offices, and professional services buildings in addition to multi- and single-family housing, civic structures, and churches. The current effort to preserve and enhance the village took root in 1988 when Chesterfield County's Planning Department, working with community volunteers, recommended innovative development standards. When will it happen? The project starts in the fall of 1991, after funds are raised for the first phase-~the 'pocket park at Midlothian Middle School. More dramatic entrances at each end of the village using flowers, trees, shrubs and other elements will follow. Next will be additional street trees and flower plantings within the public right-of- way, and extension of sidewalks within the village along the main thoroughfare. The schedule for future efforts will be determined by the Village of Midlothian Volunteer Coalition. Longer,term goals, such as the addition of pedestrian crossings, benches and decorative streetlights can be under- taken as special projects. Along with these community efforts, individuals within the village have indicated they will add plantings and other features to their properties, guided by the recommenda- tions of the plan. A glossy, unfolded copy of this poster is available for $20 from Lodan Fine Art and other participating retailers in the Village of Midlothian. Proceeds go to the streetscape effort. How can I participate? The Midlothian landscaping project is ready to receive donations. Its :tax-exempt status through the Greater Richmond Community Foundation means all gifts are fully deductible for income and estate tax purposes. Each planting phase is broken into segments, so contributors can purchase items from a project catalog or indicate which segments they would like to support. Local businesses and landowners are invited to coordinate their own landscaping efforts with the plan. Besides individual donations--which are crucial--there are a number of other ways citizens can participate. Attending the Village of Midlothian Volunteer Coalition's meetings is one way. Also, several project teams are being formed and diverse talents are needed. Local civic organizations, churches, and schools are already involved and welcome addi- tionai support. Interested volunteers and groups are invited to join the effort. Make checks payable to Midlothian LandscaPing~GRCF. All gifts are fully tax deductible. Village projects Community fundraising proposals include: · a "catalog" of landscape elements such as flowers, shrubs, benches and trees, with information on how groups and individuals can purchase one or more of these items for specific phases of the project; · fundraising efforts sponsored by local businesses and civic groups; · publication of a Village of Midlothian cookbook; · sale of Village of Midlothian merchandise featuring the village logo; · publication of a directory of village businesses, churches and civic groups; · solicitation of contributions from indi- viduals, groups and businesses. Other ideas are welcomed. Mutlbth an Volunteer Coalition P. O. Box 1295 Midlothian, Va. 23113 Phone: (804) 751-5006 Village of Midlothian Volunt~Coalition P.O. Box 1295 - Midlothian, Virginia 23113 (804) 751-5006 Voice-Tel Message Service Midlothian Village Beautification Committee Steering Committee Charles I. Batchelor, chairman Richard Nordenson, vice chairman Catherine McCormack, secretary Lester Brown, M.D. Louanne Carnwath Dot Hankins Donald B. Heslep Peppy Jones Bruce A. Leary, D.D.S. Dan Marsho Lois Marsho Brendan McCormack Mike McVey Wayne Smith Marie Strack Bettie Weaver Consultants Lardner-Klein Landscape Architects Elisabeth Lardner Mary Means & Associates Mary C. Means Harland-Bartholomew and Associates George Hull Thanks to: Carol Boisineau C & P Telephone Tom Garner Greater Richmond Community Foundation Cecelia Lucas Lodan Fine Art R. J. McCracken Midlothian Garden Club Midlothian Masonic Lodge Midlothian Middle School Midlothian Volunteer Fire Department Kristen Mosbaek Darcy Oman J. C. Penny Company Richmond Suburban Newspapers Bernie Savage Pam Shelor Southern States Cooperative Amy Sletten Maurice B. Sullivan Chesterfield Board of Supervisors .Sycamore Square Kirk Turner Virginia Department of Transportation Nick Froelich Walt Hayden Dennis C. Morrison Ronald H. Reekes Walt Spence Virginia Power Voice-Tel of Virginia Mutlbthmn ~hesterfield County planning Department P,O. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Susan McGarry, Project Manager Tom Jacobson, Director of Planning Trimble House Nostalgia Series 4200 Light Fixture Scale 1" = 8~- 0" Route 60 Daylilies Liriope - New Sidewalk .. ass . ~ ~N ~ ~Fhn~T~ees' .... ' .... --' '. '. ~~ · I > ~ ~rnnge.~rees. ~:: Otto Luyken 7. .......... ~-7.~:'.'.' Li~~:: :'. . ,,.] Cherry Laurel Shrubs I [ { 1 ,~. '[ I~/. '(: 8'~ Midlothian Middle School Parking Lot s' 1:. "O .. I ' E~tin~ ~akgre;" (approx. Location) Midlothian Middle School Pocket Park Plan CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: February 12r 1992 ITEM NUMBER: SUB4ECT: Request for Bingo/Raffle Permit 6.E.3. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION The County Attorney's Office has reviewed the following application for a bingo/raffle permit and has determined that the application meets all statutory requirements: Orsanization Type Year Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Raffle 1992 ATTACHMENTS: YES 12) NO f~ Steven L. Micas County Attorney 17bingo/b44 SIGNATURE: __ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR O0 068 AFPLICLTIO~ FOR A pE1~[T ~0 CONDUC~ BIH~O' ~U~S OR l~IFl:'I~$ ~he undersiAned application, pursuant to 118.2-3aO.1, et seq. of the Code of ¥1rBinia, requests the ~oard of ~au~erviaors of Chesterfield County to issue a per~lt to conduct bin&o ~a~es , raffles ~ , or both during the {4 ~ 'J~ calendar year. This ~pplication is for a ne~ 1( .__o_r..renewal ~ per, it. I_En Support o£ this application, the applicant offers the [ollovin~ i~foraation under oath: ~dress~f ~ati~'s ~adq~rters: ~OC~'~ ~O~TA~ ~ ~dmss ~ere all ~cords of ~ceipts ~d distraints are ~ne~ly filed: ~ md ~dress of ~er o~ the pr~erty descried tn 3 a~e. 6o tess or addresses ~here b~ngo $.s~es viii be held or raffle drm~ngs conducted: NOTE: 3NI$ PEP. HIT IS VALID ONLY AT TEE ABOVE LOCATION. Dates or days of venk and tim ~hen blfOo-Dms~mo~ raf£1es viii be held at the above address(es): 7. Tine patrons are adnitted and sales begin: 5 '. O O ~, A-~ , s. Date o eniz,tion wes foxed: / 8 4- Bas ~our or~anization been in existence and net re&ularly in Chesterfield County for t~o years ls~ediately prior to ~.kin~ this application? Yes r~ 10. la your organization currently and has your organization always been operated in the past as a non-profit organization? Yes ~ No __ 3~. lnterr-ol Revenue Code ~ection for t~x-exenpt eta:us ~s rranted (if applicable) 12. State the specific type and purpose of your organization: T'o ~A! $~- ~o~ 16. If renewing · pernit, were financial reports filed on tim and in compliance with applicable legal requireeents? Yes~ List helov gross receipts, if any, fron all sources related to the operation of bingo ga~es or instant b~}o by calendar quarter for the 12-monthperiod innediltely prior_to the date of this application: 1st fltr: $ 2nd qtr: $ 3rd qtr: $ &th qtr: S Officers of Organization: ~ane Address Bus. l~one Hone Fhone Hose Telephone Nunber '~,g&O'~ Business Telephone Number: ~o, '~& %, q . 17. Do you, and each officer, director and nember of the organization fully understand the follo~ing: It is a violation of law to enter into a contract with any person, fir~, association, organization (other than another qualified organization pursuant to ~18.2-3~0.~3 of the Code of ¥irzinia), partnership or corporation of any classification whatsoever, for the purpose of organizing, ~anagfng or conducting~t-~e-~-m~raffles? Yes ~ No~ -over- cd11668:C~2 Be Ce · he organization ~ust ~aintain and file with the County's Internal Audit Department complete records of receipts and disburseme~ts pertaining to b/~=~a~aA.a~raffles as required by St. ate ~nd County Law, and that ~uch records are subject to audit bY the County's Internal Audit l~par~ment? Yes ~ !/o /he organization ~ust remit an audit fee of 1% of gross receipts with th, Annual Financial Report not later than November ! unless gross receipts are less than $2,000? Yes ~ No ~ Ee /he organization ~ust furnish a complete list of its membership upon the request of the County Internal Audit Department or other designated representative of the Board of Supervisors? Yes ~ No~ Any organization found in violation of f18.2-~+0.10 of the Code of Virginia, authorizing this permit is subject to having such permit revoked and any or&anization or person, shareholder, agent, ~ember or employee of such organization who violated i18.2-~0 or Article 1.1 of /~apter 8 of Title 18.2 of the Code of Vir~inia, may be guilty of a felony? Yes Y ~ /he organization must provide written notification to the County Internal Audit Department of any change in elected officers vi L£,,av ~i,.i~=.;~ during the calendar year covered~by this per. it? Yes .~ No 18. Your organization ~ust attach a copy of the organization's charter, articles of incorporation, bylaws, or other legal documents which describe the specific purposes forwhich the organization is chartered or organized and must complete the Resolution below. 19. Your organization must submit a check in the amount of $25.00 payable to Treasurer, a~esterfield County as an application fee. Additional pages ~here necessary to fully complete this application~ay be attached. 22. 23. Have you and each officer of your organization read the attached permit and do you and each officer saree on behalf of the organization to comply with each of the conditions therein? Yes / No Sutmit this application to the Chesterfield County Attorney's Office by mail to: P. ~. Box &0~ Chesterfield~ Virzinia 23832 or by hand to: Route 10 and Lori Road~ Administration Bld2, Roo~ 503. I hereby aw.ar or af/irmunder th. penalties of perjury as set forth in [18.R-&3~ of the Code of Virtinia, that all of the above questions have been completely answered and that all the statements herein are true ~o tl~e best ~f m~ knowledge, Infor~ation ~d belief? WITNESS the following signatures and~ Signature of Applicant: ~ N~e: Title: Address: Business Fnone: -C~tSef/COUNTY OFf~~_~ to-wit: Subscribed and sworn to ~iore me~~~ ~ , a Nota~ ~blic In ~d for ~he ~/County and S~ate'alores~td', thf~ ~/ day ~~~ 19~ . Nota~ ~blic RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVEDT~IS ~ day o~ , 1~ (date resolution passed,, that is hereby authorized to apply to the ~esterfield ~un:y ~ard of Supe~isors for a bingo/raffle pe~it on behalf of this organization for the t~ calendar year. ~thor~ed ~lgnature (Of~cer o~ cd11668:C~2 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER; 6.E.4. Interim Appointment of Clerk to the Board COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board of Supervisors has received the resignation of Joan S. Dolezal, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors, who will become the County's Senior Records Administrator. It is recommended that the Board appoint Mrs. Theresa M. Pitts as Interim Clerk to the Board of Supervisors~and Mrs. Joy D. Beavers as Interim Deputy Clerk to the Board. PREPARED BY;~ ~ ATTACHMENTS: YES ~i~ NO [] BOS~}891 SIGNATURE: COUN~~A I NiSTRATOR' O0 06 ,- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HARRY G. DANIEL, CHAIRMAN DALE DISTR~CT ARTHUR S. WARREN, VICE CHAIRMAN CLOVER HILL DISTRICT J. L. McHALE, III, WHALEY M. COLBERT MATOACA DISTRICT EDWARD B. BARBER MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT January 16, 1992 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY P.O. BOX 4O CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832 (804) 748-1211 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR LANE B. RAMSEY The Honorable Harry G. Daniel, Chairman Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Mr. Daniel: Effective January 24, 1992, I accept the position of Senior Records Administrator in the Department of General Services for the County and thereby, in accordance with the County Charter, relinquish my responsibilities as Clerk to the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County. I have thoroughly enjoyed the experience and positive interaction with the County over the past eighteen years in the County Administrator's Office. Needless to say, I have learned a lot but I look forward with great enthusiasm to the challenge of this new position whereby I will be developing a comprehensive records management plan. Thank you for the opportunities afforded me over the years. If I can ever be of service to the Board in the future, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors jb cc: The Honorable A. S. Warren The Honorable Edward Barber The Honorable Whaley M. Colbert The Honorable J. L. McHale, III Mr. Lane B. Ramsey, County Administrator Mr. Steven L. Micas, County Attorney O0 070 BOS-9891 CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUB~I~CT: February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: Membership - JTPA Policy Committee 6.E.5. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors has expressed the desire to appoint a citizen at large to the JTPA Policy Committee in lieu of a member of the Board. The formal consortium agreement adopted by each governing body of the seven member consortium provides that the membership on the Policy Comm±ttee shall be an elected member of the governing body and the Chief Administrative Officer. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution requesting an amendment to the Consortium Agreement permitting the appointment of a citizen at large in lieu of a member of the Board of Supervisors. ATTACHMENTS: YES I"1 NO m R~~ k~~/~x~'i~o-bert- I~,- 'Mas'den Deputy 'County Administrator SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADM I NI STRATOR 00 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETINGDATE: February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: 6.E.6. SUSPECT: APPROVAL OF AN ASSIGNMENT OF AIRPORT RESTAURANT LEASE FROM BAEON ENTERPRISES TO KING'S KORNER CATERING COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OFINFORMATION: HISTORY AND BACKGROUND Since 1979, Chesterfield County has had five (5) different restaurant operators lease space at the Airport Terminal Building. All of the restauranteurs had varying success and business problems during their tenure. The Airport restaurant has a remote location, making it difficult for operators to attract patrons from roadside advertising. The most successful restaurant operations were those that developed their own niche in the marketplace through unique advertising and nurturing. their clientele. Baron Enterprises was formed to provide restaurant operations on an interim basis after the Cassanese/GCC Corporation failed. Baron Enterprises (the current restaurant operator under the FBO agreement) has requested that the County assign the restaurant lease to a new operator, led by Mr. Dickie King. Mr. King's operation, King's Korner Catering, is a long-established Colonial Heights company that specializes in barbecue and high quality catering. Mr. King wishes to move his entire restaurant and catering operations to the Airport location. Detailed plans have been approved by the Airport Manager to permit King's Korner Catering to operate successfully at the Airport. ATTACHMENTS: YES I"1 Bradford S. Hammer Deputy County Administrator for Management Services SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR O0 072y February 12, 1992 Page 2 Agenda - Approval of an Assignment of Airport Restaurant Lease from Baron Enterprises to King's Korner Catering Staff has reviewed the proposals, changes, and modifications proposed by King's Korner Catering and recommends that the County assign the lease to King's Korner. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the assignment of the restaurant lease from Baron to King's Korner Catering, Incorporated consistent with the FBO agreement. O0 073 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY AIRPORT RESTAURANT LEASE AGREEMENT THIS LEASE AGREEIVIENT, made lhis llth day of March, 1991, by and belween the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, a political subdivi- sion of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "County), whose address is Post Office Box 40, Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 and BARON ENTERPRISES, INC., a Virginia Corporation ("Baron") whose address is 7511 Airfield Drive, Richmond, Virginia 23237. WITNESSETH Pursuant to an assignment of the lease by GCC of Virginia, Inc. to Baron Enterprises, Inc., and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the County leases to Baron, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, all that space on the ground floor of the Chesterfield County Airport Administration Building ("Airport"), containing 2,258 square feet, for general restaurant use (the "Leased Premises"). It shall be the duty of Baron to operate a high quality, full service restaurant, including catering for banquets and private parties, in accor- dance with applicable federal and state laws, and all applicable ordinances of the County of Chesterfield and regulations of the Director of Aviation Services in e~:istence on the date of this Agreement or subsequently enacted. Baron shall operate the leased premises for the use by and benefit of the public. Baron shall make available to' the public all facilities and services under this Agreement without discrimination and Baron shall not impose discriminatory or unreasonable fees or charges. Both parties recognize that Baron shall have the responsibility to provide complete food and beverage services necessary to serve the needs of the users of the Airport and the Chesterfield County Industrial Park. I. General Terms and Conditions. This agreement shall be subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The term of this lease shall be for 34 months commencing on March 11, 1991, and terminatinff on January 31, 1.994. The term of this lease may be extended by the County for an additional term of up to five years upon such terms that may be agreed to between the County and Baron Enterprises ("Baron"). 2. A. Baron Enterprises agrees to pay to the County monthly lease payments of $1,500. for the term of the lease. All monthly lease payments are due and payable no later than the first day of each month. The first payment under this lease shall be due and payable on July 1, 1991. B. No charges shah be assessed for the March, 1991 rent. Additionally, the April, May and June, 1991 rent shah be deferred. The April, May and June, 1991 rent is to be prorated over the term of the lease, commencing July 1, 1991, with such pro-rated amonnt due and payable as part of the regular monthly rent. In the event that the ]ease is terminated prior to the expirstion of the term, any remaining deferred rent shall be due ~nd payable upon termination. C. In addition to the le~se payments provided for in subpara- graphs 2.A. and 2.B., Baron shall pay the County 2% of annual gross 0905:5174:46 - 2 - receipts, relating to its operation at the Airport, for those receipts which are in excess of $500,000. The annum payment which Baron is required to pay to the County under this subparagraph 2.C. shah be considered rent and shall be due and payable no later than seven d~ys after the end of each year of the lease term. The first payment under this subparagraph shall be due and payable on January 7, 1992. D. In addition to the payments Baron Enterprises is required to pay to the County under subparagraphs 2.A., 2.B. and 2.C., Baron Enterprises shall pay 'for all natural gas utilities necessary for the use of the leased premises. E. Baron Enterprises shah submit to the County quarteriy unaudited financial statements, commencing July 15, 1991 and continuing every three months thereafter. 3. ^. Baron Enterprises will inf~lse a minimum of $10,000 in capital improvements into the leased premises by April 1, 1992. On Au- gust 1, 1991 or sooner, at lessee's option, a plan outlining said capita] improvements will be submitted to the Airport Manager. B. Any improvements to the ]eased premises shall remain the property of the County upon expiration or termination of this agreement. All capital improvements shah be deemed to be part of the realty. Any proposed improvements shall require the prior written approval of the County. C. Upon expiration or termination of this agreement Baron Enterprises shall have the right to remove from the leased premises any of 0905:5174:46 - 3 - its equipment and property, provided Baron Enterprises is not in default. Baron Enterprises shall be liable for any damages to the leased premises as a result of such removal. The County, if it so elects, shall have the right to remove such property for and on behalf of Baron Enterprises if Baron Enterprises fails to remove such equipment within thirty days of termination. If the County elects to remove said property or equipment on behalf of Baron, Baron shah be liable for any expenses incurred as a result of the removal. D. Baron Enterprises, as assignee, shall not assume any debt or financial obligations of the assignor, GCC of Virginia, Inc. E. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit or limit the right of non-profit organizations or promoters of large group activities from using the Airport or providing limited food service for. short periods of time. However, any group permitt~.d by the County to use the Airport must first negotiate in good faith with Baron Enterprises to determine whether Baron Enterprises can provide the desired food service at a reasonable price. 4. Baron Enterprises shaH, at its sole cost and expense, maintain the interior of the Leased Premises, including the public bathrooms on the ground floor of the Airport on weekends, in a presentable condition con- sistent with good business practice and equal to or better than the stan- dards of cleanliness in the Chesterfield County Airport Administration Building. Baron shall repair all damage to the Airport caused by its employees or patrons, or arising out of its oper'ations and shall maintain 0905:5174:46 - 4 - and repair all equipment on the Leased Premises. The County, in its discretion, shall be the sole judge of the quality of Baron's maintenance, which judgment shall be exercised in a reasonable manner. Upon notice by the County to Baron, Baron shall be required to perform, at its expense, whatever reasonable maintenance the. County deems necessary. If such maintenance is not undertaken by Baron within five (5) days after receipt of written notice, the County shall have the right to enter upon the Leased Premises and perform the necessary m~intenance, the cost of which ~hall be borne by Baron. 5. The County agree~ to permit Baron to erect, at its expense, signs upon the Leased Premises and the Airport property. The design, ~ize, location and height of such signs shah first be approved by the County. 6. The County, at its own expense, shall either self-insure or obtain, and carry throughout the term of this lease, full and adequate fire insurance upon improvements and other capital fixtures located on the Leased Premises. If the Leased Premises are damaged by fire, the ele- ments, unavoidable accident or other casualty, such that the premises are rendered untenantable, the County shall determine within thirty (30) days after the occurrence of such damage whether or not to repair such damage. If the County elects not to repair such damage, then this lease shall terminate as of the date of such damage, in which event the County shall reimburse Baron a prorata portion of the rent paid in advance by Baron, less any ~mounts owed to the County by Baron. Baron shall, at its own 0905:5174:46 - 5 - expense, obtain and carry public liability insurance naming the County as an additional insured, covering injuries or damages to persons and proper- ty using the Leased Premises in an amount not less than $100,000.00 single limit comprehensive coverage. Authenticated copies of all such policies shall be delivered to the County prior to beginning operations hereunder. All renewal or cancellation notices shall be sent to the County sixty (60) days prior to renewal or cancellation of insurance coverage. Baron agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the County and its agents, officers or employees from any and all claims, damages, losses and expenses which may arise as a result of the negligent or wrongful acts of comission or omission by Baron or its agents, officers or employees. In. the event that suit or other proceeding shall be brought against the County or its agents or employees, at law or in equity, either independently or jointly with Baron, Baron will defend the County in such suit or proceeding, the cost of which shall be borne by Baron. Baron's defense counsel must be approved by the County. In the event of a final judgment or decree being obtained against the County, either independently or jointly with Baron, Baron will pay such judgment, comply with such decree, pay all costs and expenses of the proceeding without limitation and hold the County, its agents, officers and employees, harmless therefrom. 7. Baron covenants that it will: A. Pay the rent promptly as provided in this Agreement. B. Keep and maintain an adequate set of books and records relating to its operation of the Leased Premises and implement such 0905:5174:46 - 6 - accounting procedures as the County may, from time to time, direct in writing. C. Permit, during regular business hours and at reasonable times, the County or its agents to review and audit Baron's books and records or the books and records of its authorized representatives. D. Retain its books and records, or those of its authorized representatives, for a period of five (5) years after the expiration or termination of this lease which shall be available for inspection and audit by the County or its agent. The term "records" as used in subpara- graphs 7.B., ?.C. and 7.D. shall include but not be limited to accounting records, written policies and procedures, worksheets, correspondence and any other supporting evidence necessary to substantiate Baron's costs, charges, fees or receipts related to this Agreement. E. Secure and keep current all necessary health, sanitation and Alcoholic Beverage Control permits required by law, and ail other licenses and permits as may be necessary or required by ]aw for the operation of the Leased Premises. F. Keep clean the restroom facilities, the kitchen, the dining areas and all other areas of the Leased Premises in accordance with the standards in paragraph 4, above. G. Comply with all requirements of the Chesterfield County Fire Prevention Code. H. Conduct an aggressive advertising campaign to encourage increased use of the Airport Restaurant to include, at a minimum, media advertising and community contacts. Such advertising plans shall be submitted to the County periodically, but no less frequently than annually, for its spproval prior to January 1 of each year. I. Maintain and keep in good working order those items of property set forth in Appendix A attached hereto and made a part hereof, which property shall remain the property of the County. J. Maintain and keep in good working order all other equip- ment or property ezcept structural elements, owned by the County and used, or available for use, by Baron. 8. A. Baron, its agents,~servants, employees, guests and invitees shall have the privilege, in common with others, of using the public portions of the Administration Building and Airport property subject to the rules, now in force or as hereafter maybe made applicable, of the County and the Federal Aviation Administration, or any successor agency. B. The County will keep in good running order the heating and air-conditioning system, water pipes, water, gas and electrical fix- tures, except light bulbs; replace all plste glass broken during the tenan- cy; unstop all water fixtures that may become choked and repair all water pipes and plumbing that may burst. The County shall make such repairs and alter and replace the structure, roof and exterior of the Airport as shall be ressonably necessary to keep the same in good repair. If, how- ever, the need for any such repairs is occasioned by the negligent or willful act or omission of Baron, its agents, employees or invitees, such repairs may be made by the County upon written notice to Baron if Baron 0905:5174:46 - 8 - chooses not to make such repairs within seven (7) days of the date of such notice. In the event the County makes such repairs occasioned by the negligent or willful act of Baron, its agents, employees or invitees, all costs and expenses incurred by the Co~lnty relative to such repairs shah be considered additional rent hereunder, and Baron shall promptly pay that amount to the County. Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing to the contrary, the County shall have no liability for damage or injury to person or property or loss of profits as a result of failure to make any such repairs or replacement. Baron shall not be entitled to any reduction in rent or any claim for damages by reason of any inconvenience, annoyance, injury to or impairment of its operation of the Leased Premises arising out of any repairs or replacements made by the County pursuant to this paragraph. 9. In the event that Baron shall at any time be in arrears of the rental fee, or in case Baron shah be in violation of any provision of this lease, then in any such event this lease Agreement may be terminated at the option of the County, upon the giving of ten (10) days notice to Baron. If the County exercises its right to terminate this lease, Baron must vacate the premises immediately and the County may thereupon reen- ter and retake possession of the Leased Premises. This remedy shall be in addition to remedies provided for in this Agreement, including but not limited to the remedies provided in Paragraph 11. 10. Upon the breach of any covenant herein contained, or upon the repudiation of the lease by Baron, the abandonment or vacation of the 0905:5174:46 - 9 - premises by Baron, Baron's adjudication as a bankrupt, or the appointment of a Receiver or Trustee of Baron's property, the total rent payments herein provided for, whether accrued or not, shall immediately become (lue and payable. The County shall have the right to enter the premises at once, by force or otherwise, without being liable for any prosecution therefor; to distrain for rent, and re-rent the premises as agent for Baron for the unexpired portion of the term and receive the rent therefor. The County may, at its option, immediately terminate this lease; provided that neither terminating this lease under this clause nor recovering possession of the premises shall not deprive the County of any other action or remedy against Baron for possession, for rent, or for damages. 11. The County shall have the right to enter the Leased Premises during reasonable business hours in order to examine it, or to make such repairs or alterations as it may desire for the safety or preservation of the building, or to exhibit such premises to prospective lessees or purchasers, or for other reasonable purposes. 12. Baron may not sublease the Leased Premises or assign this Agreement without the written consent of the County, which will not be unreasonably withheld. Any attempted sublease or assignment without the County's consent shah be void and of no force or effect. Any change in the personnel who manage the premises for Baron must be approved by the County. Any change in the ownership, control or administration of Baron must be approved by the County. 0905:5174:46 - 10 - 13. Baron shall surrender possession of the Leased Premises to the County at the expiration or termination of this Agreement in good order and condition, reasonable wear and tear excepted. 14. The County and Baron agree that this Agreement constitutes the entire agreement, understanding, and representation, express or implied, between the parties. This Agreement supersedes all prior writlen or oral agreements or proposals between the parties. 15. All written notices required under this Agreement shall be deemed to be duly given if sent to the County at the County Adminis- tration, P. O. Box 40, Chesterfield, Virginia, 23832 and to Baron at its office at 7511 Airfield Drive, Richmond, Virginia 23237 or at such other place as either party shall designate in w~iting hereafter. 16. Baron agrees that it will comply With the "dram shop" rule and will indemnify and hold harmless the County or its officials, employees or agents from any claim arising out of the operation of the Leased Premises in accordance with paragraph 7, above. Any covenant, condition or provision herein contained that is held to be invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction shall be considered deleted from this agreement, but such deletion shall in no way affect any other covenant, condition or provision herein contained, so long as such deletion does not materially prejudice the lessor or lessee in their respective rights and ot)ligations contained in the valid covenants, conditions or provisions of this agree- ment. 0905:5174:46 - 11 - 17. No remedy or election of the County under this Agreement shall be deemed exclusive, but shall, wherever possible, be cumulative with ail other remedies at law or in equity. i8. This Agreement is made in the Commonwealth of Virginia and shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Any legal action on this agreement shall be brought in the Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Virginia, in and for the County of Chesterfield. COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA County A dministra~r Approved as to form: Barbara E. King ._~ Assistant County Attorney BARON ENTERPRISES, INC. 0905:5174:46 - 12 - APPENDIX A Banquet Facilities: 16 each 4 each 65 each 72 each Tables - Conference 24" x 60" T~bles - Conference (corner) Burgundy Arm Chairs on 5 Leg Casters Stncking Chairs, Howell #CS742 Restaurant: 93 each 13 each 2 each 14 each Chair, mate's, w/casters, Buckstaff #2-303 Table, 42" sq., Buckstaff #4242-055 w/#35-929 base Table, 60" round Table, 24" sq. Cabinets as follows: 1 each 1 each i each 1 each Bar - 14' length - with top divider Bottle steps, 3 tier, 6' length Hutch, 24" x 36" base, Top Section 4'6" Storage cabinet, 19'8" length x 30" depth Additional Kitchen Equipment: 1 each i each 1 each tlot Food Station, Vollrath #99146 Entree Cart, Vollrath #91965 Beverage Cooler, Beverage Aire Model SF-49-W JLM/bam3023 :B13 -1- Appendix A I each 1 each I each i each i each I each 1 each 1 each i each 3 each I each i each 4 each 4 each 4 each 1 each 1 each 1 each 1 each 2 each Slicer, Hobart #1612 Potato Peeler Hobart #6115L Mixer, 20 qt., with 1 ea - slicer, 1 ea. tinned finish meat chopper, Hobart #A200 l~.e~t Saw, Hobart #5212 Bun Warmer, Toastmaster #3C8XD Microwave Oven, Hobart #1250L Food Warmer, 4 ft., w/shelf brackets, Cory #FW348P Meat Block, 24x24x14, Bally style 14 (without legs) Pot Rack, 8' length, complete w/sliding hooks Glass Rack, Hodges #P540 Lowboy Refrigerator, Star Metal #STS-20-RS Cocktail Sink, 3 compartment, double drain boards, Nor-Lake Plate Rack, Hodges #P390 Cup Rack, Hodges #P215 Combination Rack, Hodges #P415 Cocktail Station #P-60-2 Koch combination walk-in freezer/cooler, 8'0" x 13'4" x 7'6" high, complete with floor Koch Model KV1 and KVF1, self-contained combination refrigerator/freezer Custom fabricated 14 gauge stainless steel top work table, 36" x 30" Vulcan-Hart, Mode] VF-1 electric floor fryers JLM/bam3023: B 13 -2- Appendix A 1 each 1 each I each 1 each 1 each 1 each i each 1 each 1 each 1 each 1 each each each each each 1 each Vulcan-Hart, Model BV2S broiler Custom fabricated box type wall hood, 12'6" x 4'0" x 2'0" with removable grease gutter Jenn Air, Model 302BCR, two-speed exhaust fan Norris Industries Range Guard aUtomatic fire extinguishing system Legion, Model S135L10, stainless steel hand sink Custom fabricated 14 gauge stainless steel top work table, 8'0" x 30" Progressive, Model CST-12, self-contained sandwich unit Toastmaster Model 1D3, four-slice toaster Duke Model E-305 electric steam table (5 wells) Custom fabricated 14 gauge stainless steel work table, 6'0" x 30" Custom fabricated 16 gauge stainless steel double tier overshe]f, 12'0" long x 12" wide Custom fabricated 14 gauge stainless steel two-compartment pot sink Hobart Model AM9T2, dishwasher with electric heat Hatco Model C12, custom hot water booster Set of 14 gauge stainless steel, NSF approved, soiled and clean dishtables Garland #283 double range, propane, six burner JLM/bam3023: B 13 JLM/bam3023 :B13 -3- Appendix A CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE: February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: 6.E. 7. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REFUNDING OF $27,558,173 OF WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1988 ~ AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO SEEK APPROVAL OF THE REFUNDING FROM THE STATE COUNCIL ON COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: LOC]LL DEBT SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Because of the current favorable interest rates for municipal bonds it is now possible to refund the 1988 series sewer and water revenue bonds and reissue that debt at a lower interest cost. The principal amount of the bonds to be refunded totals $27,558,173. The refunding will result in a present value savings of $2,019,885 or 4.89% of the original debt service amount. The estimated true interest rate of this refunding is 6.46%. The anticipated sale date will be February 26, 1992. This resolution is necessary to allow the County Administrator to' present the refunding proposal to the State Council on Local Debt on February 19,1992 for their approval and to authorize the refunding. ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO CI PREPARED Bradford S. Hammer Deputy CountY Administrator for Management Services SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMI NI STRATOR 00 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, APPROVING THE "REFUNDING OF THE COUNTY'S OUTSTANDING WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1988, MATURING ON NOVEMBER 1, 1999 TO 2006, BOTH INCLUSIVE, AND ON NOVEMBER 1, 2010, AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND OTHER COUNTY OFFICIALS TO SEEK THE APPROVAL OF THE STATE COUNCIL ON LOCAL DEBT WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF "REFUNDING BONDS" FOR SUCH PURPOSE PURSUANT TO SECTION 15.1-227.46 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA 1950, AND THE "GUIDELINES FOR APPROVAL OF REFUNDING BONDS BY THE STATE COUNCIL ON LOCAL DEBT" ADOPTED BY THE STATE COUNCIL ON LOCAL DEBT THEREUNDER WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, has determined that it would be desirable to refund in advance of their stated maturities the County's outstanding Water and Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1988, maturing on November 1, 1999 to 2006, both inclusive, and on November 1, 2010 (collectively, the "1988 Bonds"), for the purpose of realizing debt service cost savings; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has determined to seek the approval of the State Council on Local Debt (the "State Council") of the issuance of the refunding bonds for the purpose of refunding the 1988 Bonds, as required by Section 15.1-227.46 of the Code of Virginia, 1950; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, as follows: SECTION 1. Approval of Refunding of 1988 Bonds. The Board hereby authorizes the refunding of the 1988 Bonds. SECTION 2. State Council on Local Debt Approval. The County Administrator and other appropriate officials of the County are hereby authorized and directed to present a plan of refunding with respect to the 1988 Bonds to the State Council and to seek the approval of the State Council of the issuance of refunding bonds pursuant to Section 15.1-227.46 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, and the "Guidelines for Approval of Refunding Bonds by the State Council on Local Debt" adopted by the State Council on O0 075 Local Debt on November 20, 1991. The County is hereby authorized to pay any fees and expenses of the State Council in connection therewith. SECTION 3. Effectiveness of Resolution. This resolution shall take effect upon its adoption.. WDHCODE: VA92-00BB:~RESOL O0 07(] CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE: February 12, 1992 SQB4ECT: State Road Acceptance ITEM NUMBER: 6.E.8. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION The Commonwealth Transportation Board requires all Boards of Supervisors to request, by resolution, what roads are eligible for inclusion into the State highway system. This process starts with the submission of road and drainage plans to the Department of Environmental Engineering and Virginia Department of Transportation. Once the plans are approved for construction, the subdivision is recorded. This allows building permits to be issued by the Building Inspection Department. After there are enough qualifying homes (VDOT requires three occupied dwellings per street), the developer will request a discrepancy list from VDOT, Environmental Engineering and the Utilities Department. The developer then completes the discrepancies, if any, and obtains a letter from VDOT, Environmental Engineering and Utilities stating the roads have been completed per the approved plans. The subdivision section is then placed on the Board Agenda for final approval. The appropriate information is then forwarded to VDOT, by Environmental Engineering, and then the Commonwealth Transporta- tion Board~ormally assigns the Route numbers to the new streets. / (continued on next page) PREPARED BYe. ~3~? l~¢~~ Richard M..-~cElfish, P.E. Director ~ Environmental Engineering ATTACHMENTS: YES )~ NO [] SIGNATURE: __ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 00 077 BOS-9891 Board Agenda Item Environmental Engineering Page Two Subject: State Road Acceptance It is at that point that the VDOT officially takes over the streets for maintenance of potholes, snow removal, maintenance of culverts, roadside ditches, etc. The following are those subdivisions that have been approved for State acceptance by VDOT, Environmental Engineering and the Utilities Department. Clover Hill: Meadow Park 00 078 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: Board of Supervisors Environmental Engineering State Road Acceptance - Meadow Park February 12, 1992 Meadow Farm Drive Meadow Park Drive Meadow Park Terrace Meadow Park Circle 00 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: 6.E.9. SUBdECT: Agreement for Maintenance of a Sto~,~ater Drainage System and Best Management Practice Facility for Southshore, Section A. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Stormwater runoff from developing area's poses two concerns. First, development tends to change the hydrologic characteristics of a given watershed, affecting the volume and runoff rate which, if not managed, can cause considerable downstream damage. Second, evidence indicates that this runoff may be more harmful, from a pollution standpoint, to state waters than sewage or industrial discharges. Stormwater management facilities combined with Best Management Practices (BMP's) are utilized to lessen the water quality and quantity impact caused by stormwater runoff. Best Management Practices refer to those controls that have been proven in the past to be effective and may include structural (pond and lakes) and non-structural facilities such as maintenance operations and procedures, management techniques and reduction of paved surfaces. Stormwater management facilities (structural BMP's) are commonly used to attenuate the peak runoff rate of stormwater and provide (Continued) ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO r"l Richard M. MCElfish, P.E. Director Environmental Engineering SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMI N I STRATOR 00 Board Agenda Item Environmental Engineering Page 2 SUBJECT: Agreement for Maintenance of a Stormwater Drainage System and Best Management Practice Facility for Southshore, Section A. for precipitation of suspended particles or sediment. accomplished through the use of three general facilities, detention, retention, or infiltration. This is types of A detention facility detains stormwater for a given period of time in order to release it at a rate that will not exceed any downstream capacities or otherwise cause erosion. These facilities are normally dry except during rain events and shortly thereafter. A retention facility serves the same detention facility except that there pooling of water (lake or pond). purpose as a is a permanent An infiltration facility allows stormwater to soak into the ground and, thus, requires specific sandy soil types that are normally only found in the eastern portions of the County. The County's involvement in stormwater management is driven by a variety of forces, among which are: state erosion, sediment control requirements and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA), the EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) mandates, Flood Plain Management Ordinance and Upper Swift Creek Ordinance. Ultimately, the purpose of this involvement is to prevent loss of life or property and deterioration of water quality within, around, and downstream of development. A large majority of all ponds and lakes constructed in both commercial and residential settings over the last fifteen (14+) years are designed for either water quantity and/or quality control. We currently have seventy-three (73) approved and constructed structural Best Management Facilities. BACKGROUND: An analysis of the pollutant removal capabilities of the proposed facilities shown on the attachment has enabled the project to satisfy design criteria. The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance criteria require that the facility be periodically maintained in order to continue its function and such maintenance be insured by a Maintenance Agreement bond or other assurance satisfactory to the Director of Environmental 00 081 Board Agenda Item Environmental Engineering Page 3 SUBJECT: Agreement for Maintenance of a Stormwater Drainage System and Best Management Practice Facility for Southshore, Section A. Engineering. Once the agreement has been fully executed, it will be recorded in the Clerk of the Courts Office and Deed Book/page number documented on the subdivision plat. DISTRICT: Clover Hill RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the County Administrator to execute the maintenance agreement with the owner of Southshore, Section A as approved by the County Attorney's Office. O0 082 /: Date: 1-/~-'~ Scale: I/;-~ ' ,Job Na_'~5-t · PLANNERS · ARCHITECTS · ~NGiNE~-=i$ · SURVE¢ORS · 501 Branctwray I::Ioacl ,. Suite 100 · Ric~mancL virgZnia 232~6 ·/'94-0571 · Fax 794-;'{$,~5 ,,~,,..~..c 151 a. E3st Pamam Roacl · RicnmoncL, Virginia 23228 · 2~2-.'5048 ,, Fax 264.-3,037 Vcr. /(..h'd,,-~ vz:]0 T ,T~ c3 O ' ?1 Date: I-/,~'--~ Scale: ~"-"JO' Job No.:,~-~'-~5'- 1 EXHIBIT "B" · PI. ANNF-=IS * ARCHITECTS * ENGINEERS o SURVEYORS · 501 Branchway Road · Suite 100 · Ric~moncl. Vin:jinia 23236 · 7.~4-0571 · Fax 794-2.635 151 ,t Ea~ parnam Road · Ricnmoncl. Virginia 23228 · 262-6046 · Fax 264-3037 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AG E NDA February 12, 1992 AMENDED 6.E.10. MEET lNG DATE: ITEM NUMBER: SUB4ECT: Award of Construction Contract for Project Pocoshock Heights Water Line Rehabilitation #91-0039 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This water rehabilitation project replaces undersized water mains and provides fire protection to the Pocoshock Heights area. In addition, the nine (9) residents along Heppel Road are paying for an extension to gain service. These residents are ha~v~~l problems and will pay their share of construction which i~21,3_~. Bids were received ranging from $92,668.50 to $174,311.76. The low bidder was Lyttle Utilities. Since the project is originally planned due to the Heppel Road extension, th~_~$21,35~ needs to be appropriated to fully fund the project. This project is part of the previously approved Utilities Capital Improvement Program and the remaining funds are included in the appropriated Capital Budget. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the appropriation, award the construction contract to Lyttle Utilities and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents. DISTRICT: Clover Hill ATTACHMENTS: YES ~B' NO [] ~rai~S. Bry~/nt Assistant Director of Utilities SIGNATURE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR .Y POCOSHOCK HEIGHTS AREA SCALE: I' - 400' O O URc DR. PITMAN O0 086 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA February 12, 1992 MEETING DATE: ITEM NUMBER: 6.E.10. Award of Construction Contract for Project Pocoshock Heights Water Line Rehabilitation #91-0039 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This water rehabilitation project replaces undersized water mains and provides fire protection to the Pocoshock Heights area. In addition, the ten (10) residents along Heppel Road are paying for an extension to gain service. These residents are having well problems and will pay their share of construction which is $23,730.00. Bids were received ranging from $92,668.50 to $174,311.76. The low bidder was Lyttle Utilities. Since the project is larger than originally planned due to the Heppel Road extension, the $23,730 needs to be appropriated to fully fund the project. This project is part of the previously approved Utilities Capital Improvement Program and the remaining funds are included in the appropriated Capital Budget. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the appropriation, award the construction contract to Lyttle Utilities and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents. DISTRICT: Clover Hill ATTACHMENTS: YES ~1 NO [] Craig '/S. Bry~t Assistant Director of Utilities BOS-9891 SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMI I<11STRAToR O0 0 8 gl,.- "?~ O u D . /~' / POCOSHOCK HEIGHTS AR~ 0 0 0 U~C DR. PITMAN O0 O86 CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: February 12, 1992 SUBJECT: Approval of Utilities Plaza, Phase I ITEM NUMBER: Contract for 6.E.11. Ironbridge COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OFINFORMATION: Staff requests that the Board approve the contract for 88-0277, Ironbridge Plaza, Phase I. BACKGROUND: This project includes the extension of '3,860 L.F.± of wastewater lines; 6,964 L.F.± of water lines of which 3,578 L.F.± of 16" water lines is oversized. The developer is required to have a 12" water line to serve his development, therefore, staff has requested the water lines be oversized to provide service to the adjoining properties. Under the ordinance, the developer is entitled to refunds for the cost of oversizing the water line. ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO [3 J~. E. Beck~ Jr. Assistant Director of Utilities SIGNATURE: COU~TY~~AD I NISTRATOR 00 087 Agenda Item February 12, 1992 Page 2 Developer: Contractor: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Copes Construction Company Contract Amount: Estimated Total - $319,301.12 Total Estimated County Cost: Water (Oversizing) - $ 47,885.07 (Refund thru connections) Estimated Developer Cost: $271,416.05 Code: (Oversizing) 5H-58350-890732E RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve this contract and authorize the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents. DISTRICT: Matoaca O0 088 IRON BRIDGE ROAD :1,1VIN G 'f 0 ~, OR 11500 DENSHIRE \ [:ARVER '-'IOMES ,~ ar~l M [ 88-0277 IRONBRIDGE PLAZA, PHASE I O0 089 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE:.February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: 6.E.13. Acceptance of a Parcel of Land along Jefferson Davis Highway and Willis Road from The Southland Corporation, A Texas Corporation COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Staff requests the Board to accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.079 acre along Jefferson Davis Highway and Willis Road, from The Southland Corporation, A Texas Corporation and to authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. BACKGROUND: 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 County Thoroughfare Plan. The dedication of this parcel' conforms to that plan, and will decrease the right of way costs for road improvements when constructed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board accept the conveyance of this parcel and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. DISTRICT: Bermuda ATTACHMENTS: YES ,1~ NO [] Acquisitions Supekvisor Right of Way Division Department of Utilities SIGNATURE COUNTY ADM I NI STRATOR O0 093 VICINITY SKETCH ACCEPTANCE OF A P"~CEL OF LAND ALONG JEFFERS¢~, DAVIS HIGHWAY and ,,, , '~TT.T.T~ Ri, ,TI FTM THE ,qr%TTmT-TT.A'KT'I% r'n'~ .~Aq"TnN R HEIGHI'S C...,?.¢~. ~PLY CENTER ESTATE CORNER BRIDGE RD CRESCENT PARK PARK JC~INGE WOOD )ENSEWOOD OR -HILLTOP CI~ESHIRE CENTRAL PARK · Rmdi~ Towe H(MLOCK RD SHADY 00 094 46620 ENGINEERS AND SURVEYOR3 611REGEARCH ROAD RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 23235 O0 095 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: February 12, 1992 6.E.14. ITEM NUMBER:, Acceptance of a Parcel of Land along Turner Road from Trustees of Gospel Baptist Church COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Staff requests the Board to accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.069 acre along Turner Road, from Trustees of Gospel Baptist Church, and to authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. BACKGROUND: 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 County Thoroughfare Plan. The dedication of this parcel' conforms to that plan, and will decrease the right of way costs for road improvements when constructed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board accept the conveyance of this parcel and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. DISTRICT: Clover Hill ATTACHMENTS: YES J~ NO n Acquisitions Supervisor Right of Way Division Department of Utilities SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADM I NI STRATOR oo VICINITY SKETCH 'ACCEPTANCE O~ ~ PARCEL OF LAND ALONG TUt~ ER ROAD FRON~ TRUSTEES OF GOSPEL BAPTIST CHURCH i 1 'IYmJSHT LA S 4 DEN BA~X CT N '7 ~UE 'TII~ CT S C~.EEK ~ ;URREYWO0 ,~OUTHAVE EL~ CH E,~TENH,~M MEADOW :OCOSHO( Manchester fllOG~ CRE£KWOOD ~ i I CREEK' ~ COUNTE N O0 097 ,0..~.'~¢'~-~ ,o./~/ J Date: ¢-.¢-¢/ Scale:/'~/OO' Job · PLANNERS · ARCHITECTS · ENGINEERS · SURVEYORS · 501 Branchway Road · Suite 100 · Richmond, Virginia 23236 · 794-0571 · Fax 794-2635 P./,,ctT .CWO/d/BiO ~ 0.0~ ctC,4%¢__, .F81,~C,C_,L, O/= ,WzD ~ t= Oo~'P~/.. zSL-'J~I~---F CHL/~C/-/ -Clove/- t~i/I Oi~l'F/'c~- c/Te~C'e~//'e/o' co~Jn¢'% 00 O98 CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE : February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT: Traffic Signal Request Centralia Road and Chester Road COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Mr. Daniel has received a request from citizens to have a traffic signal installed at the intersection of Centralia Road and Chester Road. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board adopt the attached resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to install a traffic signal and turn lanes at the Centralia Road/Chester Road intersection. A81 ATTACHMENTS: YES NO [] //R. J. McCracken Director of Transportation SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BOS-9891 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY: At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors, held at the Courthouse on February 12, 1992 at 3:00 p.m. WHEREAS, the Centralia Road/Chester Road intersection is unsafe; and, WHEREAS, citizens have appeared before the Board of Supervisors to request a traffic signal at the intersection; and WHEREAS, In 1986, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to install a signal at the intersection; and WHEREAS, In 1987, VDOT advised the County that a signal was warranted at the intersection; and WHEREAS, The improvement of the Centralia Road/Chester Road intersection, including the installation of a traffic signal with turn lanes on Centralia Road and Chester Road, is included in the County's priority list for highway projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to install a traffic signal and turn lanes at the Centralia Road/Chester Road intersection. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board requests VDOT to proceed with these improvements immediately. Vote: Certified By: Theresa M. Pitts, Interim'Clerk to the Board of Supervisors 2,8B CHESTERFIELD COURTHOUSE N TRAFFIC SIGNAL REQUEST CENTRALIA RD/CHESTER RD. INTER SECTION CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA February 12, 1992 MEETING DATE: ITEM NUMBER: 6 .E.12. SUB4ECT: Consent for Conveyance of an Easement to C&P Telephone Company by Philip Morris, Inc. within a Previously Granted County Easement COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Philip Morris, Inc., has requested that the County consent to granting an ingress and egress easement to C&P Telephone Company within a County ingress and egress easement acquired for the Bermuda Hundred Sewage Pump Station. This request is necessary to provide access to the C&P easement granted by the County for critically needed telephone service upgrade in the Bermuda Hundred area. Philip Morris has requested this consent to ensure that the grant to C&P will not conflict with the use of the easement by the County. Staff recommends approval of this request, RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board consent to Philip Morris, Inc., granting an ingress and egress easement to C&P and authorize the County Administrator to execute the easement agreement. DISTRICT: Bermuda ATTACHMENTS: YES I~1 NO Fl ~n W. Harmon Property Mgmt. Supervisor Right of Way Division Department of Utilities SIGNATURE: ~1STRATOR O0 090y ,.. VICINITY SKETCH CONVEYANCE AN EASEMENT TO C~,~P TRI,k~I~'~E COMPANY AT BERMUDA HUNDRED SEWAGE PUMP STA%'~ON SITE HUNDRED O0 091 c~-, .~.n $1mvf.'l¢ -%. ~L~T SI4DalIIUG A C ~P ,~;.?.:",c'~uO0 D/ST:. C/ges?er~',/e/C Co..., O0 092 it. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: February 12, 1992 SUBdECT: APPOINTMENTS ITEM NUMBER: 7.a. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Attached is a list of appointments deferred from the Board meeting on January 22, 1992. ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO [] SIGNATURE .' COUNTY ADM I N I STRATOR O0 09~ CAPITAL AREA TRAINING CONSORTIUM One at-large appointment from County with term until December 31, 1992 COMMITTEE ON THE FUTURE One from Clover Hill with ter~ at Pleasure of the Board SOLID WASTE COMMITTEE Two from Midlothian with term expiring December 31, 1992 One from Clover Hill with term expiring December 31, 1992 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY One from County at-large o- Pleasure of the Board AFPF_.ALS PJ~NI~ ~UR~U~I~ ~ VIRGINIA SET OFF DEBT CO'r.LF.C~ION ~C~ James E. Harris - Pleasure of the Board ~/ Samuel H. West - Pleasure of the Board See attached. 00 100 --1-- RICHARD A. CORDLE COUNTY TREASURER TO: FROM: DATE: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA Office of County Treasurer P. O. Box 70 Chesterfield, VA 23832 (804) 748-1201 MEMORANDUM / Lane B. Ramsey, County Administrat)6r Richard A. Cordle, Treas February 3, 1992 [3. Hancock J, Honderich B. Johnson B. Tate R. Wheawill DEPUTY TREASURERS SUBJECT: SET-OFF DEBT PANEL MEMBERS CC: Mary Lou Lyle, Accounting Director Theresa Pitts, Acting Clerk to tire Board Jim Harris Sam West I was advised that the Board of Supervisors requested Mary Lou Lyle and I to remain on the county's set-off Debt Panel, and to submit names to the Board for two other panelists. Mary Lou and I have discussed this matter and recommend the following panel members: James E. Harris, Chairman Samuel H. West Mr. Harris and Mr. West currently serve on the Panel and have been extremely flexible and cooperative in meeting when a contested case must be heard. Typically, this has been only one or two times a year. Because of their familiarity with Chesterfield County tax ordinances and with the Set-Off Debt process, Mary Lou and I recommend that these two men be returned to the Panel. Their rulings have always been fair and we believe the county will continue to be well served by their commitment and dedication. Additional information on Mr. Harris and Mr. West is as follows: Mr. James E. Harris 11920 Bondurant Dr. Richmond, VA 23236 (Cloverhill District) Employment: Planning and Development Assistant for A. W. Bennett Inc. (He is a CPA and President of Stonehenge Civic Assoc. ) Mr. Samuel H. West 11901 Ironbridge Rd. Chester, VA 23831 (Bermuda District) Employment: Partner for West, Crawley, Winn - Certified Public Accountants If I can provide any additional information, please let me know. 00 101 MEET lNG DATE' ~UB4ECT: cHESTERFiELD coUNT'f BOARO OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA February 12, %992 ITEM NUMBER: rl. . Nomination and Appointment of Brenda Chesterfield Community Services Board Johnson to COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION At the Board's regular meeting on January S, 1992, the Board appointed Brenda Johnson to serve on the Chesterfield Community Services Board ("CCSB"). Ms. Johnson had served as a CCSB member for the Clover Hill Magisterial District for the previous three years. Due to redistricting, Ms. Johnson is no longer a resident of Clover Hill but resides in the Matoaca District. Accordingly, it was the sense Of the Board on January 8, 1992, that Ms. Johnson be appointed for a one-year term and that a Clover Hill resident be selected next year to fill the remaining two years of that term. Upon further review, it has been determined that all appointments to the CCSB must, as a matter of law, be for a full three-year term. As a result, the Board's previous appointment of Ms. Johnson was a nullity and a new three-year appointment must be made. In order for an appointment to be made at this meeting, the Board must suspend its Rules of Procedure to permit nomination and appointment to occur at the same meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 0400:45.1 YES El NO Jl~ (continued) PREPARED BY: Steven L. Micas County Attorney SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADM I N I STRATOR BOS-9891 AGENDA ITEM February 12, 1992 I~ the Board desires, Ms. Johnson can be appointed to the CCSB for the full three-year term even though she is now a resident of Matoaca. Although past Boards have traditionally allocated CCSB appointments equally among the five magisterial districts, this is not legally required. Furthermore, on January 1, 1993, one Matoaca District position will be vacated and a Clover Hill resident could be appointed to fill that vacancy if the Board desires. 0400: 45.1 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE: February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: V.Be SUBdECT: Request of Veterinarians to Discuss Assessment of Business License Taxes COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This matter was deferred from the January 22, 1992 meeting of the Board of Supervisors. A group of thirteen veterinarians and an accountant have asked to speak to the Board concerning their business license tax assessments and a recent audit of veterinarian businesses conducted by the Commissioner of Revenue. A copy of the group's letter request is attached. Title 58.1, Chapter 35 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, authorizes localities to adopt business license tax ordinances. The County first adopted a business license tax ordinance in 1962. Under State law the Board of Supervisors is authorized to establish by ordinance which business classifications will be taxed and at what tax rate. Most businesses in the County are taxed under one or more of the following classifications: 1) wholesale or retail merchant; 2) personal service, 3) professional service and 4) contractors. However, once the business license tax classifications and tax rates are set by ordinance, the Commissioner of Revenue is solely ATTACHMENTS: YES ~' NO [] (C°nt~~D BY:, Lane B. Ramsey County Administrator 0400:1797:b44 SIGNATURE: COUNTY II NI STRATOR 00 102 February 12, 1992 Page Two responsible for making the business license tax assessment on each individual business. The Board has no legal authority to become involved in the assessment process. In the latter part of 1991, the Commissioner of Revenue conducted an audit of veterinarian businesses and concluded that previous license tax assessments of these businesses were incorrect. Pursuant to County ordinance, the Commissioner subsequently corrected these assessments and corrected tax bills were issued. The group of veterinarians asking to address the Board disagrees with the Commissioner's corrected assessments and recently - on January 14, 1992 - the Commissioner and the veterinarians met to discuss the veterinarians' concerns. If the veterinarians continue to disagree with their assessments, they may contest the assessments in the Chesterfield County Circuit Court under a procedure established by State law. As a matter of law, the Board cannot change the assessment decisions made by the Commissioner of Revenue. The Board could, however, amend the business license tax ordinance to 1) eliminate the license tax classification under which veterinarians are taxed (professional service) or 2) reduce the current tax rate of $.58 per $100 of gross receipts for the professional service category. Either of these changes would affect all professional service providers in the County (i.e., doctors, lawyers, accountants). 0400:1797:b44 oo ..t ':'.'ir'. Lane l-~amsey County .4dminist rator P O Eox 40 Chesterfield, '/a. 23832 Sir, We would like to be added to the ar,.enda to speak before the Board of Supervisors at the January 22 meetin(~. The to~ic of discussion will be the audit performed On the vetsrinar~ans of Chesterfield County by the office of the Corn-missioner of Revenue. We hope that the Board of Supervisors will be able to clarify the Code pertainin-' to the collection of revenues when apply[n? for a business license. Gary L. Zavik Charles Hickey Mitch Tedeschi William Dunnavant Owen ,'icFadden John Terrell Richard Kitte rman {.lenn Deckert David ?.oor e !\~ichael i{nthony Carter' Burkey N~ck 'flare Richard Jordan :,~alph Amernick Eon Air Animal Hospital Pocoshock Animal Hospital Cloverhill Animal Hospital Ironbrid[,e Animal Hospital ;'Sidlothian Animal Hospital Sycamore Animal Hospital 0xbrid~:e Animal Hospital L~aldwin Creek Animal Hospital Hu~'enot Road Animal Hospital Stonehenyle Animal Hospital/Swift Creek t',ermuda Hundred Animal Hospital Elam Animal Hospital Town and Country Animal Hospital Ralph Amernick &Co. The above is a list of speakers wishin(, to address this subject, If there are any questions please c~e at 276-555~, my office. ' //,,/ O0 104 CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA REPORTS MEETING DATE: February 12r 1992 REPORT ON: Status of General Fund Balance, Reserve for Future Capital Projects, District Road and Street Light Funds, Lease Purchases, and School Board Agenda ATTACHMENTs: YES NO [] SIGNATURE: COu~STR~TOR O0 105 Board Meeting Date 07/01/91 08/28/91 10/23/91 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY GENERAL FUND BALANCE February 4, 1992 Description FY92 Beginning Fund Balance Loan to Midlothian Vol- unteer Fire Dept. for building addition Appropriated funds for temporary position in Planning Dept. for Riverfront Plan research contingent upon $150,000 to $250,000 match from private sector Amount (45,000) (5O,OOO) Balance $15,426,215 15,381,215 15,331,215 gfbal O0 106 Board Meeting Date 11/22/89 12/13/89 06/30/90 06/13/90 06/27/90 06/27/90 12/12/90 06/30/91 03/13/91 07/01/91 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY RESERVE FOR FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS TRADITIONALLY FUNDED BY DEBT February 4, 1992 Description FY89 Excess revenue FY90 Budgeted addition Designation from June 30, 1989 Fund Balance Purchase of land-Cogbill Road Purchase building at 6701 West Krause Road Budgeted addition of excess revenue Purchase medical building for future library site Funds to purchase land for park on Lake Chesdin Budgeted but not appropriated funds to purchase land for school and park sites Fill dirt for cover repair at Fort Darling Landfill Budgeted addition from FY91 revenues Designated but not appropriated funds to cover construction contract for MH/MR/SA building if bonds are not sold in fall, 1991 Regional Jail Authority as approved in the FY92 Adopted Budget (which will be reim- bursed) Amount $2,119,900 1,881,500 1,500,000 ( 630,000) Balance $2,119,900 4,001,400 5,501,400 4,871,400 ( 400,000) 4,471,400 2,100,000 6,571,400 ( 735,000) 5,836,400 ( 600,000) 5,236,400 (2,000,000) 3,236,400 ( 180,000) 3,056,400 4,000,000 (1,806,800) (1,000,000) 7,056,400 5,249,600 4,249,600 00 107 08/28/91 08/28/91 08/28/91 11/27/91 Provide funding for improve- ments at Northern Area Landfill to allow reallocation of General Fund dollars to recycling programs Additional funding for Bon Air Library expansion Add back MH/MR building funds which were previously deducted for construction Appropriated funds for T.V. arraignment equipment but holding in reserve account until prices and all costs are confirmed ( 315,000) 3,934,600 ( 275,500) 3,659,100 1,806,800 5,465,900 ( 115,000) 5,350,900 rfcip O0 108 o 00 o o o o o o o o o o o ~-~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [~ 0 o o o o {D 0 0 0 ~u 0 -,--I .u 0 O0 1 O9 Prepared by Accounting Department January 31, 1992 SCHEDULE OF CAPITALIZED LEASE PURCHASES Date Lease Purchase Began Description Original Date Lease Lease Purchase Purchase Amount Ends Outstanding Balance 1/31/92 12/83 7/87 7/87 10/87 Copiers School Vehicles School Telecommunications Equipment Jail Addition Data Processing Human Services Courts Building 30,500 8/92 259,500 6/92 239,046 245,385 1,839,219 4,489,377 16,796,019 23,370,000 7/92 12/Ol $ 4,067 15,314 28,358 191,836 1,437,848 3,509,668 13,130,648 18,270,000 6/88 800 MHz Equip. - Rescue Squads 800 MHz Equip. - Sheriff Fire Pumpers Fire Station Apparatus and Furnishings A T & T Phone Equip. Filing System- Treasurer (Unallocated) 85,000 140,000 264,000 1,428,000 946,400 40,000 83,600 2,987,000 6/93 28,408 46,572 88,015 248,640 305,486 9,014 0 726,135 00 110 Date Lease Purchase Began o/88 12/88 3/89 8/89 12/89 10/90 Descriptions School Copier Airport State Police Hangar Additions and County Warehouse Geographic Information System ("GIS") Automated Mapping System Data Processing Equipment Data Processing Equipment Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Computer Equipment TOTAL APPROVED AND EXECUTED Original Lease Purchase Amount $ 21,600 128,800 331,200 460,000 3,095,000 183,430 2,015,570 96,500 $32,758,146 Date Lease Purchase Ends 9/93 12/00 1/98 8/92 1/95 7/93 Outstanding Balance 1/31/92 $ 8,781 106,349 273,470 379,819 3,095,000 28,055 991,827 50,161 $23,597,517 PENDING APPROVALAND/OREXECUTION None c:caplease.doc 00 111 Prepared by Accounting Department January 31, 1992 SCHEDULE OF CAPITALIZED LEASE PURCHASES Date Lease Purchase Began Description Original Date Lease Lease Purchase Purchase Amount Ends Outstanding Balance 1/31/92 12/83 7/87 7/87 10/87 APFROVEDAND EXECUTED Copiers School Vehicles School Telecommunications Equipment Jail Addition Data Processing Human Services Courts Building 30,500 8/92 259,500 6/92 239,046 245,385 1,839,219 4,489,377 16,796,019 23,370,000 7/92 12/O1 $ 4,067 15,314 28,358 191,836 1,437,848 3,509,668 13,130,648 18,270,000 6/88 800 MHz Equip. Rescue Squads 800 MHz Equip. Sheriff Fire Pumpers Fire Station Apparatus and Furnishings A T & T Phone Equip. Filing System- Treasurer (Unallocated) 85,000 140,000 264,000 1,428,000 946,400 40,000 83,600 2,987,000 6/93 28,408 46,572 88,015 248,640 305,486 9,014 0 726,135 00 112 Date Lease Purchase Began Descriptions Original Lease Purchase Amount Date Lease Purchase Ends Outstanding Balance 1/31/92 lO/88 12/88 3/89 8/89 12/89 lO/9O School Copier Airport State Police Hangar Additions and County Warehouse Geographic Information System ("GIS") Automated Mapping System Data Processing Equipment Data Processing Equipment Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Computer Equipment TOTAL APPROVED AND EXECUTED $ 21,600 128,800 331,200 460,000 3,095,000 183,430 2,015,570 96,500 $32,758,146 9/93 12/00 1/98 8/92 1/95 7/93 $ 8,781 106,349 273,470 379,819 3,095,000 28,055 991,827 50,161 $23,597,517 PENDING APPROVAL AND/OR EXECUTION None c:caplease.doc 00 113 A ~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA February 11, 1992 School Administration Building The Public Meeting Room g901Lori Road Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS Jean P. Copeland-Chairman, Matoaca Timothy Carter Brown-Vice-Chairman, Midlothian John A. Cardea, M.D., Clover Hill Elizabeth B. Davis, Dale Marshall W. Trammell, Jr., Bermuda Thomas R. Fulghum, Superintendent 5:00 p.m. 7:30 p.m. AGENDA EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE SCHOOL BOAR~ 5:00 P.M. SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDIN~ PUBLIC HEARING ON BUDGET 7:30 p,m. THE PUBLIC MEETING ROOM REGULAR SCHOOL,BOARD MEETING - IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINA THE PUBLIC MEETING ROOM Ce Ee Call to Order, Roll Call, Flag Salute - Mrs. Copeland, presiding Acceptance of Minutes January 28, lg92 (Regular Meeting) January 30, 1992 (Work Session on Budget) Agenda Approval Awards and Recognitions #74 Recognition of School Board Member Appreciation Week Superintendent's Report Action Items 1. Consent Agenda O0 114 Human Resource #70 Recommended Personnel Action for 1991-92 (and Addendum) ~perations and Finance #75 Request Approval of Petty Cash Reimbursement for January, 1992, Disbursements G. Non-Agenda Items He Discussion Agenda. agenda items.) (No public testimony will be accepted on discussion I. Announcements, Communications, School Board Comments Executive Session (personnel, legal, land/property acquisition, discipline) K. Adjournment General Information The Chesterfield School Board meets on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month with the exception of July when it meets on the second Tuesday, August when it meets on the Fourth Tuesday, November when it meets on the second Tuesday, and December when it meets on the second Tuesday. The first meeting of each month begins at 5:00 p.m.; the second meeting of the month starts at 7:30 p.m. All meetings are open to the public and are held in the Public Meeting Room, 9901Lori Road, Chesterfield, Virginia.' If the place or- time is changed, the public will be notified. Following is the procedure by which the public may speak before the school Board at any of the above meetings: Persons wishing to be heard on action items must notify the Superintendent~s office by 2:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Persons who have requested to offer public testimony will be heard when each item is considered. Persons to be heard on non-agenda items will be heard during the specified section of the meeting. e It is requested that an individual conduct his/her presentation in three minutes; representatives of a group may speak for five minutes. Public delegations. Public delegations or their representatives are required, to submit in writing their request for hearing and their proposals to the Superintendent at least five days prior to the meeting at which they wish to be heard. 2 O0 115 CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA REPORTS MEETING DATE: February 12, 1992 8.B. REPORT ON: Developer Water and Sewer Contracts BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors has authorized the County Administrator to execute water and/or sewer contracts between the County and the Developer in which no County funds are involved. The report is submitted to the Board members so they Will be aware of developments utilizing public water and/or sewer within their districts. SUMMARY OF INFOPd~ATION: The following water and sewer contracts were executed by the County Administrator: Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: ATTACHMENTS: YES [] 90-0533 Kingdom Hall for Jehovah's Witness Normandale Trustees of the Chesterfield Congregation of-Jehovah's Witnesses L C T Construction Sewer - $9,500.00 Bermuda PREPARED BY: ~~.~ // J. E. ~eck, Jr. ~/Assistan~ Director of Utilities SIGNATURE: COU~NISTRATOR 00 116 Agenda Item February 12, 1992 Page 2 e Contract Number: project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: General Contractor: Site Contractor: Utilities Contractor: Contract Amount: District: 91-0186 Taco Bell at Breckenridge Shopping Center Taco Bell Corporation Bookman Construction Company Water - $7,700.00 Bermuda 89-0962 Walthall Creek, Section 8 Hill Development Corporation, Ltd. Castle Equipment Corporation Water - $10,275.00 Bermuda 90-0537 Jefferson National Bank at Bellgrade - Route 147 Jefferson National Bank Brians Water Tap Service Water - $2,107.00 Midlothian 91-0121 Stony Point Reformed Presbyterian Church Stony Point Reformed Presbyterian. Church Woolfolk Construction, Inc. John Marshall, Inc. S. H. Guza Company Water - $5,050.00 Midlothian 00 117 CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE : February 12, 1992 SUBJECT: EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM NUMBER:, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Executive session, pursuant to ~ 2.1-344(a) (7), Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, for consultation with legal counsel pertaining to probable litigation resulting from an EPA Superfund claim against Chesterfield County Public Schools and pursuant to ~ 2.1-344(a) (1), Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, for discussion or consideration of matters relating to the assignment, appointment, performance, removal or resignation of specific appointees of the Board and the evaluation of a senior county official. ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ 0600:1790:b44 PREPARED BY; · Steven L. Micas County Attorney SIGNATURE :, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR !~3S-9891 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE: , F~bruary 12: 1992 ,~BJECT: EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM NUMBER: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Executive session, pursuant to ~ 2.1-344(a) (7), Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, for consultation with legal counsel pertaining to probable litigation resulting from an EPA Superfund claim against Chesterfield County Public Schools and pursuant to ~ 2.1-344(a) (1), Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, for discussion or consideration of matters relating to the assignment, appointment, performance, removal or resignation of specific appointees of the Board. ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ 0600:1790:b44 NO [] SIGNATURE :, PREPARED BY: Attorney CO~NISTRATOR O0 118 MOTION: SECOND: DATE: CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION HELD IN CONFORMANCE WITH LAW WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has this day adjourned into Executive Session in accordance with a formal vote of the Board, and in adcordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act effective July 1, 1989, provides for certification that such Executive Session was conducted in conformity with law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors does hereby certify that to the best of each member's knowledge, i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under the Freedom of Information Act were discussed in the Executive Session which this certification 'applies, and ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the Motion by which the Executive Session was convened were heard, discussed or considered by the Board. No member dissents from this certifi- cation. Vote: (by roll call) The Board being polled, the vote was as follows: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT DURING VOTE: ABSENT DURING MEETING: **CERTIFIED** CLERK TO THE BOARD 00 119 /0. CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: February 12~ 1992 DINNER MEETING ITEM NUMBER:, 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Representatives from the Metropolitan Richmond Convention and Visitors Bureau will be meeting with the Board for dinner. There will be a brief presentation from the Visitors Bureau. PREPARED BY; ATTACHMENTS: YES C] NO ~ SIGNATURE: COUN~~A I NISTRATOR 00' MRCVB STAFF LIST Ms Mr Ms Ms Mr Ms Ms Ms Ms Ms Terri Kiel Ron Davis Nancy Kreeger Jenny Price Jack Berry Estella Wingate Barbara Young Judy Draucker Luanne Brannen Carol Torricelli Ms. Leslie Hall Ms Gail Doyle Mr Randall Jones Ms Ales Rowe Ms Betsy Langhorne Ms Brenda Webb Ms Robin Humphrey Ms Michelle Bogan Ms Becky Coleman Ms Anne Atkinson Ms Linda Rice Ms Kelly Lawson Ms. Valerie Siddons President & Chief Operating Officer Senior Vice President Senior Vice President of Operations Vice President of Marketing General Manager of RCCE Director of Convention Sales National Sales Manager Director of Convention Services Director of Tourism Director of Group Leisure Sales Convention/Tourism Services Manager Director of Communications Director of Publishing Visitor Center Manager Robin Hood Road Visitor Center Manager Airport Sales/Marketing Manager, RCCE Bookings Manager, RCCE Assistant Director of Operations Assistant to the Senior Vice President Tourism Administrative Assistant Convention Sales Administrative Assistant Administrative Assistant Assistant for all departments ADVERTISING METRO RICHMOND CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU · 1992 SPRING TOURISM CAMPMGN · FINAL AD PLACEMENT SCItEDUI,E , DRAFT 004 · February 12,1992 2223 E. MAIN STREET RO. BOX 26361 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23260 804/788-0048 FAX # 804/783-96O3 ,dUnk, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: February 12, 1992 ,~UB4 ECT.' SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS Airport Advisory Board ITEM NUMBER: 13.A.1.2.3. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION The Board will be recognizing the following members with Certificates of Appreciation for their service to the Airport Advisory Board: Mr. John Mazza, Jr., representing Matoaca District Dr. W. Gene Kilbourne, representing Bermuda District Mr. Philip Evans, representing Midlothian District ATTACHMENTS: YES r"l SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 00 121 Bfk~9891 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: 13, . B. C. D. E. SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS Community Services Board; Crater Planning District Commission; Richmond Regional Planning District Commission and Chesterfield County Planning Commission COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION The Board will be recognizing the following members with Pewter Plates for their service to the designated Committees: Community Services Board Mr. Charles E. Jackson, representing Bermuda District Dr. Sanford Schwartz, representing Midlothian District Crater Planninq District Cca~aission Captain Willie J. Bradley, Jr., representing the County at-large Richmond Regional Planning District Commission Mr. Raymond E. Hevener, Sr., representing the County at-large Mr. Lawrence R. Belcher, representing the County at-large Chesterfield County Planning Commission Mr. Lawrence R. Belcher, representing Matoaca District Mr. J. E. Steven Perkins, representing Bermuda District Ms. Carol Boisineau, representing Midlothian District Mr. Arthur S. Warren, representing Clover Hill District (See attached.) PREPARED BY: ~ ~ ATTACHMENTS: YES l~k NO I'1 SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADM I NI STRATOR O0 CHARLES E. JACKSON IN RECOGNITION OF THREE YEARS OF SERVICE REPRESENTING BERMUDA DISTRICT ON THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD SANFORD SCHWARTZ IN RECOGNITION OF THREE YEARS OF SERVICE REPRESENTING MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT ON THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD WILLIE J. BRADLEY, JR. IN RECOGNITION OF SIX YEARS OF SERVICE REPRESENTING CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ON THE CRATER PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION RAYMOND E. HEVENER, SR. IN RECOGNITION OF TEN YEARS OF SERVICE REPRESENTING CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ON THE RICHMOND REGIONAL PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION LAWRENCE R. BELCHER IN RECOGNITION OF EIGHT YEARS OF SERVICE REPRESENTING CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ON THE RICHMOND REGIONAL PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION O0 123 LAWRENCE R. BELCHER IN RECOGNITION OF TWENTY YEARS OF SERVICE REPRESENTING MATOACA DISTRICT ON THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION J. E. STEVEN PERKINS IN RECOGNITION OF FOUR YEARS OF SERVICE REPRESENTING BERMUDA DISTRICT ON THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CAROL BOISINEAU IN RECOGNITION OF TWO YEARS OF SERVICE REPRESENTING MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT ON THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ARTHUR S. WARREN IN RECOGNITION OF FOUR YEARS OF SERVICE REPRESENTING CLOVER HILL DISTRICT ON THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION O0 124 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AG E NDA MEETING DATE: February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: 13.F. SUBJECT: Resolution Recognizing Mr. E. C. "Gene" Autry for Serving as Chairman on the Revenue Resources and Infrastructure Committee. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Staff has requested the Board adopt the attached resolution recognizing Mr. E. C. "Gene" Autry who served as Chairman on Revenue Resources and Infrastructure Committee. Staff also recommends that similar resolutions be mailed to the other members of the Committee. (See attached.) PREPARED B~'. ATTACHMENTS: YES ~, NO [] SIGNATURE:, COUNTY ADM I N I STRATOR O0 125 RECOGNIZING MR. E. C. ~GENE" AUTRY AS CHAIRMAN OF ~ REVENUE RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ~, the Revenue Resources and Infrastructure Committee was appointed by the Board of Supervisors in January, 1990; and WlqRRF2~S, the Revenue Resources and Infrastructure Committee was established to address the current and future capital budget financial needs of Chesterfield County; and ~, the Revenue Resources and Infrastructure Committee reviewed the County's current financial status and infrastructure needs, gathering citizen input, completing a report and making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors in January, 1992; and W~F2~S, Mr. E. C. "Gene" Autry demonstrated leadership, sensitivity and commitment to the Revenue Resources and Infrastructure Committee while serving in the capacity of Chairman of the Committee; and W~RREAS, the Revenue Resources and Infrastructure Committee represented a cross-section of the community representing each magisterial district, the Chesterfield Business Council, the financial industry, the Homebuilders Association of Richmond, the League of Women Voters, neighborhood organizations, the industrial and manufacturing industry and public school consumers; and WHEREAS, the Revenue Resources and Infrastructure Committee met twice monthly beginning in February, 1991 and worked over one thousand man-hours reviewing expenditures, operating budget reductions, revenue enhancements and exactions and capital budget financial policies. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby extends its gratitude to Mr. E. C. "Gene" Autry for serving as Chairman of the Revenue Resources and Infrastructure Committee and the following members: Ms. Eileen Amesbury; Mr. Willis P. Blackwood; Reverend Harold E. Braxton; Mr. William L. Gregg; Mr. C. T. Hill; Mr. Rudolph F. Janis, Jr.; Ms. Kathleen C. Kondylas; Mr. Robert J. Leipertz, Jr.; Mr. Charles R. Quaiff; Oliver D. Rudy, Esquire; Mr. Daniel K. Smith; and Mr. James D. Wright. O0 126 CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE : February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: 13. G. SUB4ECT: Resolution recognizing Mr. Richard Weakley, National Ruritan President, for his untiring commitment to community service and unselfish efforts to enrich the lives of others. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARYOFINFORMATION: The Board is requested to recognize Mr. Richard Weakley, National Ruritan President, for his commitment to community service and efforts to enrich the lives of others. BACKGROUND: Mr. Richard Weakley selected as President of the National Ruritan, an organization with 37,000 plus members and 1,379 Ruritan Clubs, has been committed to serving his community and fellowman for 36 years in many capacities. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution and .present it to Mr. Richard Weakley recognizing his extraordinary commitment and loyalty to community service. ATTACHMENTS: YES ~1[ NO 12] Chief of Department January 13, 1992 SIGNATURE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR O0 127 Resolution RECOGNIZING MR. RICHARD WEAKLEY, NATIONAL RURITAN PRESIDENT, FOR HIS UNTIRING CO~iITMENT TO CO~4UNI~ SERVICE AND UNSRI.~IStt EFFORTS TO ENRICH TBE LIVES OF OT~r~S Mr. Richard Weakley, is now serving as the President of the National Ruritan Organization; and while being a member of the Ruritan Organization for 12 years, he was a charter member of the Westover Club of South Richmond; served as the Club's President, Vice President, member of the Board of Directors and chaired a number of committees, and as a member of the Downing Club in Chesterfield County was designated as a "Distinguished Ruritan". During this time he also served at the District level of the Ruritan organization as Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Expansion Chairman, District Convention Chairman, and Zone Governor, and Mr. Weakley also served at the National level of the organization as a National Board Member, Chairman of the Resolution Committee, Chairman of the Resolutions and Bylaws Committee, workshop coordinator, Board Parliamentarian, Board Chaplain, Board Pictorial Historian, Chairman of the Fellowship and Reception Committee and District Club officer training instructor, and Mr. Weakley served 34 years with the Richmond School System as teacher, Principal and Supervisor of Federal Programs, and Mr. Weakley, as a member of the Bon Air Methodist Church and lay leader, has served on the Board of Stewards, Chairman of the Council of Ministries, Chairman of the Ushering Team, the music committee, and taught the Christian Home Sunday school class, and he and his wife Clara have acted as Adult Counselors at Camp Virginia, a summer camp for boys, for the past 36 years, and Mr. Weakley earned his B.S. degree in Education from James Madison University, his M.S. degree from the University of Virginia, and holds professional memberships in the National Education Association, the Virginia Education Association and the National Principals' Association, and Through Mr. Weakley's untiring efforts, the Ruritan organization will experience the largest single year's growth in the last two decades. 00 128 NOW, TH~O~ BB IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes and expresses its gratitude and sincere appreciation to Mr. Richard Weakley for his extraordinary commitment to community service and his inordinate success in encouraging others to do their best. ~R~DFURT~BE IT RKSOLV~D, that a copy of this resolution be appropriately prepared and presented to National Ruritan President, Mr. Richard Weakley. 00 129 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETINGDATE: February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: 13.H. $UB4ECT: Resolution Recognizing Andrew Christian Austin Upon Attaining Rank of Eagle Scout COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Mr. Andrew Christian Austin, sponsored by Woodlake United Methodist Church, Troop 860, has attained the rank of Eagle Scout. He will be present with members of his family to be recognized. Resides in Matoaca District. Sponsor in Clover Hill District. ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO I'1 SIGNATURE :. COUNTY ADM I NI STRATOR O0 130 RECOGNIZING ANDREW CHRIST~ AUSTIN UPON HIS ATTAINING RANK OF EAGT.R SCOUT WHEREAS, The Boy Scouts of America was incorporated by Mr. William D. Boyce on February 8, 1910; and WT[RREAS, The Boy Scouts of America was founded to promote citizenship training, personal development and fitness of individuals; and WHEREAS, After earning at least twenty-one merit badges in a wide variety of fields, serving in a leadership position in a troop, carrying out a service project beneficial to his community, being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit and living up to the Scout Oath and Law; and WHEREAS, Mr. Andrew Christian Austin, Woodlake United Methodist Church, Troop 860, has accomplished those high standards of commitment and has reached the long-sought goal of Eagle Scout which is received by less than two percent of those individuals entering the Scouting movement; and ~, Growing through his experiences in Scouting, learning the lessons of responsible citizenship and priding himself on the great accomplishments of his County, Andrew is indeed a member of a new generation of prepared young citizens of whom we can all be very proud. NOW, ~FORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby extends its congratulations to Mr. Andrew Christian Austin and acknowledges the good fortune of the County to have such an outstanding young man as one of its citizens. O0 13i CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: 15.A., Public Hearing for Proposed Amendments to- Midlothian Area Community Plan and Thoroughfare Plan COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: On February 27, 1991, the Board of Supervisors requested the Planning Commission to consider the following proposals: Delete the proposed seventy (70) foot collector road extending from realigned Winterfield Road to Route 60 at Charter Colony Parkway. Expand the boundaries of the designated Village Area to extend application of Village District development standards to the LeGordon Drive/Garnett Lane neighborhood. The Midlothian Area Community Plan, adopted in 1989, designated additional road alignments as well as land use, environmental and public facility recommendations. In addition, special historic village architectural and design standards were adopted for the village Area in order too achieve smaller scale historical character and pedestrian scale. The boundaries of this "design sensitive" area are attached.PREPARED BY'Thomas E.f~~~son~ Director of Planning ATTACHMENTS: YES 11~ NO [] 1FEB1292/A :AGENDA2/gok SIGNATURE: COUN A~~DM NI STRATOR O0 132 AGENDA ITEM PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ~O MIDLOTHIAN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN AND ~HOROUGHFARE PLAN FEBRUARY 12, 1992 PAGE TWO A public information meeting was held in the community on April 22, 1991 to discuss these proposed Plan amendments. Approximately fifty (50) citizens participated in the discussion including eleven (11) members of the citizen advisory committee who helped to develop the Midlothian Plan. Residents from the Westfield Road area voiced opposition to the currently adopted road proposal because they believe it threatens the future of their homes and neighborhood character. The Garnett Lane/Le Gordon Drive participants voiced concerns for protection of their neighborhood as surrounding property is developed. On September 17, 1991, the Planning Commission deferred the amendment proposals for sixty (60) days to allow time for staff to hold additional discussions with community residents to reexamine their concerns and to explore other options. Residents then worked with the Transportation Department to identify a route different from adopted alignment B (See attachment B). Alternative Corridor C avoids potential disruption to homes in the established Westfield Road area and along Winterfield Road. Also, a letter was received from the Garnett Lane/LeGordon Drive neighborhood requesting that their proposal be withdrawn. After studying a comparison of new zoning ordinance standards (see attachment C), they support staff's conclusion that are not significant advantages for the neighborhood with Village District development standards. As a result the Planning Commission took the following action on November 19, 1991. Change the currently adopted seventy (70) foot collector road proposal from Alignment B to Alignment C providing adequate buffers along realigned Winterfield Road as it links with Route 60. Denied the proposed expansion of the designated Village Area to incorporate the LeGordon Drive/Garnett Lane neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission and staff recommend the Board adopt the proposed amendments to the Midlothian Area Community Plan and the Thoroughfare Plan relative to the realigned Winterfield Road (Alignment C). Further, the Planning Commission and staff recommend denial of the proposed Village Area expansion. O0 133 O0 134 A,' TACHMENT B I! N ,/ POTENTIAL CORRIDORS ! O0 135 ~-_finition of ose(s) Certain Use T.~ m~ rations Setback from Road (LeGordon Drive) Architectural ~eatn~_nt Building Height Adjacent to Neighborhood Not Adjacent to Neighborhood Lan~p~g (Parking ~) Buffer Areas (Adjacent to Res idences ) Screening Exterior Lighting Outside Storage Loading Areas Si~n~ Total Area Setback Portable ATTACHMENT C Emerging Growth Area Village District (Fringe Area) High quality, well-designed 'business districts Same design focus Architectural compatibility Improved pedestrian and vehicular circulation Emphasizes different settlement pattern Combine drive-ins, gas pumps, intense business uses with larger projects Minimum 25 feet plus landscaping Equivalent but encourages buildings closer to street Yes; enhanced through proffers Same; architecture to reflect existing historic styles. 2 1/2 stories or 30 feet Same For offices, hotels, hospitals, up to 120 feet. All other uses - 45 feet. Internal and peripheral 3 stories or 45 ft. for all uses. Same 40 feet plus landscaping Same Yes Yes Yes Same Same Same Up to 150 square feet 20 feet minimum Prohibited Same 5 feet minimum Same PC/COMPR14/APR56.DOC/dmm O0 136 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE: February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: 15 .B. SUB4ECT: Public Hearing to Amend County Comprehensive Plan Addressing Water Quality Protection COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION BACKGROUND: The attached four page text and accompanying map is a proposed amendment to the Chesterfield County Comprehensive Plan specifically addressing protection of water quality. The Comprehensive Plan, and its subsequent amendments is a document adopted by the Board of Supervisors which articulates the overall' goals, policies, and implementation actions concerning the long range development of the County. The attached Water Quality Protection Plan recommends broad goals and policies that provide a framework for implementing improved water quality protection efforts throughout the County. This amendment provides background information and planning factors concerning water quality. It proposes goals and related policy statements which are intended to guide future development decisions in order to protect County water resources. Important implementation strategies are also listed. ATTACHMENTS: YES M NO [] Director of Planning 2FEB2292/A: AGENDA2/gok SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADM I N! STRATOR O0 137 ,/ AGENDA ITEM PUBLIC HEARING TO A~R. ND COUNTY COMPREHtg~SIVE PIAN ADDRESSING WATER QUALITY PROTECTION FEBRUARY 12 , 1992 PAGE 2 Because of State mandated .actions resulting from the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, significant zoning, subdivision, and erosion/sediment control ordinances have already been adopted by the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors effective on November 14, 1991. In addition, the Environmental Engineering Department is preparing detailed environmental based maps delineating potential surface water bodies, associated tidal and non-tidal wetlands, and required buffer areas. At their meeting on November 19, 1991, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the attached water quality amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. This plan amendment was undertaken in response to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act adopted by the Virginia General Assembly in 1988. Following approval by the Board of Supervisors this Plan amendment will be forwarded to the State's Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department for review. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the Board adopt the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan relative to water quality protection. 2FEB2292/A :AGENDA2/gok 00 1 38 PROPOSED COMP~SIVE PLAN WATER QUALITY PROTECTION PLAN As Recommended By The Chesterfield County Planning Commission At Their November 19, 1991 Regular Meeting INTRODUCTION Water is a ci'itical natural resource. Its importance to Chesterfield County is linked directly to the continued need for safe drinking water, economic development, wildlife habitat preservation, recreation opportunities and ongoing environmental quality. The purpose of this plan is to establish a series of goals, policies and implementation strategies promoting water quality protection throughout Chesterfield County. The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, adopted by the Virginia General Assembly in 1988, provides a foundation for this effort. Changes to the land resulting from the natural forces of wind, rain and gravity will impact our water supply and nature's intricate web of life. By altering the natural water retention capabilities of the land, using fertilizers and pesticides, and improperly controlling soil erosion and waste disposal, man's activities continue to cause 'significant amounts of sediments, nutrients and toxics to drain into the County' s drinldng water supplies, unique natural areas, and ultimately the Chesapeake Bay. As Chesterfield County has grown, concern for water quality has become an increasingly important issue. An added incentive for strengthening local water quality protection strategies came with the enactment of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. Its basic purpose is to protect water quality in the Bay region through effective land management techniques. Chesterfield County is one of eighty-nine localities affected by the Act. Jurisdictions that border on Virginia's tidal waters, includlng the James River and its tributaries, contribute ninety percent of the fresh water from the Commonwealth entering the Chesapeake Bay, and thus directly influence its water quality; GOALS AND POLICIES The following recommended goals and policies provide a framework for implementing improved water quality protection strategies in Chesterfield County, presenting in a broad context those activities that are to be undertaken to comply with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. The goals are statements of general direction and reflect fundamental considerations that are intended to guide future development decisions. The related policies identify courses of action to be followed in reaching stated goals. Goal 1.0. Prevent future increases in water pollution levels by controlling the amount of sediments, nutrients and toxics entering the water supply. This can be done through reduced reliance on substances affecting water quality, as well as the development of land use based and structural solutions. 0 0 139 Policy 1.1. Where possible, encourage land use based water quality management approaches, such as development density controls and natural area preserva- tion standards, that eliminate public maintenance costs and insure greater long-term effectiveness in improving water quality. Policy 1.2. Where land use based water quality management approaches alone cannot achieve desired water quality, promote multiple property structural solutions, such as water retention basins, that will minimize costs and the use of scarce land resources. Policy 1.3. To the extent practical, plan for the location of new utility lines outside of identified critical environmental areas. Policy 1.4. Promote the use of best management practices that prevent or minimize erosion and/orpollutantmn-offfromconstruction, agriculture and forestry activities. Policy 1.5. Where other erosion prevention measures are not completely effective, trap and remove sediments before they reach rivers or streams. Policy 1.6. Preserve critical tidal and non-tidal wetlands to help intercept nutrients and sediments from stormwater mn-off. Goal'2.0. Manage future growth within each County watershed in a manner thatprotects drinking water supplies and other important environmental resources. Policy 2.1. Guide future growth into areas most physically suited for development and avoid areas with significant concentrations of wetlands, steep slopes or other environmentally sensitive characteristics. PLANNING FACTORS Most water pollution comes from either 'point" or "non-point" sources. Although water pollution from point sources (i.e., effluent from an industrial facility pipe) is more easily identifiable, pollution from non-point sources is a greater threat than once realized. Non-point source pollution occurs when pollutants, which accumulate on the land during dry weather, are carried to water bodies by mn-off from rainfall. Among the major components of non-point pollution are sediment, fertilizers, pesticides, heavy metals and bacteria. Increases in non-point pollution are directly related to increases in the amount of impermeable surface (buildings and paved areas that prevent the ground from soaking up rainwater) as well as to increased usage of fertilizers and pesticides. Development projects, including residential, business and roadway construction, can alter the natural vegetation, slope and water retention characteristics of land. Clearing and construction practices often strip the land of the absorbing capabilities of its vegetation and replace it with impervious surfaces that prevent water from seeping into the soil. This stops the pollutants contained in the mn-off from being filtered out pdoKtR 140 entering the waterway. Impervious surfaces also cause water to flow in greater volumes and with increased speed into storm sewers or streams. Water that is fast moving and carries soil particles digs gullies and increases stream bank erosion. Run-off which flushes nutrients, chemicals and sediments from land in both urban and rural areas has the potential to seriously degrade water quality and destroy important plant and animal life as far away as the Chesapeake Bay. Thus, prevention of future water quality problems must involve land use techniques that help reduce the adverse affects of land disturbing activities. The Chesapeake Bay Act requires local governments to designate lands "which, if improperly developext, may result in substantial damage to the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries." The regulations recognize two types of lands by distinguishing between their functional values. Resource Protection Area (RPA) lands provide direct water quality benefits by removing harmful substances from runoff. Since these lands are generally the most critical to preserve in a natural state, development activity 'Mil be limited to water dependent uses, such as marinas. The Resource Management Area (RMA) includes 100-year floodplains and soils which are either highly erodible or highly permeable, and non-tidal wetlands not included in RPAs. Development on lands in the RMA should be managed using techniques that minimize pollutant runoff to protect the important water quality functions performed in the gPA. Lands identified within the Resource Protection Area (RPA) category include shoreline and wetland features most critical to stabilizing soils, filtering sediments and nutrients. In effect, they represent the last barrier to the flow of runoff before it reaches surface water. Included in the gPa are tidal wetlands, non-tidal wetlands connected by surface flow, tidal shores, and a 100-foot wide vegetated conservation area, which is measured from the landward side of these natural features. The general location' of environmentally sensitive wetland areas within Chesterfield County are shown on the following map. IMPLEME~A~ON Implementation strategies for achieving the goals and policies of ~.is plan reflect a multi- disciplinary approach toward reducing the effects of land use on water quality. The strategies outlined below compliment existing County development procedures and long range land use and public .facility planning efforts. Implement the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and related amendments to the County's Zoning, Subdivision and Erosion/Sediment Control Ordinances to form a comprehensive mitigation program integrating diverse activities such as soil erosion/sediment control, stormwater management, agricultural/forestry practices and septic system requirements. The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act requires that development within both RPAs and RMAs meet general performance criteria designed to reduce non-point source pollution and/ or protect sensitive lands from disturbance. These criteria include: - Minimizing land disturbance - Preserving natural vegetation - Minimizing impervious cover such as paving 00 Bo - Strictly controlling soil erosion during land clearing and construction. - Managing stormwater runoff and pollution loads from developed sites - Assuring that structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be properly maintained - Providing a reserve dralnfield for septic tanks which equals the treatment capacity of the primary drainfield and requiring pump out oace every five years. Include environmental mapping in the Plan for Chesterfield to identify locations of water and other natural resourc~ in the County which should be protected. .Continue analysis of critical watersheds, including watersheds draining into public water supply reservoirs, for potential identification as special management districts. Prepare a stormwater management plan(s) to identify regional facility needs in each of the County's drainage basins and permit coordination of these projects with other land use, redevelopment and public facility plans. GL 11/21/91 O0 142 I~ Em  r'> Z o= I.l.Iw l_u "x O0 143~ cStecr, ing omm tt¢¢ Sam Hancock ¢l~irman Jim Daniels Vice Ch~itr~n Dona Link 5ccrct~ry/Tre~surcr ~ill ~ohr Fi~e C~ir~ Ann Anderson Bill Brammer Mci Bumett Will Carn¢s Tom Caubl¢ Fred Carreras Hugh Cline Nancy Finch Charlie Foster Joan gJron¢ Philip Halsey Jim Hayes Ray Hevener Dr. Joe HJllier Charles Hundley Torn Jenkins Don Lcnhart Gordon Marshall Russ Parker June Purdy Charlie Quaiff Hank Richeson Bernard Savage Bob Schrum Earl Spencer Bill Walker Cen Waters Sam West Chris Wheeler Charles P, WiIliams 02x12/9~"~14:40 ~ 804 320 0610 P.02 Ci an s For Ros nsiblO LJOVCrn/ on[ To: Honorable Members, Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors Re: Proposed Comprehensive Plan ,Amendment Water Quality Protection Plan Public hearing February 12, 1992, 7:00 pm. Item 15 B on agenda Gentlemen: As you know citizens for Responsible Government is committed to Limtted Government~ Fiscal Responsibility, the Free Enterprise System, Quality Education, Environmental. Quality,' Regional Cooperation. --- as we31 as our statement and wish that the new Board of Supervisors impart a strong, posttt've sense of direction to the admtntstratt~.n staff, taking the leadership rote in setting policy and seeing that policy implemented. It is with these goals in mind that we now respectfully request ~hat the Bosrd of Supervisors remand ~his proposed Plan Amendment to the new Planning Commission fo~ %heir review and recommendations with special instruction to reduce the language to simple precise statements clearly understood, that would leave little or no room for arbitrary interpretation by l~ndowner, developer, sta~f,.community or interested citizens. And that would reduce Or'eliminate the need for endless, costly ('in time and money), deferrals,, confrontation or litigation, As these ne~ Planni~g Commissioners (4 out of 5) will have to work With this Amendment in the future we feel it is wise for .them to have the benefit of study time, discussion among themselves and P, O, BOX 355 I . Richmond. VA 3 35, (80~) 739-?74,0 ' FAX (80~) 739-?? 8 02x12x9 14:41 ~ 804 320 0610 P.O~ the opportunity to hear public comment before voting on the document and forwarding it to the new (4 out of 5) Board of Supervisors who have appointed them, There is some feeling that opinions of the newly appointed and elected people may differ from those previously holding the same positions. For instance under the Goals and Policies paragraph quote "The goals are statements of general direction intended to guide future development decisions" but then goes on to say that "related policies identify courses of action to be followed in reachtng stated goals".. The first statement is general and a guide however, the second is mandated or to be followed exactly. ~The two statements should be compatible. They are not. The Implementation paragraph (A) gives no idea of the time or money, involved to complete. Neither does it tell you that the County in the pas[ approved only a bare-bones basic Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and not every sentence envisioned and desired by some. Has this changed? [t would seem so from reading this document. If so elected and appointed officials meed to give the public the benefit of their wisdom on this major tssue. (B) What is the dollar and time cos= of environmental mapping? It is a new program. (C) What are special management districts? How are they identified and handled? (D) Storm water management plans, regional facilities etc. new p~og~am. Cost in time and money? All should be identified clearly before approval by the Board of Supervisors to allow for sound budget planning and wise choices for expenditure of scarce resources (money) not to mention the exact results expected identified in priority order, As authorized this could be a 5 year plan of work with no budget ramification mentioned. Please go slow, identify all costs and expectations in c~ear language. -Fh-tl Hal~ey SPeaker/representative 02/~2/ 14142 ~ 804 320 0610 P.04 PROPOSED COMPI~E .HENSIVE PLAN A.MENDM]ZNT ,WATER QUALITY PROTECTION PLAN As Recommended By The Chesterfield County Plamdng Commission At Their November 19, i991 Regular Meeting INTRODUCTION, Water is a critical natural re.....murce. Its importance to Ches~rfield County is linked di. re~tly to the continued need for ~t'c drinking water, economic development, wildlife habitat preservation, recreation oppormrdties and ongoing environ mental quality. The purpo.se of thls plan is to establish a series of goals, policies and implementation smtegics promoting water quali~ protection throughout Chesterfield County. The Chempeake Bay Preservation Act, adopted by the Virginia General Assembly in 1988, provides a foundation for this effort. Change~ to the land resulting from the natural for¢~ of wind, rain and gravity will impact our water ~upply and nature's intd .c. ate web of life. By altering the natural water retention cap~llltle~ of the land, using fcrdliters and pesticides, and improperly controlling ~I1 erosion and waste dispo,~l, man's activi~es continue to cause'significant amounts of se. dimenB, nuffient~ and toxics to dmtn into the County's drinking water supplies, unique natural areas, and ultimately the Che.~e Bay. As Chesterfield Coumy has grown, concern for water quality h~ become an increasingly importznt lssu:, An added incentive for strengthening local water quality protection strategies came with the enactment of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, Its basic purlxx~ is to prot.~t water quality in the Bay region through effectlve land management techniques, Chesterfield County i$ erie of elghty-nine Iocalitles affected by the Act. ludsdictions that border on ¥irllinia's tidal wa.~r~, including the James River and its ~butaries, contribute ninet7 percent of the firesh water from the Commonwealth entering the Chempe~e Bay, a.nd taus directly influence iu water qutlity: '~ ~GOALS. AND.pOLIC~!E._q.. The following recommended goals and policies provide a framework for Implementing improved water quality protection strategies in Chesterfield County, presenting in a broad context ~ose acttvit, ie.s that are to be undertaken to comply with the Che.sape~e Bay Preservation Act. m'e stateme_n_.ts nCg~neral dlreednn and. reflect fundamentalcons{dera~on~ that are {ntend.ed to._~uid~.. 'tim,re development d~:~:_isioq,~ Thc related_ ~li¢ics id~ndfy courses 9f actiop., to be. followed in,,~_ ._r~aehin_~ stated Goal 1.0, Prevent future increases in water pollution levels by controlling the amount of sediments, nutrients and toxics entering the water supply. This can be done through reduced reliance on substances affecting water quality, as well as lhe development Policy 1.1. Where possible, encoural;¢ land 'use based water quality management approaches, such aa development density controls and natural area pre,serva- tion standards, that eliminate public malntanance costa and insure greater long-term ¢ffectivene.ss ia improvin§ water quality. Policy 1,2. Whets land use based watar q~_~a.llty management approaches alone cannot achieve desixed water quality, promote multiple property structural solutions, such as water retention basins, that will mln!mize costa and the use of scarca land re,sources. Policy 1.3. To the extent practical, plan for the location of new utility Enr..s outside of identified critical environmental area~s,, t'olicy 1.4. Promote the use of best management practices that prevent or minimize erosion and/or pollutant run-off from construction, agHcult'are and forestry activities. Policy 1,$, Where other ~rosion prevention measures are not completely effectives, trap and remove sediments before they reach rivers or streams. Policy 1.6. Pre:serve critical tidal and non-tidal wetlands to help intercept nutrients and sediments from stormwater run-off. GoaI 2.0,. Manag~ future growth within each County watershed in a manner that protects drinking water supplies and other important environmental resources. Policy 2.1. Guide future growth into areas most physically suited for development and avoid areas with significant concentrations of wetlands, steep slopes or other environmentally sensitive characteristics; PLANNING FACTORS Most water pollution comes from either "point'' or "non-point" sources. Aithoug..h water pollution from point sources (i,e., effluent from an industrial facility pipe) is more easily identifiable, pollution from non-point sources is a greater threat than once realized, lqon-ptint ~ouree pollution occurs when pollutants, which accumulate on the land during dry weather, are carried to water bodies by r~n.-off from rainfall., Among the major components of non-point pollution arc sediment, fertilizers, pesticides, heavy metals and bacteria, Increases in non-point pollution are directly related to increases in the amount of impermeable surface (b~ildings and paved areas that prevent the ground from soaking up rainwater) as well as to i. ncrea.sed usage of fertilizers and pesticides. Development projects, including residential, business and roadway construction, can alter the natural vegetation, slope and water retention characteristics of land. Cle.~ring and construction practices often strip the land of the absorbing capabilities of its vegetation and replace it with impervious surfaces that prevent water from seeping into the soil. This stops the pollutants contained in the run-off from being filtered out prior to entering ~e waterway. Impervious surfaces Eso cause water to flow in greater volumes and with incr~ ~ into ston'n sewers or sUeams. Wa~r ~hat is fast moving Nd cartes soil panicles digs gullies and incr~me,s stream bank erosion. Run-off which flushes nutrients, chemicals and sediments from land in both. urban and rural areas has the potential to seriously degrade water quality and destroy important plant and anin,al life ~ far away as the Chefapeake Bay. Thus, prevention of future wa~r. qualtty problems must involve land use techniques that help reduce the adverse affects of land dismrblng.activities. The Chesapeake Bay Act requires local governments to designate lands "which, if improperly. developed, may result in substantial damage to the waar quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its ~butaries." The regulations recognize two types of lands by distinguishing between their functional values. Resource Protection Area ('RPA) lands provide direct water quality benefits by removing harmful substances from runoff. Since these lands ,.re §¢nerally the most critical to preserve in a natural sate, development activity will be limited to water dependent uses, such as marinas. The Resource Management Area (P, aM^) includes 100-ye. ar floodplains and soils which arc either highly erodibl¢ or highly permeable, and non-tidal wetlands not included in Development on lands tn the RMA should be managed using techniques thai minimize pollutant runoff to protect the important water quality functions performed in the RPA. Lands identified within tho Resource Protection Area (RI>A) category include shoreline and wetland · features most critic.~l to stabill~_Ing soils, filtering sediments and nutrients. In effect, they repr~,ent . the last bar'rier to the flow ofrunoffbefore it reaches surface water, l.n¢luded in the It.PA are tidal . wetlands, non-tidal wetlands connected by surface flow, tidal shores, and a 100-foot wide vegetated conservation area, which is measured from the landward side of these natural features. The general. location of environmentally sensitive wetland areas within Chesterfield County are shown on the following map. Implementation strategies for achieving the goals and policies of this plan reflect a multi- disciplina, ry approach toward reducing the effects of land use on water quality: .The strategies outlined below compliment existing County development procedures and long range land use and public faeiltry planning efforts. Implement the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and related amendments to the Coun.ty's Zoning, Subdivision and Erosion/Sediment Control Ordinances to form a comprehensive mitigalion program integrating diverse activities such as sell erosion/sedlmenc control, stormwater management, agricultural/foresw/practices and septic system requirements. The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act requires that development within both N. PAs and RMAs meet general performance criteria designed to reduce non-point source pollution and/ or protect sensitive lands from disturbance. These criteria include: Minimizing land disturbance Preserving natural vegetation - Strictly concrolling soft erosion during land cica.ring and construction. - Managing stormwater runoff and pollution loads from develol:~d sites - Assuring that structur~ ~t Management Practices (BMPs) will be properly,main~q.Lned - Prov/din§ a re.~rve drainfield for scptlc tanks wMch equals the treatment caPacity of the primary dralnfleld and requlHn§ pump out once every five years. Include e~viro~men~ mapping L't thc Plan for Ches~er'H~ld to identify locations of water and other natural rcsour~ in the County which ~hould bc protected, C. ,Continue analysis of critical watershe4s, including watersheds dra~ng into public water supply reservoirs, for potcn~al identification as spec~ n'umagement districts. D. ~epare a storrnwater management plan(s) to identify, regional facility needs in each of the County's drainage basins md l~rmit coordination of these projects with other land use, redevelopment and public facility pla.ns. GL 11/21/91 02/12/~ 14:44 ~ 884 320 0610 Govemmont Statement of position of CI~[lZENS FOR I~ESPONSIBLg C~¥1gRg)IENT : £ach candidate should: Agree with and make a commitment to our Statement of Purpose promoting: * Limited Oovernment * Fiscal Responsibility ~ Free Enterprise Syste~ ~ ~ualtty Education ~,£nv~ronmental Quality ~ Regional Cooperation .. Act tn the best interest o~ the whole or Chesterfield Count)'~ though elected to represent one ~a~isterfal dlstrict, and irrespective of pressure from the NIMB¥S and special interests. Promote a~) attitude change at the Courthouse that will facilitate growth of business and industrF- a "can-do" attitude that will work out compromises that both the count), and business can live with. iork toward an economic balance o[a minimum of 20X business to ?0% residential, %bus broadening the :ax base and le~senin~ the load on indivl-. ~ual ta×pa).er~. Downplay Political party affiliation and work together cohesively with other Board me~bers for the best for Chesterfield. Cultivate co-operation a~ong Supervisors and between the Board'of Supervi$or~ and the Schoo! Board. Be part of a Board that i~p~rts a strong, positive sense of direction to the administrative staff, taking the leadership role in setting policy and seel~g that that policy Is Implemented. 8. Be a decision maker - even when the decisions are tough. ~. Be eomo~itted to streamlining the budget and getting costs under control, scruti~)~zin~ )eveJs of service, revie~'ing programs and studying productivity, Set ah object~e to reduce goveriment spending. 10. Be l,mrL of a %Joard that ~'ill deter~,ine a progressive dJrectio)) for future d,. cades. P,O, BOX C-32333 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23293-0001 804-649~6000 CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA MEETING DATE : February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: 15. C. SUBJECT: pUblic hearing to consider the conveyance of leases of real property in the Chesterfield Parks system for operation of food concessions by athletic associations COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OFINFORMATION: The Board of Supervisors ("the Board") is requested to approve the conveyance of leases of real property in the Chesterfield park facilities' system for operation of food concessions at the sites listed on the attachment. BACKGROUND In the past the Parks and Recreation facilities have been operated by athletic associations. The Parks and Recreation Department ("the department") has found the associations' services to be satisfactory and in compliance with most provisions of the lease agreement which expired December 31, 1991. The department wishes to enter into a long term lease agreement with athletic associations shown on the attachment for the operation of food concessions. A public hearing and approval of the Board is necessary to execute the lease agreements. RECOMMENDATION The Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve this request. ATTACHMENTS: YES ~[ NO D SIGNATURE: M.D. "Pele" Stith,~ ~r. Director, Parks and Recreati, COUNTY ADaM I~1 STRATOR 00 144/ BOS-9891 Additional Background Information February 12, 1992 BACKGROUND There are currently 11 food concession stands located at youth sports complexes throughout the County. These concession stands have traditionally been operated by volunteer youth sports organizations who play on the adjacent facilities. These organizations help to fund their purchase of uniforms, bats and balls, football equipment, etc., through revenues collected from concession sales. The first concession stand operated in the County parks system was opened in the mid 1970's at Rockwood Park. It was operated by the Chesterfield Baseball Clubs, Inc. In 1980-81, the first formal lease agreement for use of the property was approved by the Board of Supervisors. During the next 10 years, another 11 concession buildings were constructed. Four of these buildings were constructed with donations from youth sports organizations themselves utilizing revenue from concession sales. Eleven of these concession buildings have been operated by youth sports organizations. The 12th building, which is located at the Iron Bridge adult softball complex, is operated by the Parks and Recreation Department. Each athletic association enters into a standard concession lease agreement with the County. At one time the agreement was for a three year period. The County has shortened this period over the years and staff is currently recommending a one year lease which will allow the staff to better enforce the terms of the agreement. The lease calls for a sum of 10% of the gross receipts from all concession sales to be paid on an annual basis. Athletic group must agree to: pay rent on a specified schedule keep and maintain separate books and records on the concession operation submit all books and records to the Parks and Recreation Department when requested to do so submit payment and annual financial report on receipts and disbursements install necessary equipment and keep facility staffed during business hours keep and maintain the concession clean and in a good state of repair keep current health and sanitation permits keep adequate fire, hazard and liability insurance hold the County/department harmless of and from all claims, suits, damages, costs and expenses arising out of or in any O0 145 Additional Background Information February 12, 1992 way relating to the group's operation of the facility. conserve energy by shutting down all major equipment during the off-season The department needs access to these buildings for safety, security, and maintenance. Some groups object to this access, but this provision must be retained. The Parks and Recreation Department provides electricity, water and sewer facilities and regular trash collection. RECOMMENDATION Although there have, on occasion, been some problems with non-payment of rent, lack of adequate organization records, and limited County access to concession buildings, staff believes that organizational operation of concession is the best and most economical way to provide needed food service at County recreatioinal sites. In addition, concession sales are a major fund raiser for the youth sports organizations and these funds are an important part of the County's overall recreation resources. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve this request. Attached to this item is a listing of all concession building sites and the current operators of those sites. Also attached is a form lease agreement. O0 146 PUBLIC HEARING FOR OPERATION OF FOOD CONCESSIONS January 8, 1992 Real Property (Facilities) Bensley Community Building Chalkley Athletic Complex Reckwee~ Park · ir~ Athletic Cem~lex Peint ef Recks Ettrick Park Harrew~ate Park Re~i~us Athletic Cem~lex Matoaca Park Iron Bridge Park Goyne Park Current Lease Holder Bensley Athletic Association Chalkley Athletic Association Chesterfield Baseball Clubs, Inc. Chesterfield Girls Softball Enon Athletic Association Ettrick Youth Sports Association Harrowgate Athletic Association Huguenot Little League Matoaca Athletic Association Chesterfield Baseball Clubs, Inc. Chester Sports Boosters 00 147 LEASE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of between the COUNTY OF CttESTERFIELD, ("Lessee"). WHEREAS, Lessor owns and operates Chesterfield County, Virginia, known as in concession facility, and VIRGINIA , 199 by and ( "Lessor" ) and a recreational park in , located District, in which there has been constructed a WHEREAS, Lessee desires to operate the concession facility to offer food, beverages and other products to the general public using such facility. WITNESSETH : That for and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein con- tained, Lessor hereby grants and the Lessee hereby accepts a nonexclu- sire lease to operate the concession facility located at upon the following terms and conditions: 1. The lease herein granted shall be effective for a period of one year, commencing on January 1, 199~ and ending December 31, 199 unless terminated sooner by Lessor due to any default by the Lessee which is not cured within thirty days after Lessee receives written notice of such default. 2. Lessee shall pay to Lessor a sum equal to ten percent (10%) of the gross receipts from all concession sales, including credit sales, and said payment shall be made payable to the Treasurer of the County of O0 148 Chesterfield and delivered to the Director of Parks and Recreation, County of Chesterfield, Virginia, ("Director"), on December 31 of the current year; provided, however, that Lessor, upon giving Lessee thirty (30) days written notice, may increase the percentage of gross receipts payable to Lessor to the level Lessor deems necessary to cover Lessor's actual costs relating to the operation and maintenance of the concession facility. 3. By acceptance of this Lease, Lessee covenants with Lessor the following: a. To pay rent promptly as established herein. b. To keep and maintain separate, adequate books and records pursuant to the operation of the concession facility. Said books and records shall be submitted to the Director along with the December 31 payment in each current year. c. To submit, at reasonable times when requested by the Parks and Recreation Department of the County of Chesterfield, ("Depart- ment''), all books and records pursuant to the operation of the concession facility. d. To submit to the Director along with the December 31 payment in each current year, an annual financial report of all receipts and disbursements pursuant to operation of the concession facility. e. To install, at the Lessee's expense, all necessary equipment, approved by Lessor, for operation of the concession facility and to keep same adequately staffed during business hours. 0903:6057:57 - 2 - O0 149 f. To keep and maintain the concession facility and appurtenances thereto neat, clean, and in a good state of repair; normal wear and tear excepted. g. To secure and keep current all necessary health and sanitation permits required by law, and any and all other licenses or per- mits as may be necessary or required by law for the operation of the concession facility. h. To secure and keep in force adequate fire and hazard insurance upon the contents, and public liability insurance naming the County as co-insured in an amount not less than $500,000, and to provide the Director with a Certificate of Insurance which indicates that the Coun- ty is so named and so insured. i. To indemnify and hold Lessor harmless from any and all claims, suits, damages, costs and expenses arising out of or in any way relating to Lessee's conduct and operation of the concession facility, and from any damages, claims or suits based on personal injury or proper- ty damage caused by Lessee's negligence. j. To keep the area in and around the immediate vicinity of the concession building free of litter and debris. k. To file for the Director's approval, a schedule of items to be sold for human consumption and the prices to be charged, prior to the commencement of operation. Upon approval, neither the items to be sold nor the prices shall be altered, amended or modified without prior approval of the Director. 0903:6057=57 - 3 - O0 150 1. To immediately report any theft of merchandise, per- sonal property, cash, checks or credit slips to the police and the Direc- tor. m. To assist in the conservation of energy by shutting down all major equipment during the off season. 4. Lessor and Lessee mutually covenant and agree that: a. Lessee has inspected the concession facility and agrees to sccept same in its condition as of the date of this contract. Lessee shall not make any alterations or additions to the leased premises without the prior written consent of Lessor. All alterations, changes and improve- ments built, constructed or placed on the leased premises by Lessee, with the exception of fixtures removable without damage to the premises and movable personal property shall, unless otherwise provided by written agreement between Lessor and Lessee, become the property of the Lessor and remain on the demised premises at the expiration or sooner termination of the Lease. Lessee agrees that the cost of any replacement keys and changing of locks after Lessor's initial provision of same will be borne by Lessee. b. Lessor shall not be liable for damage to any property or injury to any person in, on or about the concession facility from any csuse whatsoever. c. Lessor shall have access to concession facility at all times, and shall have first priority for use of said facility in the event of 0903:6057:57 -4- O0 151 a scheduling conflict between Lessee and Lessor. Lessor shall give Lessee at least 30 days* notice of Lessor~s intent to use said facility. d. Lessor shall provide, without additional cost to Lessee, electricity, water and sewer facilities, and regular trash collection. e. Lessee shall not assign this Lease nor sublease the Leased Premises without the prior written consent of Lessor, which will not be unreasonably withheld. Any attempted sublease or assignment without the consent of the Lessor shall be void and of no force or effect. f. All items of indebtedness or damage under these cove- nants shall be considered as items of rent and Lessor shall have the same liens and the same remedies for the collection thereof as are provided herein and by law for the collection of rent. g. Upon the breach of any covenant contained herein or the abandonment or vacation of the premises by the Lessee, or the failure to provide the required Certificate of Insurance, books, records, financial reports or payments, the Lessor may, at its option, immediately terminate this Lease, and shall have the right to enter the premises at once and take possession thereof, including improvements erected thereon. Such termination or possession, however, shall not deprive the Lessor of any other action or remedy for possession, rent or damages. h. In the event the demised premises are condemned, in whole or in part, or otherwise acquired by a public authority, this Lease, at the option of the Lessee, may thereupon be terminated and the Lessor shall not be liable for any inconvenience or damage to the Lessee caused 0903:6057:57 - 5- thereby. The Lessor reserves the right to condemn as provided by law and such action by the Lessor shall constitute a means for termination of this Lease without penalty. 5. Lessor and Lessee agree that this Agreement constitutes the entire agreement, understanding and representation, express or implied, between the parties. This Agreement supersedes all prior written or oral agreements or proposals between the parties. 6. This Agreement shall be governed by the terms herein. Any dispute concerning this Agreement shall be resolved in the Circuit Court of the County of Chesterfield. This Agreement is deemed to have been made in Virginia and shall be construed under the laws of Virginia. 7. This contract is expressly contingent upon the approvaI of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of ChesterfieId Coun- ty, which approves this contract and authorizes its execution by the County Administrator. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: LESSOR: COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA By: Lane B. Ramsey County Administrator 0903:6057:57 - 6 - O0 153 Approved as to form: Barbara E. King Assistant County Attorney LESSEE: By: Title: ATTEST: 0903:6057:57 -7- O0 154- An Aff~ate of Media P~O BOX C-32333 R~CHMOND. VIRGINIA 23293~000'~ OR BEFORE 15th OF THE sucCEEDiNG MONTH~ CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETINGDATE: February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: 15.D. SUB4ECT: Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: , · INFORMATION: A public hearing is scheduled for February 12, 1992, to consider the Chesterfield County Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS). In 1991, Chesterfield County officially passed the 200,000 population mark. As a result, the County was notified by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that it was eligible to apply for entitlement status in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. If successful in its application, the County could receive upwards of $1 million per year for CDBG projects. Eligible projects must meet one of three national objectives of the program: ATTACHMENTS: YES r-! NO ~1~ Benefitting low and moderate income persons. Aiding in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or Meeting other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community and other financial resources are not available to meet such needs. PREPARED BY~ .-~~~-----~ Richard IF~ Sale ~ - Deputy County Administrator BOS-9891 SIGNATURE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 00 1Sp February 12, 1992 Board of Supervisors Agenda Item Page 2 At least 70% of all CDBG funds must be expended for activities which benefit low and moderate income persons. Staff has been preparing documents necessary to achieve entitlement community status. The primary document required is a CHAS or Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy. The CHAS is a document that outlines the community's needs for affordable housing and shelter. By nature, the document is a negative assessment of conditions, however, staff has endeavored to include information on the relative affordability of much of the County's housing. The CHAS has been prepared and is required to go through a public hearing process allowing for a 60-day public comment period before submitting the document and compiled public comment to HUD. The public hearing will be advertised 14 days prior to the meeting in a non-legal seCtion of the local newspaper in accordance with HUD regulations and a 60-day public comment period will follow the public hearing. O0 10=6 DRAFT Chesterfield County Comprehensive Housing Af£ordability Strategy January, 1992 The Chesterfield County Comprehensive Housing Strategy (CHAS) was prepared by the Office Development and the CHAS Advisory Committee. Affordability of Community CHAS Advisory Con~mittee Jana Carter, Director of Housing Jean Smith, Director of Social Services Glen Larson, Chief of Comprehensive Planning Ted Groves, Chief of Community Services Jake Mast, Director of Lucy Corr Nursing Home Jessica Falkos, Nurse Manager, Health Department Steve Myer, Assistant County Attorney Barbara Bennett, Director of Youth Services Lewis Wendell, Grants Administrator/Community Development For more specific information about Chesterfield County's CHAS, please contact Community Development at 751-4153. DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS" COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY STRATEGY PAGE NUMBER INTRODUCTI.ON .......................... 1 DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY .............. . ........ 3 COMMUNITY PROFILE Housing Needs Assessment .............. 6 Housing Generally ..................... 8 Housing Needs of the Elderly ............... 12 Housing Needs of Very Low, Low and Moderate Income Residents .................. 15-16 Housing Needs of Small and Large Families ......... 16 Housing Needs of Special Groups ............. 18 Non-Shelter Services ................... 20 Housing Needs for Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services ............. 22 Housing Needs of the Homeless ......... ~ ...... 28 MARKET AND INVENTORY CONDITIONS General Conditions .................... 31 Development Projection .................. 31 Significant Characteristics of the Housing Market ..... 32 Facilities for the Homeless ................ 33 Facilities for Special Needs Population .......... 34 FIVE YEAR STRATEGY Generally. . ....................... 36 Target Areas ....................... 36 Public Policy ....................... 37 Institution Structure ................... 37 Citizen Involvement .................... 39 State and Local Cooperation ................ 39 General Relief and Emergency Housing Assistance ...... 39 County Nursing Home .................... 40 Priorities ........................ 41 Actions to Promote Priorities ............... 42 Financial Resources .................... 43 ONE YEAR PLAN Objectives and Actions .................. 45 Reporting to HUD ..................... 45 Tables and Certifications ................... 47 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Chesterfield County's Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy is a doc%unent prepared by County staff as a requirement under Title I of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 and as a condition to receive U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. County staff has used information available from a variety of sources to prepare the CHAS. In many sections of the document, specific data from the 1990 U.S. Census was not available. Staff will continue to revise and update the CHAS document as 1990 Census information becomes available. SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHICS AND DATA AVAILABLE FROM THE 1990 U.S. CENSUS 2 DEMOGRAPHICS AND DATA FROM THE 1990 U.S. CENSUS GENERAL POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS Chesterfield County's population increased by 67,902 persons between 1980 and 1990 (from 141,372 to 209,274), a growth rate of 48 percent. U.S. Census results show that the median age of Chesterfield,s population in 1990 was 31.9 years, compared to 28.6 in 1980. While thi~ reflects a national trend towards an aging population, there is a much higher percentage of people under 18 in Chesterfield (29.1 percent) compared to all of Virginia (24.3) and a lower percentage of persons over age 65 (6.1 compared to 10.7). The total nUmber of persons over age 65 in Chesterfield almost doubled between 1980 and 1990. RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS Chesterfield County has become more racially diverse over the last ten years. Between 1980 and 1990, the County's minority population grew by 107 percent, and minorities made up 15.3 percent of Chesterfield,s 1990 population compared to eleven percent in 1980. , HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS Chesterfield County.s household characteristics for 1990 also reflect, in many ways, national trends. The average household size in Chesterfield declined from 3.02 in 1980 to 2.82 in 1990. Traditional family make-up is changing, as is shown in Chesterfield,s 84 percent growth in female headed families between 1980 and 1990. I~NCOME CHARACTERISTICS Family and household income estimates produced by the University of Virginia Center for Public Service reflect the relative affluence of Chesterfield County. These estimates show a 1990 median family income of $51,581 for Chesterfield Compared to $38,855 for all of Virginia. ApProximately 6,135 families in Chesterfield had annual incomes of less than $21,600 in 1990, which is 50% of median income for the metropolitan area or very low income level. 3 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS Census data shows that the rapid residential growth of Chesterfield'.~.County in the 1980s was mainly in the form of owner occupied single family housing. In 1990 there were 64,914 single family houses in Chesterfield, making up 84 percent of all County residences, compared to 70 percent in all of Virginia. Eighty percent of Chesterfield residents owned their homes in 1990; throughout Virginia, that figure was 66 percent. The median value of an owner occupied home in Chesterfield in 1990 was $87,200. The value of such housing grew 60 percent between 1980 and 1990. The Census also shows that of the 58,385 owner units in the County in 1990, 3,230 (5.5%) were valued less than $50,000. Census data indicates that the median rent for a residential unit in Chesterfield County in 1990 was $447. 1,246 (8.2%) of the 15,056 occupied rental units in the County had a monthly contract rent of $250 or less (includes mobile home paid rents). The 1990 Census identified 1,562 vacant units for rent and 1,377 vacant units for sale in Chesterfield County. This works out to a vacancy rate of approximately 2.3 percent for owned residential units and 9.3 percent for rental units. Census data indicated that in April, 1990 there were 24 vacant boarded-up residences in the County. (See Pages Al-A3) 4 C h es ter field County 1980 I"ABL£ to 1990 Tota/ Age U.S. Census Popu]at/on Groups Comparison 85 Male Female Under 5 Years 5 to 18 Go 24 25 to 44 45 to 5 55 to 6. 65 to 74 75 to 84 Years and Over Under Age 18 65 Years and Over Racial I'otal ?ora/ C h aract erishc s Households Persons Families Married Female Housing Units Occupied Vacant Median Age Whit, Blac} Othe Per Househo Couple Families Headed FamH/~.~ Housing Unit~ Housing Units I;acanc¥ Raj.= Occupied Units Renter Occt~pled Units Structure 1 [Init (Single Family) 2 or b~ore Units Mobile Value of Owner Occ. Units Contract Rent A 1980 'e~IsHs 141,372 69,525 71,847 10,684 34,770 16,361 49,570 14,138 9,335 4,366 1,680 468 45,454 6,514 28.6 125,841 13,910 ],621 45,821 3.02 38,459 33,686 3,869 48,860 45,821 3,039 61 36,021 9, 43,220 3,577 2,063 $54,400 $231 1990 209,274 102,361 106,913 16,834 44,101 18,720 79,280 23,628 13,896 8,671 3,332 8 60,935 12,815 31.9 177, 27,196 5,011 73,441 2.82 58,395 49,326 7,138 77,329 73,441 3,888 5% 58,385 15,05o 64,914 9,545 2,870 $87,200 $447 Percen~ 48 47! 49~ 58~ 2'7: 14 60' 67~ 99 98% '74~ 34' 97~ 41~ 96~ 209 60~ -7 52' 46~ 84 58'- 60' 28~. -19% 62! 50' 167 39:g 60~ 94~ A1 CHART A 50% T P~rcentage Populalion Growth, 19G0 h} 199(} 40% 30% 20.% 0% Chesterfield 21% I-t~:ndco I lqichmnnd -?% 16% Virginia Ct~R'? B Age Group Comparisons For Chesterfield and Virginia, 1990 29.1 24.3 P~:rc=nt Pop. Percent Poi). Under 1 ~1 in Under 1 El in Chcstcrfieh! Virginia 10.7 Percent Poi). G5 Pcrccn{ Pop. 65 and Over iii and Over in Chesterfield Virginia CHART C Residential Slruclurc Co[nparisons For Chcstcrlichl, 19~1(} and 19'J(} 70,000 T 64.§14 G0,O00 't 50,00(i 40,000 30.000 20,000 0 Single Family 2 to 9 Unit Homes Shudurcs 3,995 '9§7 ~ 10 or Morc Unit 2,0G3 2.87[! Mobile HOllieS [] 1990 CItART D Housin§ Comparisons For ChcstcHicld and Virginia, 1 990 90 'r 79,5 GG.3 Percent Units Owner Occ. in Chesterfield i-~crcc~d Units Owner Ocr_ i~ 03.9 Percent Single Family Um.its i,i Chcstcr/ich~l 70 Percent Single Family U~dls b~ SECTION I. COMMUNITY PROFILE SECTION I. COMMUNITY PROFILE PART 1. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING The latest research available on affordable housing in Chesterfield County was conducted in August of 1989. At the time, Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development and HUD Section 8 Income guidelines considered an income of $28,000 for a family of four in the Richmond-Petersburg SMSA, to be low income. For the purposes of that housing affordability study, residential property assessments of $70,000 or less and rents of $350 per month or less were used as measures of affordable housing. Of a total of 63,200 parcels of improved residential lots in the County, 34,000 or 53% were assessed at $70,000 or less. 23,115 parcels of improved residential property or 36% were assessed at $60,000 or less. 11,636 parcels or 18% were assessed at $50,000 or less. There were 3,200 multi-family residential units in the County renting for $350 per month or less. At the time, the County Administered 900 assisted or subsidized housing units and there were 2,500 mobile home units in the County. In conclusion, out of a total of approximately 72,000 housing units, 40,600 units or 56% were considered affordable housing for low income residents. According to a 1990 University of Virginia Center for Public Service report of projected income, approximately 35% of Chesterfield households are at 80% of median household income and 17.1% are at 50% of median income. The median household income was estimated to be $46,674 for 1990. The breakdown for 1990 family income is slightly different. Median family income for Chesterfield is $51,581. 37% of Chesterfield County families are considered low or very low income and 8.9% are considered moderate for a total of 46% low/moderate income families. 1990 Income Levels Income Range Very low Low Mod Middle Upper % of % of Families Families (0-50%) $0-$25,790 9,746 15.9% (50%-80%) $25,790-$41,265 12,934 21.1% (80%-95%) $41,265-$49,002 5,505 8.9% (95%-120%) $49,002-$61,897 12,045 19.6% (120% & over) $61,897+ 21,129 34.4% 6 A. HOUSING NEEDS GENERALLY A. HOUSING NEEDS GENERALLY The Chesterfield County Housing Department has developed the following in.formation on housing needs: Elderly homeowners in their own homes and living on fixed incomes often cannot afford to make many of the routine repairs necessary to maintain their property. The Housing Department has a list of 90 homeowners who have requested assistance for major repairs to their homes. Most requests are for roof replacement, plumbing, heating, electrical repairs, installation of bathrooms and replacement of windows and doors. The Assessors Office has provided a list of 170 homes in the County that have no bathrooms. Often the extent of required repairs makes it impractical to rehabilitate Properties and install bathrooms. Replacement housing may be a more reasonable option. The Capital Area Agency on Aging reports a 50% increase in requests for this type of assistance over the past years Rental Assistance/Waiting Lists Through various rental assistance programs, 944 families in Chesterfield County receive rent subsidy. The County's Housing Department maintains a waiting list for Section 8 rent assistance. As of September 30, 1991 there were 615 applicants on the County's waiting list. Of that number, 120 met the requirement for a Federal Preference. Unfortunately, the wait for assistance is currently anywhere from 2 1/2 years for a two bedroom certificate to five or more years for a one, three or four bedroom certificate. Since September, 1990 the number waiting for assistance has grown approximately 25%. TARGET AREAS Chesterfield County does not have detailed information or analysis prepared to assess current housing needs County-wide other than what is evident through demand levels of current housing services. For example, as noted in the previous section on housing needs, the County has a waiting list as of September 30, 1991 for Section 8 rental assistance. That waiting list totals 615 applicants of which 120 meet the requirements for Federal Preference. The wait for assistance is currently 2 1/2 years for a two bedroom certificate to five or more years for a one, three or four bedroom certificate. Since September, 1990, the number waiting for assistance has grown approximately 25%. A great deal of the increase in demand for housing assistance can be traced to the depressed state of the regional and national economies. This trend is not necessarily to be extrapolated for a five year projection. There are two areas in the County that have been identified as needing assistance in maintaining housing that has been available for low and moderate income residents. Those areas are the Bellwood/Bensley area of Rt. 1/301 and the Ettrick Village area of the County. BELLWOOD/BENSLEY In the Bellwood/Bensley area of the County, the population is predominately low and moderate income and there is a high proportion of elderly residents in the neighborhood. The residential character of the neighborhood has been deteriorating, thus putting into question the present and future desirability and habitability of the area. The 1980 Census and a 1988 survey found that a relatively large proportion of housing in the area is older and substandard. Forty percent of owner occupied housing was built prior to 1957 and 90% of multi-family housing was built over 25 years ago. In the larger Rt. 1/301 Corridor Study Area, it was determined that 32% of all Units were built prior to 1959 compared with a county-wide figure of 19%. Survey data at the time (1988) indicated that 1/3 of the residents are elderly and 2/3 are low or moderate income. During a 1986-1988 housing rehabilitation program in the area, it was determined that 70% of all single family dwellings were in some need of repair. In general, most homes needed repairs in the following areas: roofing, electrical, plumbing, outdated and mostly unusable kitchens, heating, windows and general weatherization. Many minor structural problems such as foundation underpinning were also noted. ETTRICK The Ettrick Village Plan Technical Report and Plan, prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Department in December of 1990, recommends a housing rehabilitation program to assist low and moderate income citizens with the upgrading and renovations of their properties. In a previous study comparing 1970 and 1980 Census data for Ettrick, the following conclusions were reached: "Between 1970 and 1980 the percentages of families living in Ettrick with income below poverty level increased from 8.8 percent to 13.6 percent. For the County as a whole, the percentages of families in poverty declined between 1970 and 1980 from 5.~ to 3.8%. In conclusion, the demographic data show that the study area is significantly different from the County as a whole..." "These residents are more at risk than most in the County of being unable to keep pace with rising costs of acquiring and maintaining housing." 10 HOUSING NEEDS OF THE ELDERLY 11 HOUSING NEEDS OF THE ELDERLY The Capital Area on Aging, in a summary of priority issues for the elder,,~y population of Chesterfield County, refers to the following needs related to housing: Housing - congregate group housing and low income rental housing, subsidized or unsubsidized, especially necessary for single older women, plus licensed homes for adults. Nursing Homes - adequate facilities available so that long term Chesterfield residents, as well as those who have adult children in the community, can remain in familiar surroundings and be near family. The following are charts depicting growth and change in demographics of the elderly population in Chesterfield. ELDERLY POPULATION IN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Projected AGE 1980 1990 % of Change 2000 % of Change 65-69 2664 5170 48% 6670 23% 70-74 1702 3280 48% 5230 37% 75-79 1048 1850 43% 3470 47% 80-84 629 1120 44% 1930 42% 85 Plus 468 760 38% 1030 26% Total 8491 12,180 30% 18,330 34% ELDERLY POPULATION IN RELATION TO TOTAL POPULATION IN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Total Population Population - Age 65 Plus % of Population Age 65+ 1980 1990 2000 141,339 202,010 254,910 8,491 12,180 18,330 6% 6% 7% 12 One out of five elderly persons has at least a mild degree of disability. Nineteen percent (19%) 'of 65 plus persons have some degree of limitation. By 2000 in Chesterfield County, this will be 3,483 persons. Four percent (4%) of the elderly '~opulation are severely disabled. By 2000 this will be 733 persons. Health and mobility decline with advancing age. By the eighth and ninth decade of life, the change of being limited in activity and the need of health and social services increases significantly. Persons 85 and older are four times more likely to be disabled than those age 65 to 75. The elderly are the heaviest users of health services. On the average, persons 65 plus visit a physician six times for every five visits by the general population. The Long Term Care Needs of Chesterfield County's elderly population are not being met. There are three nursing homes in the County to serve the estimated in need population of 600 in 1990. There are 4 residential adult homes in the county to serve an estimated need of 1340 persons (11% elderly population) in 1990. There is an unmet need for adult homes that provide a level of supervision for persons unable to live alone safely but that do not have the need for intermediate level nursing home care. There is a need to identify and coordinate the services of individuals who would be willing to serve as companions to the elderly in their own homes. The elderly on fixed incomes who have chronic disease conditions will require affordable medical care and affordable supportive pharmacy services. The Local Long Term Care Committee is attempting to collect data to support these needs identified by Human Services Agencies. In general, community services need to be developed for the elderly to allow them to remain in their homes as long as possible. In order to comprehensively evaluate the needs of Chesterfield's elderly, personnel and computer support must be allocated. At this time, the needs have to be assumed based on national data. Nursing Homes in Chesterfield County Lucy Corr Nursing Home - 194 beds Willow Creek - 120 beds opened in October, 1991 Brandermill Woods - 60 beds Total beds - 374 (Data extracted from Aging American Trends and Projections, 1985-86 Edition, Prepared by U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging. HOUSING NEEDS OF VERY LOW, LOW, AND MODERATE INCOME GROUPS AND SMALL AND LARGE FAMILIES 14 HOUSING NEEDS OF VERY LOW INCOME RESIDENTS The University of Virginia Center for Public Service 1990 projected fa~$1y income figures for Chesterfield County put 9,746 or 15.9% of families in the very low ($0-25,790) category. 1990 Census figures indicate that 3,230 owner occupied housing units were valued at less than $50,000 and that 1,246 of the occupied rental units in the County had a monthly contract rent of $250 or less. The Chesterfield County Planning Department reports that there are 2,468 mobile homes in the County. The County has a total of 944 families receiving rent subsidy. Taken together this information could be construed to indicate a lack of affordable housing for very low income residents. The housing needs of very-low income households could best be remedied through a variety of programs including: Housing Rehabilitation - repair and maintenance of existing single family and multi-family housing (owner occupied and rental) with special emphasis on assisting the elderly, and providing rental units to those families who will never be able to afford purchasing a home. Construction - construction of new affordable low income housing. HOUSING NEEDS OF LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS: Low income for families in Chesterfield as projected by the University of Virginia Center for Public Service in 1990 is $25,790 - $41,265. 12,934 families in the County have incomes in that range. The housing needs of this group are met in part by the housing identified for very-low income residents (e.g. assisted/subsidized housing, mobile homes, low cost rental housing) as well as a slightly higher cost segment of the housing market. The housing needs of this group are similar to those the lower income bracket; namely housing rehabilitation, both single family and multi-family owner occupied and renter occupied, and construction of affordable housing. 15 HOUSING NEEDS OF MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES Moderate family income is projected to be $41,265 to $49,002 for Chesterf.i~ld. In this bracket a great deal of housing in the County is affordable. The figures for affordable housing given earlier in the document suggest that 56% of the housing in Chesterfield is affordable to low and moderate income residents. The housing needs of this group are best met through housing rehabilitation programs coupled with existing housing code enforcement and other innovative measures to protect the stability and viability of moderate income neighborhoods. HOUSING NEEDS OF SMALL AND LARGE FAMILIES As indicated in the general section on housing needs, the waiting list for one, three or four bedroom certificates for subsidized housing is such that the wait for assistance is five or more years. Other than the demand for current housing assistance services, the County does not have sufficient data to assess the need broken down into small and large families. 16 HOUSING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS GROUPS 17 HOUSING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS GROUPS RUNAWAY YOUTH Shelter care for children in crisis in Chesterfield County has been a topic of concern for several years. In 1987, the Chesterfield County Office on Youth and Youth Services Commission conducted a Youth Needs Assessment which identified the need for shelter care as a primary community issue. IN 1989-90, a follow up study was conducted to further assess the population of children "in crisis" in Chesterfield County. The study concluded that there are a substantial number of children and families in distress in the community who are not receiving services. The study noted there is no shelter for children within the County. There was agreement that a local shelter would be a valuable addition to service options within the County. YWCA - BATTERED WOMEN'S SHELTER In partnership with United Way and Chesterfield County, the YWCA opened a shelter in 1989 for victims of domestic violence. The shelter has answered almost 10 times the number of phone calls originally projected and sheltered twice as many women and children. CHESTERFIELD SHELTER STATISTICS 1990/91 1989 1989 Original Projections Actuals Pro~ections 1990/91 Adjusted 1991/92 Projections % age Chestfld. Residents Hotline Calls 480 1,013 1,300 4,000 4,500 90% Women Sheltered 50 69 110 125 135) ) Children ) Sheltered 75 96 160 175 200) 54% (Figures do not include the 11 women and children from Chesterfield whom we sheltered at our Richmond facility.) 18 NON-SHELTER SERVICES 19 NON-SHELTER SERVICES TO CHESTERFIELD COUNTY RESIDENTS SUPPORT GROUPS 232 women living at home and in the community have attended weekly support groups held at various churches in Chesterfield. COURT ADVOCACY/ACCOMPANIMENT The County has provided services to 86 women needing guidance in working with the legal system. VOLUNTEERS Three times a year the County provides training sessions for new volunteers. The County presently has a core of 35 trained volunteers who work a minimum of 8 hours a month in the program. 20 HOUSING NEEDS FOR MENTAL HEALTH, MENTAL RETARDATION AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES 21 HOUSING NEEDS FOR MENTAL HEALTHr MENTAL RETARDATION AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES Survey Estimates for Persons with Mental Retardation and Persons with Serious Mental Illness (Note: These estimates do not include the needs of persons with substance abuse problems) 1. CURRENT HOUSING NEEDS FOR PERSONS NOT REQUIRING SUPPORTIVE HOUSING Chesterfield Community Services (CCS) is responsible for providing residential and housing supports to persons with Mental Retardation and Serious Mental Illness in Chesterfield County. The agency directly serves, however, only a minute number of the total population of persons who are classified as Developmental Disabled in the county. The term "Developmental Disability" (DD) means a severe, chronic disability of a person which: is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments; is manifested before the person attains the age of twenty-two; c. is likely to continue indefinitely; results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity (1) self-care; (2) receptive and expressive language; (3) learning; (4) mobility; (5) self-direction; (6) capacity for independent living; and (7) economic self-sufficiency; and reflects the person's need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, or generic care, treatment, or other services which are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated. Public Law 100-146, "Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act Amendments of 1987" Most persons with developmental disabilities (DD) although not now receiving supportive housing from our agency, will at some point in their lives require some type housing assistance ranging from intensive to minimal types of assistance. Some will need direct housing and support services. Many will be able to live independently if support services are available on a flexible and an as needed basis throughout their life spans. 22 As the. natural family ages or disintegrates persons with DD may require transitional housing assistance involving help in locating new residences, financial help, emotional help, etc. Based upon estimates of a 3% incidence rate of developmenta~'~ disabilities in the general population and Chesterfield County's current of 200,000, approximately 6,000 persons with developmental disabilities live in the county and potentially now require or will require housing support services during their life time. Estimated extent to which consumers already receive housing assistance. CCS serves 95 persons currently. The Chesterfield County housing office is the only other public agency which provides housing support services to the DD population. The Housing Office should be able to provide estimates of what percentage their service population is developmentally disabled. We believe, however, that only a tiny proportion of persons with DD in Chesterfield County are receiving housing supports. Given the absence of public transportation and the rising rents in the county, the housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities should be considered an expanding problem for the county. 2. CHANGES IN HOUSING NEEDS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEAR PERIOD Population Growth - Chesterfield County population growth according to Virginia Population Projections 2000, State Department of Planning and Budget, will increase by 28% from the current level of 200,000 to 255,000 persons by the year 2000. Based upon estimates of 3% incidence rate of developmental disabilities in the general population, this could mean an addition of 1,650 new citizens with developmental disabilities coming in the County over the next decade for a total of 7,650. To estimate five year projections, it may be appropriate to reduce that projection of growth in half to 825 new citizens with Developmental Disabilities entering the county for a total of 6,825 Developmental Disabilities citizens by 1995-96. New Funding Available? - No major increases in community mental health/mental retardation funds are expected over the next five years. Federal Mental Retardation Medicaid Waiver Funds can now be tapped based upon the recent approval of Home and Community Based Waivers by the U.S. DePartment of Health and Human Services (See Appendix 1). These funds will serve only the low incidence population of persons who are the most severely disabled and a maximum of 80 slots are available to Chesterfield County. Such funds will be drawn into our system over the next five years, however, they provide very limited help for the larger DD populations housing problems as a whole. 23 On an average, approximately 12 persons are added to the residential waiting list for intensive services per year. Part of this growth in demand is due to the "Aging Out" process of natural care givers (i.e. parents or family). Within our Waiting list are individuals living at home with parents or other caregivers who themselves are "aging out" of their ability to provide residential care. These caregivers may not immediately desire residential assistance from the CSB but at some point the need for residential care will become in the case of death or illness of the caregiver. Approximately one-half of the waiting list are individuals with older parents. 3. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CURRENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING NEEDS OF THE CONSUMERS SERVED It has long been recognized that CCSB has one'of the longest waiting lists in the state for residential and vocational services for persons with mental retardation and mental illness. In fact, public concern over the unchecked Waiting list growth actually generated the formation of a citizen group to examine solutions to the residential waiting list crisis in 1990. This group was the Residential Ad Hoc Committee to the CSB and its final report examining the service delimma in Chesterfield is attached in Appendix II. In analyzing the current service needs in the County, the Ad Hoc Committee findings are given below. Current Waiting Lists for Persons with Mental Retardation As mentioned above, the Mental Retardation residential waiting lists stands at 165 persons. Additional support has recently also been available on a limited basis to provide small, intensive foster-style arrangements for children or for adults who might best benefit from a family-oriented residential situation. There are at present a total of 30 Chesterfield County citizens with mental retardation living at State mental retardation facilities. Twelve of these individuals have been recommended for community placement and are currently on a waiting list. It is generally assumed that all these individuals will require intensive, 24-hour supervision in their community residential placements. Housing Needs for Persons with Mental Retardation A closer look at Chesterfield's extensive residential waiting list for persons with MR shows that of the 165 plus persons waiting for services, approximately one-third require highly intensive 24-hour care, one third require 24-hour care of a less intensive nature and one third require varying degrees of intermittent, visiting counselor support and/or financial supports. Current Waitinq List for Persons with Mental Illness This residential waiting list stands at 43 persons with serious men~a.t illness. This reflects immediate needs only as it is difficult to gauge future need of this more transient population. The average waiting length before receiving services is 1-3 years. Supported living services through counselor contact is the focus or our residential services for persons with long-term mental illness. Additional support to these persons comes from a small rent subsidy fund for persons who require only a financial aid for apartment security deposits or short-term rent subsidy. Housinq Needs for Persons with Mental Illness Our field generally estimates that 25% of this population require intensive, 24-hour care and supervision or hospitalization on a regular basis, 50% of the population will need on-going housing support from a counselor fluctuating from intensive to intermittent contact as well as consistent financial assistance/rent subsidies; and 25% will need minimal housing support (See Appendix II). 4. SUPPORTIVE HOUSING NEEDS OF PERSONS TO BE DEINSTITUTIONALIZED Most persons with mental retardation who are to be deinstitutionalized will require intensive, expensive 24-hour care and supervision. Throughout their lives support intensity may decrease to some degree, but 24 hour throughout their lives is likely for persons who are disabled to this extent. There are approximately 30 such persons waiting to return to their home community, at present about half of these persons require nursing and skilled nursing care due to on-going medical issues. Ail persons with mental illness who are deinstitutionalized will also require intensive 24 hour care for some period of time. Most, however, will need these services periodically not continually throughout their lives. 5. ASSESSMENT OF CHARACTERISTICS OF LOCAL MARKET IN RELATION TO CONSUMER NEEDS The average rent for two bedroom apartments in Chesterfield County found suitable for CCSB's Supportive Living Program in 1990-1991 has been $435 per month. Of the population we serve, the great majority are receiving Supplement Security 25 Income (SSI) from government entitlement. The maximum SSI payment to an individual per month is $422. Thus, Chesterfield rents are difficult, if not impossible, to manage for the average consumer with mental disabilities whose income is primarily his/her SSI payment 26 B HOUSING NEEDS OF THE HOMELESS 27 B. HOUSING NEEDS OF THE HOMELESS Chesterfield County does not have available data compiled to characteriz~ ..... homelessness in the County. The Richmond Better Housing Coalition and the Greater Richmond Coalition for the Homeless have developed a document called "Specific Program and Policy Recommendations Towards Helping Homeless People in the Metropolitan Richmond Area", which includes Chesterfield. Recommendations in the document include extending the use of the CARITAS Program (Congregations Around Richmond Involved To Assure Shelter) rather than building any new general shelter facilities. The need for a year round program was identified as was the need for a hostel program similar to what the YMCA and YWca used to offer. The document assessed the following additional needs: Infirmary for Displaced People Treatment for Chemically Dependent People Eviction Prevention Program Residential Hotels and Rooming Houses Transitional Housing Housing for the Mentally Ill Hospice for Low Income Persons with AIDS The document primarily addresses homelessness as it is manifested in the City of Richmond. The document suggests that the surrounding Counties, including Chesterfield, participate in a regional effort to address the problems of the homeless. The current Emergency Shelter Program includes eight organizations providing temporary no-cost housing for single adults and adults with children who are homeless. Emergency Shelter, Inc. operates a family shelter at 2 E. Main Street for a maximum of 27 women and children and operates a men's shelter at 402 W. Grace Street for a maximum of 33 men. CARITAS is 50 congregations that each take one week to host 30 people at their building. Two sites are used each night. Homeless people are transported from downtown pick-up sites. In 1990, a fixed site opened at St. Paul's Episcopal Church with 25 beds. The Citadel of Hope hosted 20 people each night as an overflow option. CARITAS operates only from November through March. Freedom House operates the Community Shelter at 1201 Hull Street with 40 bed spaces specially designed to host men and women who have been chronically homeless. 28 The YWCA operates two shelters (total of 40 people) for battered women and their children in the City of Richmond and in Chesterfield County, but at undisclosed locations. The Daily .?lanet's Bunkhouse Program offers 20 beds to mentally ill people and people with medical problems and is located at 302 W. Canal Street. The Salvation Army's Emergency Lodge at 2 W. Grace Street serves 40 men, women and children. The Good Samaritan Inn at 2307 Hull Street is for a maximum of 24 men and the Good Samaritan Inn at 1301 Porter Street is for a maximum of 25 women and children. The Richmond Street Team operates an 8 bed shelter for mentally ill people at 801 N. Boulevard. In total, there are 257 emergency shelter beds available year-round, with as many as 362 available from November through March. Additional beds are added each year. Nonetheless, according to the Study, the demand continues to exceed the supply, especially during the non-winter months. The CARES Shelter in Petersburg serves Chesterfield County, particularly citizens from the Southern portion of the County. 29 PART 2. MARKET AND INVENTORY CONDITIONS 30 PART 2. MARKET AND INVENTORY CONDITIONS A. GENERAL CONDf~IONS The current market in terms of real estate development in Chesterfield is considerably depressed from earlier rates of growth. Both new rezonings and building permit applications are down substantially. However, current fluctuations in the economy are not necessarily indicative of long term trends. B. CURRENT HOUSING MARKET CONDITIONS AND INVENTORY Ce U.S. Census data shows that the rapid residential growth of Chesterfield County in the 1980s was mainly in the form of owner occupied single family housing. In 1990 there were 64,914 single family houses in Chesterfield, making up 84 percent of all county residences, compared to 70 percent in all of Virginia. Eighty percent of Chesterfield residents owned their homes in 1990; throughout Virginia, that figure was 66 percent. The median value of an owner occupied home in Chesterfield in 1990 was $87,200. The median value of such housing grew 60 percent between 1980 and 1990. The Census also shows that of the 58,385 owner units in the county in 1990, 3,058 (5.2 percent) were valued at greater than $200,000 and 3,230 (5.5 percent) were valued less than $50,00O. Census data indicates that the median rent of a residential unit in Chesterfield County in 1990 was $447. 2,029 (13.4 percent) of the 15,056 occupied rental units in the county had a monthly contract rent of $600 or more, and 1,246 (8.2%) had a monthly contract rent of $250 or less. 1990 Census identified 1,562 vacant units for rent. and 1,377 vaCant units for sale in Chesterfield County. This works out to a vacancy rate of approximately 2.3 percent for owned residential units and 9.3 percent for rental units. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS 1988-2020 The following is a summary of development projections prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Department. Chesterfield County's population is projected to continue to increase over the next 32 years at an average .annual growth rate of about 3% so that by 2020 it will reach a total of 354,500. This is a slightly slower rate of increase than the county has recently been experiencing and can be attributed to a gradual decrease in the in-migration rate and the current trend toward smaller families. Almost all POPULATION Over the next 3.2.. years Chesterfield County is expected to continue to evolve from a rural/suburban county to an urban community. Like all rapidly growing areas, the major component of population change has been in-migration. Three series of population projections have been prepared using different in-migration assumptions. These assumptions use migration rates which predict the portion of the total county population due to in-migration. With series I, low growth, migration rates decrease from an average of 8.26 % in 1985 to .55 % for 2020. The moderate growth assumption projects migration rates to decrease from 10.1 Population Projections Chesterfield County0 Virginia 440000 400000 360000 320000 280000 80000 40000 240000 200000 1600O0 120000 1960 1970 lg80 85 1990 95 2000 05 2010 2015 2020 YEAR YEAR SERIES I SERIES II SERIES III LOW MODERATE HIGH GROWTH GROWTH GROWTH 1980 141,372 141,372 141,372 1990 204,300 210,500 215,200 2000 257,200 277,700 295,400 2010 286,400 325,500 366,700 2020 304,700 354,535 417,200 ' III II A4 % in 1985 to 1.4 % for 2020. The third assumption, high growth, projects rates to decrease from 12.01% in 1985 to 3.07 % for 2020. Projections were created using the cohort survival method, which divides the total population into male and female cohorts of five year ranges. Fertility rates are applied to the appropriate female cohorts to determine the future 0 to 5 age cohort.'All cohorts are tken adjusted with surviVal rates from the Virginia Annual Report of Vital statistics. Migration rates are then applied to each cohort to predict its size five years later. PRO,J'EgTED POPULATION (~ODERATE 8RO~ ~SSIlMPTIONS) SUI~qRY 1980 1985 1990 1995 ~(X)O ~005 ~010 ~'015 ~0~0 {~66 5 - 19 % OF' 70TICIL P.8. Z9 ~.6& f::5.10 E~,.E:O 23.97 ~..39 ;~1.09 AO. IO 19.~ CPANGE 4865 7~9 6736 6985 1505 58% li5 -10 % CHt~GE 10.85 15.1~ 11.31 10.~9 ~.~1 0.85 0.17 ~.01 ;~GE ~ - 6~ Y, OF TOT{iL 53.54. 60.79 60.81 GI.;Z~ 61.~ 6~..23 61,84 60.36 5~.8~ % ~E ~0.79 17.01 15.~5 11. E~ 10.05 6.~ ~56 ~.25 i~ 65+ ;l OF TOTAL 4,61 5.10 5.9Z 6.76 7.5~ 8.~8 I0.~0 13.11 18.81 CHt~6E 839½ 3565 4i61 4Z5½ 4898 ~ 1[0~1 81~6 ~ ~GE ~6, ~ ~8.58 85. Ol EO. 37 19. O0 ~. ~ ~. 56 3~. 70 ~T~ 6514 8~8 1~74 16~5 ~0889 ~87 ~8~ 44876 66G~ CHP, NGF. 19.13 i6.99 11{.50 11.~ 8.66 6.58 4.8~{ 3.48 P, NN~ P. qTE , 4.3% 3.79 3.18 E. 4Z 1.8~ l.Z? l,Ol 0.71 CH6NGE 33431 35773 35710 31 ~69 263,38 2 i 4Z9 16718 12337 BIRTH9 1350~ 154i0 17400 1887~ 20131 21008 Z137~ 21254 I}~TH9 3111 ~0~ 5P96 6~99 8188 10065 1~147 1~214 NET {~IGP. qTION . 23183 Z~559 P3778 19330 14726 109~7 8109 60~. COUNTY TDTPi. 141330 174761 2105311 Z~6245 ~77713 30{i~i 3~480 3~.198 35~535 A5 HOUSING Housing average number factors: vacancy stock is projected to increa'se in the county at an annual rate of about 5% over the next 22 years. The of new units needed is driVen by the following three population, vacancy rate and household size. While rates are predicted to remain stable, persons per household is predicted to decrease in the same time period. This reduction in household size following national and regional trends, is expected to moderate during the latter portion of this time period. The number of housing units will therefore follow the population trend but at a slightly greater rate. Although multi-family development had shown slow growth in the early part of the 1980's, there has been a surge of construction in recent years, bringing the percentage of multi-family back to 150- 140- 130- 120- 110- 100- 90- 80- 70- 60- 50- 40- Dwelling Unit Projections 30- 20- 10- 0- 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 ~ SingleFamily ~ Mulli-Family DWELLING UNIT PROJECTIONS TOTAL SINGLE MULTI - UNITS FAMILY FAMILY 1985 64,181 54,706 9,475 1990 80,535 67,907 12,628 1995 98,528 82,976 15,552 2000 116,447 97,527 18,920 2005 133,816 109,630 24,186 2010 150,710 121,281 29,428 2015 167,026 134,007 '33,019 2020 182,847 145,138 37,709 its historical rate of 16 %. This ratio is predicted to be maintained until 2005, when it will begin to increase, so that by 2020 it will have reached almost 21%. This projection is partly due to the expected need for smaller units for the increasing population in the 20 to 29 age group and the large portion of the population 55 and older, and to the increasing popularity of large mixed use planned developments. Multi-family units are projected to show a significant increase in number from 9,475 in 1985 to 37,700 by 2020. A7¸ age groups show consistent increase in numbers for the time period studied, however the percentage of school age children will start to decrease as the general population ages. The percentage of the population over sixty will more than triple ~n this same time period. Housing stock is predicted to continue the trend of increasing at a greater average annual rate (5%) than population. This is due to the present trend toward decreasing household size which is expected to continue although the rate of decline will moderate over the next 32 years. Single family residences will continue to be the major component of the housing stock, however multi-family units and townhouses are expected to become a greater percentage of the county's future housing stock. Employment in Chesterfield County will continue to increase at a greater rate than population, so that by 2020 employment figures will exceed 139,000, over two and a half times greater than current figures. All sectors will show increases with trades and services leading the way. Government, which has been the leader in employment, will be passed by the trades by 1990 and by services by 2000. Even though manufacturing and construction show significant seasonal variation, both are predicted to increase during this time period. Based on projected housing and employment figures, land use changes in the next 32 years will show the conversion of over 90,000 acres of vacant land to residential, commercial, industrial and public use. Residential land use will comprise the major segment of change with multi-family assuming a larger portion than has recently been occurring. The amount of land needed for public/semi-public use is expected to also increase at a greater rate than in the last five years.' (See pages A4-A7) D. SIGNIFICANT CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSING MARKET In an earlier section, Affordable Housing, it was indicated that surveys have found much of the housing in Chesterfield County (56%) is affordable to low income residents. That figure refers to percentage of improved residential parcels that were valued at $70,000 or less. In the past in Chesterfield County there has been a considerable amount of construction of homes in the affordable range. As the market changed, fewer lower cost houses were built and the market expanded for high cost housing. The fact remains that the housing construction industry in Chesterfield is very responsive to demand. In the event there is a high demand for lower cost housing, more of it gets built. 32 E. FACILITIES FOR THE HOMELESS Please refer to Section I, Part I, B. F. FACILITIES AND..~SERVICES FOR SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATION The current array of flexible residential options available in Chesterfield County are listed below. The CCSB should not, however,· limit itself to this list. Instead the Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the CCSB explore other creative residential options which could be designed given resources available in the community and the needs/preferences of the consumer and his/her advocates. Group Homes These are programs providing 24-hour supervision and support for persons with mental retardation that occupy single family homes within natural neighborhood settings. They provide a home to four or five adults of either sex. Each home has a full-time Residential Supervisor and 2-3 Residential Counselors with overnight relief staff. Five group homes currently exist. Supervised Apartments These programs also offer 24-hour support and are located in townhouse/apartment complexes where three dwellings in a row are occupied, each with two bedrooms. Staff share one apartment with a consumer and the other apartments have two consumers each. Each supervised apartment program has a full-time Residential Supervisor, 2 Residential Counselors and overnight relief staff. These programs serve persons with mental retardation only. Two such programs now exist. Supported Living This program type serves persons with mental illness and mental retardation who live in homes or apartments either alone or with a roommate. The county holds the lease for some apartments and subsidizes the rent accordingly. Others are served in their own residences. There is a Residential Supervisor and two Residential Counselors for the MR and MH supported living programs respectively. Each staff member has a caseload of 6-10 persons with whom they provide intermittent supervision, counseling, training and linking referral services. Approximately 60 persons are served through this model. 33 Sponsored Placements This is a financial assistance program for persons with mental retaYdation of all ages to support for flexible arrangements. It is intended to promote a community alternative for individuals with challenging behaviors or family care ,needs who may be at immediate risk or more restrictive placements without their assistance. In this program, the CCSB supports some portion of the cost of the individual to live with a non-family member in a residence in the community. The family may also pay some portion of the cost. We serve two persons in this way. Rent Subsidy This service area involves rental assistance to persons with long term mental illness for up to a three month period. It is intended to provide short term housing assistance to promote long term independence and stability. Many individuals with long-term mental illness do not require supervision or training but frequently require financial aid. Approximately 35 persons are served this way. Specialized Foster Care Similar to the sponsored placement program, this service is designed to promote small family-centered arrangements for individuals with family care needs. It is especially appropriate for persons under age 18. Subsidies come from a pooling of inter-agency resources and in the future may come from medicaid waiver funds. Providers are trained and certified as foster caregivers. This program is for persons with mental retardation of all ages with subsidy levels intended to vary depending on the consumers degree of need. The County Department of Social Services also provides this service for children in foster care who are emotionally disturbed, socially aggressive or physically and mentally handicapped. Extent of Existing Supportive Housing Services CCSB currently serves: 29 persons in Supports with 24-hour 2 Specialized Foster Care/Supervision 60 persons with intermittent counselor contact and financial assistance 35 persons with rent subsidies only 34 SECTION II. FIVE YEAR STRATEGY 35 SECTION II FIVE YEAR STRATEGY GENERALLY In a 1978 Comprehensive Plan, Chesterfield established a housing objective with 2 goals: County Continue County development in a sound and attractive manner by encouraging revitalization of existing neighborhoods or new development while avoiding adverse environmental problems and negative fiscal impacts. Control and encourage development of neighborhoods in cohesive and compatible manner with commercial/industrial expansion to ensure convenient attractive and livable residential densities and types. The Central Planning Area Land Use and Transportation Study of June 1985 included the following objectives: Protect the character of existing single-family residential areas and encourage variety in housing types. The County Comprehensive Plan also contains policies that: Assist property owners in formulating programs for rehabilitation or redevelopment of deteriorated properties. Encourage a wide choice of residential densities and types. TARGET AREAS The Chesterfield County Housing Assistance Plans and Plan maps as adopted for 1976-1984 by the Board of Supervisors indicated that the Route 1/301 Corridor and Ettrick Village areas of the County were priority areas requiring special housing assistance because of economic conditions of residents, deteriorating housing and environmental problems. Subsequent plans including the Bellwood/Bensley Housing Improvement Program, the Bellwood Housing Program, the Route 1/301 Corridor Study and the Ettrick Village plan further illuminate the need for housing assistance in those two areas. 36 1991-1996 Conditions have changed in Chesterfield since the days of earlier comprehensive plans. Though some programs have been implemented in the target areas of Rt. 1/301 and Ettrick Village, problems with housing remain in those areas. The economic recession of 1991 has been hard on residents in other portions of the County as well. Accordingly, priorities are becoming more broad. As other areas of the County begin to deteriorate there is some support for code enforcement of existing housing that could be coupled and supported by loan and grant programs for low and moderate income residents. PUBLIC POLICY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING In recent years, the County division of Community Development has gone through significant change. Ordinances and regulations have been revisited and changed when necessary. New state and federal mandates governing erosion and sediment control, water quality, wetlands preservation, septic tanks and stormwater management have required the County to adjust development processes. The County has revised its zoning and subdivision ordinances to reflect many of these changes. During the process of revision, the County staff met with a number of interest groups and held extensive public hearings to solicit outside opinion and suggestions. When specific regulations were formulated that effected the housing industry, representatives of the industry were consulted. One of the primary concerns was the effect of new regulations on housing affordability. The County staff spent time reviewing suggestions and recommendations from the housing construction and development industry to insure that the issue of housing affordability was kept as a priority. INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE FOR HOUSING Chesterfield County has three offices that deal with the issue of housing: Housing, Community Development and Planning. 37 Housing The Chesterfield County Housing Office manages the County's Section 8 p~ogram which includes a total of 423 moderate rehabilitation units and 160 existing program certificates. The Housing Office also manages a variety of housing rehabilitation programs including an existing Virginia Indoor Plumbing program. The Housing Office serves as a housing information and referral service for citizens who are searching for subsidized or low cost rental housing. In the past, the Housing Office has managed programs in the Bellwood/Bensley area responsible for rehabilitating 66 homes to Section 8 Housing Quality Standards. Community Development The Chesterfield County Office of Community Development is responsible for overall CDBG administration, grant preparation, budgeting and policy direction. The office is the administrative branch of county government for the departments of Planning, Utilities, Building Inspection, Transportation, Economic Development and Environmental Engineering. The Community Development division will be administering'the County's CDBG program through an office of CDBG Administration and Housing Rehabilitation. This CDBG office will monitor all activities authorized under the HUD CDBG program and ensure long-term compliance with the provisions of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act. Planning The Chesterfield County Planning Department is responsible for the County's short and long term planning. The division of Comprehensive Planning in the department collects and analyses demographic data and develops small and large scale plans for neighborhoods, communities and large geographic areas in the County. The Planning Department will be responsible for providing the CDBG Administration Office with planning assistance and implementation assistance on a variety of CDBG projects. 38 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR Chesterfield County has a history of citizen involvement in the planning....process that will be particularly important in the CDBG program. Citizen advisory groups are already established in some areas of the County and will be called upon to assist and guide staff in all facets of the program. When CDBG projects involve specific communities, community groups will be encouraged to participate as they have been in the past. The private sector will be encouraged to lend support whenever possible. In some cases the private sector will be solicited for funds to match those provided through the County CDBG program. In past CDBG activities, the County has encouraged citizens to participate in making specific program recommendations. The programs in the past have been primarily targeted at encouraging owner occupation of single family housing. The participants were responsible for contractor selection and the construction contract were between owner and contracto~ to insure that participants had a hand in managing their own project. STATE AND LOCAL COOPERATION Chesterfield County has participated in the State of Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development CDBG program for the past five years. The working relationship has been a good one. County staff have participated in the development of the State of Virginia's CHAS and will continue to be involved in attempting to match state housing priorities with it's own. The County has worked ~closely with the Virginia Housing Development Authority, the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development and numerous other public and private housing agencies. In searching for matching funds for CDBG programs, the County will keep abreast of developments related to housing on both the state and federal level. GENERAL RELIEF AND EMERGENCY HOUSING ASSISTANCE According to the Chesterfield County Department of Social Services in 1990-91, there were 200 cases where the County provided rent payments to prevent eviction and 119 cases where the County made utility payments to prevent cutoff. 39 The County also participated in CARES, two shelters for the homeless serving 27 cases in Chesterfield with 49 individuals. The County also participated with the YWCA in a shelter for battered women and children. In a 1985 Shelter Survey of Aid to Dependent Children Recipients in Chesterfield, 46% lived in subsidized housing and 20% lived with someone else due to lack of money. (See pages A8 through Al0.) COUNTY NURSING HOME Chesterfield County operates the Lucy Corr Nursing Home, a 194 bed nursing home facility in the County governmental complex, the Nursing Home serves residents from over 20 communities statewide with the majority coming from the City of Richmond and Chesterfield County. 4O .~ ' ' AGENDA I__TiM- _5 ADC SH EI,T ER SURVE. Y, BY THE STARE DEPARTMENT OF SOC £AL SERVICES "' ~~I~n S~  ~ 1985 AGENCY F IPS ~'ODE ' RECIPIENT CASE NUMBER ' Total Number of Questiomnaires - 81' **** PLEASE COMPLETE EVERY QUESTION VERY CAREFULLY **** 1. ARE'YOU 18 38 (CHECK ONE.) .. RENTING, BUT NOT IN A PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECT (SUCH AS HUD, SECTION 8 HOUSING, OR OTHER HOUSING WITH RENT SUBSIDY) RENTING IN A PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECT (SUCH AS HUD, SECTION 8 HOUSING, OR OTHER HOUSING WiTH RENT SUBSIDY) 7 BUYING YOUR OWN HOME 18 LIVING WITHOUT ANY COST, AS WITH 'SOMEONE ELSE 2. IF YOU ARE RENTING, IS ANOTHER FERSON S~ARING THE RENT COST WITH YOU? (CHECK ONE) 11 YES NO NOT RENTING 3; HOW MUCH DO YOU PAY FOR yOUR HOUSE OR APARTMENT OR ROOM(S)~EACH MONTH? (NEAREST DOLLAR) $ RANGE: $0 - $360 PER MONTH 4. HOW MANY PERSONS ARE IN YOUR ADC ASSISTANCE UNIT? (NUMBER) 5. IIOW MANY OTHER PERSONS ARE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD? (NUMBER) 6. HOW MANY BEDROOMS DOES YOUR FAMILY R'kVE? (NOMBER) 7. WHAT IS THE MOST PEOPLE IN ONE BEDROOM IN YOUR ROME APARTMENT OR ROOM(S)? (NUMBER) 8. IF THE RENT AMOUNT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING, SllOW THE AVERAGE AMOUNT Y00~ PAY EACH MONTN (NEAREST DOLLAR) ELECTRICITY $ EAC[! HONTI[ C. AS $ EACH bIONTH ADC SItE1,TER SURVEY" BY TIlE STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OIL TELEPHONE WATER COAL WOOD WATER/SEWAGE EACH MONTH EACH MONTH EACH MONTH EACH 'MONTH EACtI MONTH. .., EACH MONTH THESE UTILITIES ARE INCLUOEI) IN .~f RENT PAYMENT , . (CHECK, IF APPLICABLE) DID YOU GET FUEL ASSISTANCE LAST YEAR FROI~ THE WELFARE DEPARTMENT (CHECK .ONE,) _48 YES NO 10. DO YOU HAVE AN INDOOR TO£LET (CHECK .ONE) .. YES 11. DO YOU HAVE 1~ PROBLEM WITH RATS OR ROACHES IN YOU.R. HOME -OR APARTMENT OR ROOM(S)? (CIIECK pNg) ~3~_ YEs NO 12. ARE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN NEED OF SERIOUS .REPAIR? (CHECK AS MANY AS ARE APPLICABLE) 'FOUNDATION ROOF /l CHIMNEYS 8 WINDOWS 1 OUTSIDE WALL/SIDING 7 INSIDE WALLS/CE'fLING 2 FLOORS 5 PLUMBING 6 INSULATION 1 ELECTRICAL 1 PORCIIES 64 NONE OF THE ABOVE 13. IS A PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECT (SUCH AS IIUD, SECTION 8 HOUSING, OTHER HOUSING WITH SUBSIDY) AVAILABLE TO HELP WITH THE COST OF HOUSING RENT IN YOUR AREA? (CHECK ONE) YES . ¢', No , ( DO N,OT KNO~ 14. [las ANY AGENCY (OTHER THAN PERHAPS WELFARE) TURNED YOU DOWN FOR HELP WITH MONEY FOR RENTING A HOUSE., AN APARTMENT OR ROOM(S)? (CItECK ONE) ADC SIIELTER SURVEY BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES YES NO NEVER A P PLI' ED, 15. tlavE You ASKEO tV THERE is AN AOENCr OTU~R THAN WELFARE DEPARTMEN'F TO .HELP WITH RENT ~OST ~N' YOUR AREA? (CHIC ~ ONe) A6 NO 5 NOT ~ DON'T KNOW tlOW O~ WH~RE TO ASK 16. IF YOU ARE LIVING WITH SOMEONE ELSE W'ITHOUT COST, ARE YOU 'LIVING THERE (CIlECK ONE) 1 BECAUSE YOU WANT TO, BUT YOU HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO LIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE? 17 BECAUSE YOU ltAVE NOT GOT ENOUGH MONEY TO LIVE ANYWHERE ELSE? YO0 ARE NOT LIVING IN SOMEONE ELSE'S HOME WITHOUT COST. 17. WHAT IS YOUR GREATEST NEED FOR MONEY? (CHECK'ONE) 16 GET A BET'rE'R HOUSE ._~ BUY MORE OR BETTER FOOD ~ 16 BUY OR PAY FOR CLOTHES 9 BUY OR REPAIR AN AUTOMOBILE · ' . 4 PAY FOR TRANSPORTATION ~- _ MORE RECP, EATIONAL ACTIVITIES · . ,' 1 PAY FOR'DAY CARE FOR MY CHILD OR CHILDREN · 'PAINT OR REPAIR MY HOUSE INSULATE MY HOUSE BUY AN AIR CONDITIONER ~ LEARN A TRADE OR SKILL TO GET A JOB AiO PRIORITIES The five year strategy for Chesterfield County consists of five priorities. They are as follows: 1. Revitalize and Preserve Existing Neighborhoods - Housing Improvement Programs will be developed incorporating appropriate methods and strategies to achieve the goals of neighborhood preservation and revitalization. Programs will be targeted to smaller compact areas to ensure the maximum effectiveness of specific projects. 2. Rehabilitate Substandard Housing - Projects aimed at improving and rehabilitating substandard housing will be encouraged and pursued. 3. Encourage Owner-Occupation of Single-Family Housing - Ail projects will encourage the occupation of housing by its owners. 4. Encourage a wide variety of residential densities and types. 5. Develop Housing programs to address special needs population. 41 ACTIONS TO PROMOTE PRIORITIES OVER THE 5 YEAR PERIOD: 1. Revitalize and preserve existing neighborhood. a. Conduct surveys and studies based upon 1990 Census indicators to determine which neighborhoods could benefit from revitalizing and preservation efforts. be Develop plans for the target areas indicated by studies and surveys. The plans should include detailed analysis of housing needs in those areas and make recommendations for action. C · Develop. CDBG programs for neighborhoods already identified as needing housing assistance projects (e.g. Ettrick Village and the Rt. 1/301 Corridor). 2. Rehabilitate Substandard Housing. Develop a program for code enforcement for existing housing in the County. b. Hire Housing Rehabilitation Specialist and Code Enforcement Inspector to facilitate the program. Begin citizen outreach to formulate recommendations for neighborhood participation. 3. Encourage owner-occupation of single family housing. a. Insure that all CDBG projects have some provisions to encourage owner occupied participation. b. Provide loan and grant programs geared to owner-occupied housing. 4. Encourage a wide variety of residential densities and types. Keep Planning Commission and informed about policies to residential densities and types. Board of Supervisors encourage variety of b. Consider this priority in any review of plans, ordinances and regulations. 5. Develop Housing Programs to address special needs population. Develop plans and program to address housing needs of the homeless, runaway youth, victims of domestic violence, victims of substance abuse, victims of the HIV virus, etc. FINANCIAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO THE COUNTY TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVES The following are funds available for CHAS related objectives. 1992 Dollar Amount CDBG Funds County CDBG/VHDA loan repayments Virginia Indoor Plumbing Program Unknown $ 22,500 $1'40,790 Total funds available $163,290 There are other sources of funding available to the County to achieve objectives of the CHAS, however no funds from those sources have been allocated to the County for FY 1992. Other potential sources include: VHDA The Virginia Water Project HOME 43 SECTION III. ONE YEAR PLAN 44 SECTION III ONE YEARPLAN The first pr&orities of the one year plan will be to set up an office to administer the County's CDBG entitlement programs, conduct analysis of 1990 census data to further determine housing needs and conduct field surveys to corroborate census information and analysis. Additional priorities include developing a housing code enforcement program for existing housing and setting up an advisory task force to consider recommendations and suggested projects for submission to the Board of Supervisors. OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS Set up a CDBG Office - with an administrator and clerical assistance Develop a housing rehabilita gram county-wide - hire a housing rehabilitation~/5%cialist. Develop an existing housing Code enforcement program - hire an inspector. Conduct analysis of census data and determine areas of need. Provide funds for capital improvements in CDBG target areas such as sidewalks, streets, drainage projects and facade improvements that will provide stimulus to the private sector. Develop a low interest loan program to encourage low and moderate income residents to become homeowners. REPORTING TO HUD AND REGULAR MONITORING Reporting on and monitoring of all CDBG related activities will comply with all appropriate Federal regulations including the Davis Bacon Act. The CDBG administrator will insure the coordination of all reporting efforts. The County has established an excellent reporting record with the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development with its CDBG program. The County will continue reporting with equal efficiency to HUD directly. 45 The County has as accounting and financial reporting system that complies with all Federal and State regulations. Field visits and other monitoring will be conducted by County staff of departments directly supervising projects in conjunction 'with the CDBG administrator. 46 TABLES AND CERTIFICATIONS 47 CHAS Table 2A Population and Minority Data U.S. Department o! Housing end Urban Development Office of Communi~f Planning and Development Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Name of Jurisdiction(s) or Consortium: Five Year Period: {enter [iscal yrs.) FY: I Ihrough FY: I 1980 Census Data 1990 Census Dale Catege.ry or Current Estimate (A) (a) 1. Total Population '1 4 _-L, 3 7 2 2 0 9,2 7 4 2. White (Non-Hispanic) 125,066 175,516 3. Black(Non-Hispanic) 13,819 27,024 4. Hispanic (AIl races) 995 2,511 5. Native American 251 487 6. Asian and PacifiC: Islanders 1,0 9 4 3,7 3 8 7. Group Quarters 2,822 2,497 8. Institutional 965 877 9. Non-Institutional 1,857 1,620 10. Household Population 138,550 206,777 form HUD-40090 (9'91) CHAS Table 2B u.s. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Community Planning and Development Market and Inventory Conditions Housing Stock InventorY Comprehensive Housing Affordabi~ity ,Strategy (CHAS) Name ot Jurisdiction(s) or Conso~um: Five Year Period: (enter fiscal yrs.) FY: 11hrough FY: I ',,,, ,, Check one: 19 Census C~rrent Estimate as of; (enter date) Category Total 0 or 1 bedrooms 2 bedrooms 3 or more bedrooms (A) (S) (C) (O) 1. Total Year-Round Housing 77,224 2. Total Occupied Units 73,441 3. Renler Occupied Units 15,056 4. Needing Rahab 5. Not Rehabbable 6. Owner Occupied Units 58.385 7. Needing Rahab 8. Not Rehabbable 9. Total Vacant Units ... 3,888 10. For Rent 1,562 11. Needing Rahab 12. Not Rehabbable 13, For Sale 1,377 14, Needing Rahab 15, Not Rehabbable 16. Awaiting Occupancy or Held 4O6 17. Other form HUD-40090 (9/91) CHASTable 2C u.s. Department o! Housing and Urban Development Office o! Community Planning and Development Assisted Housing Inventory Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ~larne of Jurisdiction(s) or Consortium: Five Year Period: (enter fiscal yrs ) FY: through FY: Cu~ront Es~rnate as ot: (enter date) Total Stock and Inventory Category Total SRO 0 or 1 bedrooms 2 bedrooms 3 or more bedrooms (A) (13) (C) (O) (E) 1, Project Based Tenant Assistance 7 8:.4:.. 0 4 3 6 0 9 1 3 2 2. Public Housing 0 0 0 0 0 3. Section 202 15 0 15 0 0 4. Section 8 719 0 28 579 112 5, Other HUD 50 0 0 30 20 ~. FmHA 7. Tenant Based Tenant Assistance 1 6 0 0 4 6 6 7 4 7 8. Section 8 160 0 46__ 67 47 9. Other State/Local .... 0 10.Homeowner Assistance form HUD-40090 (9/91) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Appendix B U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office ol Communit7 Planning and Development Name of Jurisdic~on(s) or Consortium: Chesterfield Oe.unty ContaCt Person: Lewis C. Wendell Telephone Number: 751-4153 Address: ~'ype of Submission: Chesterfield COunty Community P. O. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832 Development (mark one) [] New Five Year CHAS [] Annual Update * For Fiscal Year For Fiscal Year 1992 through Fiscal Year 1996 (marl< one)  I nitial Submission Resubmission [] Amendment ** If an Annual Update, mark one: [] Parts 4 (Resources) & 5 (Implementation) Only [] Parts 4 & 5, plus minor changes: (mark all lhose which apply) Part 1 - Needs Assessment [] Narrative I~Tables Part 2 - Market & Inventory Conditions [] Narrative ~:~ Tables Part 3 - Strategies [] Narrative I ITables ** For all amendments, specily the nature of the amendment below and attach amended po~ons t~ this cover sheeL ;Jurisdiction Name of Authorized Official: Lane Signature & Date: B. Ramseyr County Admin. HUD Approval Name of Authorized Official: Signature & Date: X form HUD-40090 (9/91) Appendix E Comprehensive Housing Affordlblllty Strategy (CHAS) Certification The jurisdiction hereby, certifies that it will ~ffirmatively further fair housing, Signature of Certifying Official X Lane B. Ramsey Certification The jurisdiction hereby certifies that it will comply with the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, implementing regulations at 49 CF R 24, and the requirements governing the residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (including a ce rtification that the jurisdiction is following such a plan). Signature of Certifying Official X Lane B. Ramsey Note: The jurisdiction's execution of these certifications acknowledges that it will maintain supporting evidence, which shall be kept available for inspection by the Secretary, the Comptroller General of the United States or its designees, the Inspector General or its designees, and the public. '~ U.S. Gove~nmenl: Print[nj OEEJce : [ggl '312'228/40OOZ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE : February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: 15.E. SUB4ECT: Public Hearing to Consider Amendment of County Charter Concerning Granting of Variances by Director of Plan- ning and Substantial Accord Approval of County Facilities COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This date has been advertised for a public hearing to consider two amendments to the County Charter. State law requires the holding of a public hearing prior to General Assem- bly final action on the proposed amendments. The amendments are as follows: 1. Granting of Limited Setback Variances by Director of Planning. State law currently vests in local board of zoning appeals the exclusive jurisdiction to grant variances from certain zoning requirements such as building setbacks, size and height of signs, public road frontage. A significant number of the variance requests which now come to the board of zoning appeals involve small variances from the County's building setback requirements. ATTACHMENTS: YES~ 0400:1796:b44 (continued) Steven L. Micas County Attorney SIGNATURE COUNTY ADM I NI STRATOR O0 157y February 12, 1992 Page 2 The proposed charter amendment would give the Director of Planning the authority to grant building setback variances of no more than two feet. Such variances could be granted by the Director of Planning under the same legal criteria which govern the granting of variances by the board of zoning appeals. It is anticipated that this amendment will allow these small setback variance requests to be processed more quickly and at a smaller cost to the citizen making the request. A denial of the variance by the Planning Director could be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. 2. Substantial Accord Review of County Facilities. Under current state law, prior to the construction of public facilities such as schools, parks, libraries and fire stations, the Planning Commission must decide whether the proposed facility and its location is substantially in accordance with the County's General Plan. This process is generally known as the "substantial accord" process. It has been the practice of the County for many years--even though the practice is not legally required--to obtain zoning approval for public facilities through the same zoning procedures applicable to private development. A necessary part of this zoning process is consideration by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors of whether or not the proposed development conforms to the General Plan. Accordingly, if the Board ultimately approves a rezoning request for a County facility, that decision will have been rendered after the Board has considered the consistency of the facility with the County's General Plan guidelines. The proposed amendment would eliminate the need to obtain substantial accord approval for County facilities which have been granted zoning approval by the Board and only so long as the facilities comply with the requirements of the County's zoning ordinance. 0400:1796:b44 O0 158 LD1319484 1 1992 SESSION HOUSE BILL NO. 123 Offered January 8, 1992 BILL to amend and reenact 3~37 6.7 as amended and 7.4 of Chapter 12 of the Acts of Assembly of 1987, which provided a charter for the County of Chesterfield, and to amend such chapter by adding a section numbered 7.6 and a chapter numbered JO, consisting of sections numbered lO.l through 10. I1, relating to department of police, planning department, land use review of county facilities and impact fees. 9 Patrons--Watkins, Cox, Ingram and Martin; Senators: Benedetti and Russell 10 11 Referred to the Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns 12 13 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: 14 1. That §§ 6.7 as amended and 7.4 of Chapter 12 of the Acts of Assembly of 1987 are 15 amended and reenacted and that such chapter is amended by adding a section numbered I$ 7.6 and a chapter numbered 10, consisting of sections numbered 10.1 through 10.ii, as 17 /ollows: 18 § 6.7. Department of police.--The police department shall be composed of a chief of 19 police and such officers, patrolmen and other employees as the board of supervisors may determine. The powers and duties set forth in § 15.1-138 of the Code of Virginia shall 21 apply to the police force. The chief of police shall be responsible for the immediate direction and control of the department. The chief shall solely, within his discretion and subject to the other provisions herein, select, employ, promote, and terminate such officers, 24 patrolmen and employees. He shah also sclc'ct, employ, promote, and terminate the animal warden and his deputies; provided that all other provisions of 3~ 3.1-796.104 of the Code of 9-6 Virginia shalI remain in effect. The chief may adopt rules and regulations for the police 27 department in the same manner as rules and regulations are adopted for other 28 departments. 29 The chief shall be appointed by the board of supervisors on recommendation of a 30 committee of not more than five persons. The committee shall contain at least one, but not 31 more than one, of the following: (a) one member of the board of supervisors, (b) one 32 citizen from the community, who is not at the time he serves on the committee an employee of the Chesterfield County department of police, appointed by the chief circuit 34 court judge and (c) one member with police experience appointed by the board. The 35 remaining members, if any, shall be appointed by the board and shall be neither elected 36 nor appointed county officials. The chief of police can only be dismissed by the board of 37 supervisors for cause. 38 § 7.4. Planning department.--The planning department shall be composed of a director of planning and such employees as the board of supervisors may determine. The planning 40 department shall perform such responsibilities as are imposed by general law and as may 41 be assigned by the planning commission and board of supervisors. The director of planning 42 shall have immediate direction and control of the department, shall be appointed by the 43 county administrator and shall serve subject to the same terms and conditions as are 44 applicable to other department heads. In addition to the authority granted to the board of 45 zoning appeals pursuant to 37 15.1~t95 (b) of the Code of Virginia, the board of supervisors 46 by ordinance may authorize the director of planning to grant a variance of not more than 47 two feet from any building setback requirement contained in the county's zoning or 48 subdivision ordinance if he finds in writing: fi) that the strict application of the ordinance 49 would produce undue hardship; ('iii that such hardship is not shared generally by other 50 properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; and (iiij that the 51 authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adfacent property $2 and that the character of the zoning district will not be changed by the granting of the variance. Hou,~e Bill No. 123 2 I owned by the County of Chesterfield within its territorial limits which has been approved 2 by the board of supervisors following a public hearing held pursuant to the county's 3 zoning ordinance shall be exempt from the requirement for submittal to and approval by 4 the county's planning commission or governing body under ff 15.1-456 of the Code of 5 Virginia, so long as such public area, facility or use remains subject to the req,';-cments 5 of the zoning ordinance. 7 Chapter 10. 8 Impact Fees. 9 ~ 10.1. Authority to assess and impose impact fees.--The board of supervisors by 10 ordinance may, pursuant to the procedures and requirements of this chapter, assess and 11 impose impact fees on new residential development to pay ali or a part of the cost of 12 reasonable school facility improvements which are directly attributable to such 13 development. In the event such obdinance is adopted, (i) no cash proffers for school facility 14 improvements shah be accepted pursuant ot ~ 15.1~491.2:1 of the Code of Virginia with 15 regard to property subject to impact fees and (ii) no noncash proffers for school facility 15 improvements shah be accepted pursuant to ~ 15.1-491.2:1 with regard to property subject 17 to impact fees unless such proffers are utilized as credits against such impact fees 18 pursuant to ~ 10.6. 19 "Cost" includes, in addition to all labor, materials, machinery and equipment for 9-0 construction, (i) acquisition of land, rights-of-way, property rights, easements and interests, 9-1 including the costs of moving or relocating utilities, (ii) demolition or removal of any 9-9~ structure on land so acquired, including acquisition of land to which such structure may 93 be moved, (iii) survey, engineering and architectural expenses, (iv) legal, administrative and 9.4 other related expenses, and (v) interest charges and other financing costs if impact fees 9-5 are used for the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes or other obligations 9-5 issued by the county to finance the school facility improvement. 9-7 "Directly attributable to" with respect to a school facility improvement means that the 9-8 need for such improvement is generated in whole or in part by the new development on 9-9 which an impact fee is assessed and imposed. 30 "Impact fee" means a charge or assessment imposed against new residential 31 development in order to generate revenue to fund or recover the costs of all or a portion 32 thereof of school facility improvements directly attributable to such new development. 33 Impact fees may not be assessed and imposed for school facility repair, operation, 34 maintenance, 6r expansion to meet demand which existed prior to the new development. 35 "School facility improvement" means construction of new school facilities or 35 improvement or expansion of existing facilities to meet increased demand directly 37 attributable to. new development. 38 3g 10.2. Service areas or districts to be established.--The board of supervisors, upon the 39 recommendation of the school board, shah delineate two or more service areas or districts 40 within the county, which may be an existing school district or districts, each area or 41 district having related school facility needs. Impact fees ~ollected from new development 42 within a service area shall be expended for school facility improvements within that 43 service area. A service area may encompass more than one school facility improvement 44 project. 45 3g 10.3. Adoption of school facility improvements program.--Prior to adopting a system 46 of impact fees for school facilities, an assessment of school facility improvement needs 47 within any proposed service area shall be conducted and a school facility improvements 48 program for the area shall be adopted enumerating the new school facilities proposed to 49 be constructed and the existing school facilities to be improved or expanded and the 50 schedule for undertaking such construction, improvement, or expansion. Once adopted, the 51 school facilit, v improvements program shah be incorporated into the county's capital 59. improvements plan. 53 The school facility improvements program shah be adopted upon recommendation ~fN 54 the school board, and after the governing body of the county has held a duly advertis'da~' 160 1 2 $ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 36 38 39 40 41 42 4a 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 House Bill No. 123 public hearing. The public hearing notice shall identify the service areas to be designated, and shall include a summary of the needs assessment and the assumptions upon which the assessment is based, and information as to how a copy of the complete study may be examined. A copy of the complete study shall be available for public inspection and copying at reasonable times for a period of at least twenty-one days prior to the public hearing. The county at a minimum shall include the following items in assessing school facility improvement needs and preparing the school facility improvements program: I. An analysis of the existing capacity, current usage, and existing commitments to future usage of existing school facilities. If the current usage and commitments exceed the existing capacity of such school facilities, the county also shall determine the costs of improving such facilities to meet such demand. 2. The pro/ected need for and costs of construction of new school facilities, or improvements or expansion of existing school facilities, directly attributable to pro/ected new development. Such school facility needs and costs shall be pro/ected for the service area after the pro/ected new development upon which the impact fee is to be based has been completed. The assumptions with regard to land uses, densities, intensities, and population upon which school facility improvement profections are based shall be derived from the comprehensive plan and the capital improvement plan, where appropriate. 3. The total number of new students pro/ected for the service area after the pro/ected new development upon which the impact fee is to be based has been completed. The county shall develop a table or method for determining the number of students generated by various types of dwelling units, including but not limited to, single-family and multi-family units. 57 I0.4. Adoption of impact fee and schedule.--After adoption of a school facility improvements program, the board of supervisors may adopt an ordinance establishing a system of impact fees to fund or recapture all or any part of the cost of providing school facility improvements directly attributable to new development. The ordinance shall set forth the schedule of impact fees which shall in no case exceed the maximum charges authorized hereunder. 57 10.5. When impact fees assessed and collected.--A. The amount of impact fees to be imposed on a specific residential development or subdivision shall be determined before or at the time the site plan or final subdivision plat is approved. The amount of the fee to be imposed on each type of residential dwelling unit shall be calculated by dividing pro/ected school facility improvement costs arising from profected new development in the service area by the number of pro/ected students attributable to each type of dwelling unit. B. In no event shall the maximum impact fee to be collected for school facility improvements exceed the following, schedule of charges per dwelling unit: Dwelling Unit Type First Year Units less Than $ 500 1,500 sq. ft. Units 1,500 sq. ft. - 1,000 2,500 sq. ft. Units 2,001 sq f T. ~'~ 1 , ' 400 2,500 sq. ft. Uni ts over Maximum if Paid DurinH Second Year Third Year $ 750 $ 900 1, 125 I, 500 I, 875 2,250 2,500 sq. ft. 2,000 2,625 3,000 00 16i Only finished space having plumbing or heating shall be included /or purposes o/ the /oregoing calculation. House Bill No. 123 4 1 C. The ordinance shall specify that the fee is to be collected at the time of issuance of 2 a building permit. Further, the ordinance shall provide that such fees shall be paid in a lump sum as a further condition for issuance of a building permit. 4 ~ 10.6. Credits against impact fee.rathe fair market value of the foilowing 5 contributions by the developer to the county shall be treated as a credit against the impact fees calculated pursuant to ~'10.5(a): (i) fee simple dedications of land made, or 7 required to be made, by the developer for school facility improvements directly attributable 8 to the new development, (ii) school facility improvements constructed, or required to be constructed, by the developer which are directly attributable to the new development, (iii) 19 dedications of land or easements made, or required to be made, by the developer for 11 public water or wastewater facilities serving a public facility exclusively and which limit 12 the developability of the site or the intensity of the development. The fair market value of land dedicated to the county by the developer shall be no less than (i) the cost of the 14 undeveloped land to the developer, (ii) the prorated cost of infrastructure improvements 15 made by the developer benefiting such land and (iii) the prorated real property taxes paid 16 by the developer on such land within five years preceding its dedication to the county. 17 s~ 10.7. Updating plan and amending impact fee schedule, mThe county shall update the 18 needs assessment, and the assumptions and pro/ections on which it is based, at least once 19 every two years. The school facility improvements program shah be updated at least every 20 two years to reflect the current needs assessment. The impact fee schedule may be 21 amended to reflect any substantial changes in the school facility improvements program, 22 but in no event shah the fee collected exceed the amounts as provided in ~ lO.5(b). 23 ~ 10.8. Use of proceeds.--Separate school facility improvement accounts shah be 24 established for each service area and aH funds collected through impact fees shall be in such interest-bearing accounts, provided that funds may be combined for deposited 26 purposes of investment. Interest earned on deposits shah become funds of that particular 27 account. The expenditure of funds from each account shah be only for school facility improvements within the service area as set out in the school facility improvements program for that service area or district. ~ 10.9. Refund of impact fee.--The county shah refund any impact fee or portion thereof that has not been expended or encumbered within ten years of receipt of such impact fee. Upon completion of a pro/ect, the county shah recalculate the impact fee based on the actual cost of the improvement. It shah refund the difference if the impact fee paid exceeds actual cost by more than fifteen percent. Refunds shah be made to the record owner of the property at the time the refund is made. ~ I0.10. Continuing condition for imposition of impact fees.--As a condition of imposing and collecting impact fees, the county shall (i) budget and fund from general revenues for each subsequent fiscal year after enactment of such ordinance, an amount for specified county capital improvements for schools which shah be no less that the total amount collected in impact fees in the calendar year /ust ended and (ii) provide for the construction of school facility improvements within its capital improvements program whenever enrollment at any school facility exceeds its capacity unless such overcrowding can be eliminated by revising school attendance zones within the county. In meeting the funding requirement set forth above, only the capital improvement funds used to pay for capital pro/ects for schools or the debt service thereon which are appropriated after the adoption of such impact fee ordinance shah apply. If in any year the county fails to appropriate and fund from general revenues an amount equal to the collected impact fees for a previous calendar year, the county shall thereafter be prohibited from imposing impact fees until such appropriation is made and funded. ~: 10.11. Applicablility of Chapter.--The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to any residential unit for which a building permit has been issued prior to the effective date of the impact fee ordinance. 0 0 162 An Affiliate of Media General P,O~ BOX C-32333 RICHMOND VIRGINIA 23293-0001 804-.649~6000 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: February 12, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: 15.F. PUBLIC HEARING: TO Consider Ordinance to Vacate a Portion of a 25' Right of Way known as Riverview Drive within Cameron Farm Subdivision COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Mr. and Mrs. Paul Keuhn and Mr. and Mrs. Barney McLaughlin, have submitted an application requesting the vacation of a portion of a 25' right of way in Cameron Farm Subdivision. This property is being resubdivided and this portion of Riverview will no longer be necessary. A new right of way will be dedicated by River Crest Subdivision (A Resubdivision of a Portion of Cameron Farm Subdivision). All of the adjoining owners have consented to the vacation. This request has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the ordinance to vacate a portion of a 25' right of way known as Riverview Drive within Cameron Farm Subdivision, subject to the recordation of River Crest. DISTRICT: Bermuda ATTACHMENTS: YES ~1 NO I'1 Property Mgmt. Supervisor Right of Way Division Department of Utilities SIGNATURE COUNTY ADM I N I STRATOR oo VICINITY SKt~TCH ~ R~EQI, I!~ST.FROM MR. ~,~D MRS. PAUL KEUHN AND OTH._~S TO VACATE A- PORTION OF A RIGHT OF WAY KNOWN AS RIVERVIEW WITHIN CAMERON FARM SUBDIVISION t WALTHALL PARK ') Atlantic Bapt Bible Cell Island .'3 FEDERAL CORRECTIONS t INSTITUTI SCREAMERSVILLE: N' O0 164 O0 1615 P,O. BOX C~32333 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23293~000'1 804-,649~000 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGE NDA February 12, 1992 15.G. MEETING DATE: , , ITEM NUMBER: ~UB4ECT: PUBLIC HEARING: To Consider Ordinance to Vacate a Portion of a 10' Sewer and Water Easement COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: J. K. Timmons & Associates has submitted an application requesting the vacation of a portion of a 10' sewer and water easement on lot 14, Sandstone Ridge Subdivision. This vacation was requested because a portion of the existing house encroaches on the easement. This request has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the ordinance to vacate a portion of a 10' sewer and water easement on lot 14, Sandstone Ridge Subdivision. DISTRICT: Matoaca ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO I'1 ~n W. Harmon Property Mgmt. Supervisor Right of Way Division Department of Utilities BOS-9891 SIGNATURE COUNTY ADM I N I STRATOR VICINITY SKETCH ~'~ i~EQ,U. EST .FROM J. K. £IMMONS & ASSOCIATES TO VA~-~TE A PORTION OF A SEWER ANU WATER EASEMENT ON LOT 14. SANDSTONE RIDGE SUBDIVISION KING~ I 8EECHwCB~EECHW(] ACO.N SHELLER Branct COVE · BAYPORT ~ LANDING ° ~s'rau, FOREST WOOD MILL SPRING CT "--~ OAK KNOLL ~R '"~ C]OV 00 323730 (.07' PREVIOUS JOB NO. THIS PROPERTY IS NOT WITHIN A HUD DEFINED FLOOD HAZARD AREA. J.K. TIMMONS & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ENGINEERS · ARCHITECTS · SURVEYORS · PLANNERS 711 N. COURTHOUSE RD. 8803 STAPLES MILL RD. 4411 CROSSINGS BLVD. RICHMOND, VA. HENRICO CO., VA. PRINCE GEORGE, VA. DATE: /~-~O-~ql SCALE: / "=. DRAWN BY: ~ CHECKED BY: ~ (../../ /7. JOB NO: 00 168 An Affi~iat~ of ~V~e~i~ G~n~ra~ P.O BO){ C~32333 RICHN/I©ND, VIRGIN A 23293-000t