The URL can be used to link to this page

01/24/01 PacketCHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: January 24, 2001 Subject: County Administrator's Comments County Administrator's Comments: Item Number: 2. County Administrator: '~~ ,'~'~ /~/- ~ Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: Mr. John Mathiasen, Executive Director, be present to report on the Airport's Richmond International Airport will progress. Preparer: ~ H. Elko Attachments: [Yes No Title: Clerk to the Board '"" RICHMOND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT FOR THE PERIOD January 2001 Consrtuction Services Division Program Manager For Capital Region Airport Commission Submitted to: Capital Region Airport Commission RICHMOND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM As Of January 2001 I. PROJECT LISTING l'erminal Building & Roadways' 99,096,625 - - Terminal Roadways/Platform 35,888,907 Aug 2000 Sept 1999 Open Bids Pk HI-June 29, 2000 ATCT Could Impact Terminal Building 55,028,538 Oct 2000 Dec 2002 Construction Start Same Status As Terminal Related/Required Projects 8,179,180 Sep '2000 Sept 2002 Bid§ Air Traffic Control Tower 10,684,716 June 2001 Aug 2001 Awaiting FAA Facility Requirements Runway 34 South Extension 27,946,506 - Project On Hold Off-Set Localizer --- Jul 2000 TBD Project On Hold Relocate Beulah Road --- May 2000 TBD Project On Hold Extend Runway --- On Hold TBD Project On Hold l?axiway "U" South Extension 6,429,267 Jul 2000 Oct 2000 Bids Opened on Sept 14, 2000 Rental Car Garage 9,863,033 Jul 2000 Nov 2000 Open Bids on Sept 21, 2000 Public Car Garage 23,297,500 Dec 2000 Feb 2001 Driven by Parking Inventory Concourse "C' Apron 7,589,130 Jun 2000 Sep 2000 Bids Opened August 24, 2000 Concourse "C" Building 23,260,558 Sept 2000 Dec 2000 Phased Due To ATCT FIS Build Out (Concourse C) 3,364,000 Sept 2000 Dec 2000 Negotiating Size of Facility l'icket Counter Expansion 1,500,000 Jun 2000 TBD Project on Hold Huntsman Road 400,000 Dec 1999 Oct 2000 Bids Opened August 24, 2000 Request for Qualifications to Storm Drain System R/W 2/20 2,225,000 TBD TBD be Released In September Stormwater Mgmt Facility 3,355,70~] Jun 1999 Nov 1999 Under Construction Wetlands Creation 1,800,00~] May 1999 Jul 1999 Completed Air Carrier Apron Repairs 610,00~] Apr 2000 Jul 2000 Under Construction Water System Improvements 4,000,00~] TBD TBD Request for Qualifications to be Released In September De-Icing Collection System Ph I 855,00C TBD TBD --- l?axiway A South 6,700,00C TBD TBD FY-2006 Project Concourse "A" Apron 7,250,00~ TBD TBD FY-2006 Project II. CONSTRUCTION A. Terminal Roadways and Platform This project provides for an elevated new terminal access roadway system and platform structure for the future development of a two level terminal building expansion. This project is divided into four major packages: I-Clear and Grub, II-Exit Plaza, Express Parking Lot, Storm Sewer Trunk Line, & Primary Roadways, III-Terminal Drive Loop Roads, Entry Plaza, and Roadway Signage, IV-Elevated Roadway, Building Platform, and Ramps. The primary need for this expansion is to provide additional curb space to meet the growing demands of Richmond International Airport as well as to ease the flow of traffic to and from the terminal. The Architect for this project is Gresham, Smith & Parmers. Status/Issues: Bid Package I: Completed Bid Package II: Under Construction; The project is behind schedule due to utility conflicts and weather. No impact to master schedule. ~ Bid Package III: Bids were opened On June 8, 2000; Negotiations to Change Order this to Bid Pack II are finalized. Construction has started on this package. B. Huntsman Road Extension This project involves the design of the 1100 foot extension of existing Huntsman Road from its existing terminus east of the Aviation Museum to Airport Drive at the Cadmus intersection, roughly paralleling Airport Drive. This project will allow all of the North General Aviation facilities to be reached by a single road. The Architect of record is Talbert & Bright. Status/Issues: ~ Bids were opened on August 24, 2000. ~' Construction commenced in November 2000 Ct Stormwater Management Facility This Project involves the design of a shallow marsh wetlands used to treat the storm water runoff from airport property. The facility will consist of two basins, inlet and outlet structures, and shallow marsh plantings that will treat the stormwater runoff. The construction of this facility will alleviate the need for individual BMP's on most of the upcoming construction projects across the airport. This project will enhance the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay. The design engineer for the project is HDR Engineering, Inc. Status/Issues: Currently under construction The flow of water in the creek has been successfully diverted. Contractor is constructing the diversion structure. The project is behind schedule due to weather and de-watering efforts. Estimated completion is June 2001. De Air Carrier Apron Repairs The existing air carrier apron was constructed in 1985. Airfield pavements require routine maintenance and repair approximately every 10 years. This includes the routing and sealing of all pavement joints, routing and sealing of all pavement cracks, and replacement of damaged slabs. The Contractor for this project is APAC. The contractor has completed several concrete slab replacements and is continuing with joint repairs. The Engineer for this project is Delta Airport Consultants. Status/Issues: Contract was Executed and the Notice to Proceed Issued Work commenced on August 21,2000 and should be complete by the end of November. The work is being coordinated daily with Airport Operations and the Airline Station Managers This work is substantially complete. Taxiway "U" South Extension Taxiway "U" will become the main north/south air cartier taxiway. Taxiway "U" is required to replace the aging south portion of Taxiway "A". This project consists of the demolition of Taxiway "A", construction of the remaining 2000 feet of Taxiway "U", a by-pass taxiway at the runway threshold, and all associated airfield lighting and signage modifications. The bids were opened on September 14, 2000 and the project came in under budget. In addition to the Taxiway "U" construction a portion of Taxiway "A" south will be constructed. The Designer for this project is Delta Airport Consultants. Status/Issues: Bids were opened on September 14, 2000 FAA Grant for the Design & Construction has been executed Construction was commenced in October 2000 This project is instrumental to resolve the line of sight issue caused by the construction of Concourse "C". The Contractor is under a winter shutdown until March 2001. Reatal Car Garage This project involves the design of theproposed parking deck to be utilized by the tenant rental car agencies as a ready/rem vehicle parking facility. The garage is anticipated to be two levels (one at grade level and one elevated level), which will accommodate approximately 617 parking spaces (expandable to approx 1000 parking spaces). The site of the garage has been selected in approximately the current location of the existing rental car ready/return lot, directly adjacent to the proposed new Terminal Building Expansion on the north end. The garage will be of pre-cast concrete with a metal roof over the second level and will incorporate vertical transportation for pedestrians between the levels. This project is being designed by Gresham, Smith, & Partners. Status/Issues: Bids were opened on September 21, 2000. Timing for award of Contract will be determined by the CFC negotiations. Current estimates show this project to be within budget. The detour road should be open by January 20. ~ The structure footings should begin on January 22. G. Concourse "C" Apron Expansion This project involves the construction of the apron portion of the Concourse "C" expansion project. This project is being fast paced due to the 'growing airline demand. The Designer for this project is Gresham, Smith, & Partners. Status/Issues: FAA has issued a "Conditional No Objection" due to the line of sight issue. CRAC Staffhas responded positively that the listed conditions are acceptable. Bids were opened on August 24, 2000 and construction has commenced. Current estimates show this project to be within budget. The contractor has completed part of the drainage line across the apron and will be placing concrete the week of December 18. )' Drainage from T/W T to the blast wall will be installed during January. )~ The Contractor is under a temporary winter shutdown until January 8. Concourse "C" Extension This project involves the construction of a two-story addition to the existing Concourse C. The first floor will feature 33,500 sf of new construction, while the elevated level will feature 53,100 sf of new construction. Seven additional passenger gates will be added as a result of the construction of this project. This project is being fast tracked duc to the growing airline demand. The Designer for this project is Gresham, Smith, & Partners. Status/Issues: FAA has issued a "Conditional No Objection" due to the line of sight issue. CRAC Staffhas responded positively that the listed conditions are acceptable. Bids were opened on August 24, 2000 for the apron portion only. Line of sight issues have resulted in the removal and re-design of the barrel vault clearstories and vaulted ceilings. > The final Phase of Construction could be delayed by one year. This delay may be required until the ATCT is relocated. )~ Bids have been received and are being reviewed by the PMT prior to award. III. DESIGN A. Terminal Building This project phase involves the design of the new departure terminal building which will be constructed upon the new second level platform and the new arrival terminal building which will be constructed below the second level platform. In addition, this project is the renovation and redevelopment of the existing terminal to accommodate expanded baggage make-up and claim areas, modified building systems and improved passenger circulation from curbside to the concourses. The Architect for this project is Gresham, Smith, & Partners. Status/Issues: The 90% Design were completed in October 2000. Since the Construction will not commence until late 2002 the 100% Design Documents may be placed on hold. )~ The ATCT must be relocated prior to the start of construction. )~ Construction could commence in December 2002 B. Air Traffic Control Tower This project involves the construction of a new FAA Air Traffic Control Tower at the Richmond International Airport. This project is a necessary due to public safety as well as the fact that the construction of the new Terminal and Concourse C Expansion will block the line of sight of the Air Traffic Controllers in the existing Tower, The estimated height of the tower cab is estimated at 150 feet to the Cab Floor. The design kick off meeting was held on October 18 & 19 with representatives of the FAA. The Engineer for this project is Holmes & Narver. Status/Issues: Awaiting final tower facilities information. The preferred FAA site is located just south of the CSX Hangar. This project is critical to complete the construction of the new terminal building in 2002 and is impacting our ability to efficiently construct the new concourse. This project is now behind schedule due to the FAA's site selection process. )~ Congressional funding has been received. Runway Extension In order to accommodate the future demand for international cargo operations the Capital Region Airport Commission is planning a 1200 foot extension of Runway 34. This project is broken into three major elements. The include the installation of an off-set localizer to ensure that aircraft can continue to operate safely during the runway extension; the relocation of existing Beulah Road to accommodate the runway extension; and the 1200 foot extension of the runway. This last element will also include the extension of Taxiway L to service the new runway threshold and all associated NAVAIDS and airfield equipment to facilitate aircraft operations on the new runway. The Designer for this project is Delta Airport Consultants. Status/Issues: )' Project on Hold to FY 2003 D. Public Car Garage (1900 spaces) This project involves the construction of a new public parking garage in the existing surface lot south of the new garages. This project will provide an additional 1900 covered parking spaces for the general public to utilize. The garage will be a post tension cast in-place concrete structure and will be attached to the existing South Garage. Vertical circulation for this new garage will be accommodated by the ramp in the existing south garage. The project is being designed by Gresham Smith & Parmers. Status/Issues: 100% Design Documents are complete. Construction estimated to commence in February 2001. Current estimates show this project to be under budget. Bids were opened on January 11,2001. E. Storm Drain System Runway 2-20 This project consists of the replacement of the failing 1940's storm drainage piping system and outlet stmctures. Status/Issues: ~' No Design efforts have been initiated at this time > Request for Qualifications to' select an Engineer of Record has been completed and selection is scheduled for January. F. Water System Improvements The existing water distribution system dates back to the 1940. Based on a recently completed study, a large portion of the system is nearing or has exceeded it's useful life. This project will replace major portions of the existing water system. This will enhance water quality and fire fighting capabilities to meet the future growth of the airport. Status/Issues: ~ No Design effort has been initiated. G. De-Icing Collection System In 1997 the Capital Region Airport Commission installed an apron drainage system capable of collecting de-icing fluid during aircraft de-icing operations. This project will install the tank that will be used to collect de-icing fluid and contain it until it is disposed of off site. Status/Issues: ~ Preliminary Design commenced in May 2000. > This project is being handled by the CRAC Staff. Concourse "A" Apron Expansion As the airport continues to grow Concourse "A" will be expanded to accommodate an additional four aircraft gates. To meet this growth major apron work is required at the north end of the airfield. This additional apron is planned for FY-2006. In addition to accommodating future growth this project will provide a dual taxiway system around the terminal enhancing aircraft operations. Status/Issues: > No Design effort has been initiated. I. Taxiway."A" South Taxiway "A" will become on of the main north/south air carrier taxiway. Taxiway "A" is required to replace the aging south portion of Taxiway "A". This project consists of the demolition of Taxiway "A", construction of the remaining 2000 feet of Taxiway "A", a by-pass taxiway at the runway threshold, and all associated airfield lighting and signage modifications. The Designer for this project is Delta Airport Consultants. Status/Issues: )~ FAA Grant for the Designhas been executed J. FIS Build Out (Concourse "C" Lower Level) The existing Federal Inspection Services Facility space is needed to construct nine new ticket counter positions to accommodate enplanement demands. The existing FIS facility is 6700 sf. With the Construction of Concourse "C" and it's ability to accommodate international operations, the lower level of Concourse "C" was chosen to house the new facility. The Designer for this project is Gresham, Smith, & Partners. Status/Issues: )~ Design will be completed in coordination with Concourse "C" Building. )~ Negotiations are underway with Governmental agencies to negotiate minimum square foot requirements. Preliminary meetings have set the size of the facility at 14,400 sf. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: January 24, 2001 Item Number: m Subject: Resolution Recognizing February 2001, as "PETFIX MONTH 2001" County Administrator's Comments: Board Action Requested: Adopt the attached resolution. Summary of InformatiOn: Mr. David Bailey, President of the PetFix Coalition, will be present to accept the resolution. Preparer: ~-'~-% ~ ',~--*--- Lisa H. Elko Attachments: Yes ~ No Title: Clerk to the Board RECOGNIZING FEBRUARY 2001, AS ~PETFIX MONTH 2001" WHEREAS, dogs and cats give companionship to and share the homes of over 50 million individuals in the United States; and WHEREAS, two unaltered cats and their kittens can produce 420,000 more kittens in seven years and two unaltered dogs and their puppies can produce 67,000 more dogs in six years; and WHEREAS, it is estimated that millions of dogs and cats are euthanized each year in the United States, although many of them are healthy and adoptable, simply because there are not enough homes; and WHEREAS, the latest report from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Division of Animal Industry Services, states that 130,578 dogs and cats were euthanized in Virginia in 1999; and WHEREAS, the problems of pet overpopulation costs the taxpayers in this country millions of dollars annually through animal control programs trying to cope with the millions of unwanted animals; and WHEREAS, spaying and neutering dogs and cats has been shown to drastically reduce dog and cat overpopulation; and WHEREAS, veterinarians have supported the PetFix Coalition February programs in the Commonwealth of Virginia during the past five years and have performed 13,000 spays and neuters, which has prevented millions of unwanted births; and WHEREAS, veterinarians, humane organizations and concerned citizens throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia have again joined together to advocate the spaying and neutering of companion animals during ~'Petfix Month 2001". NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes February 2001, as ~Petfix Month 2001" and encourages all citizens to observe this month by either having their dogs or cats spayed or neutered or by sponsoring the spaying or neutering of a companion animal for another. k CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 3 Meetin~ Date: Januar~ 24, 2001 Item Number: 6on. Subject: Work Session to Provide Board of Supervisors with Information Regarding the Revised Subdivision Ordinance County Administrator's Comments- Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: The County Subdivision Team has spent approximately two years evaluating the existing Subdivision Ordinance. The staff involved in the study represented the Community Development departments, Fire Department, Health Department and VDOT. Additionally, the staff worked with representatives of the Home Builders Association of Richmond who represent the primary uses of the process. The five types of changes which the team recommended are: · Match the Subdivision Ordinance to the current subdivision process; · Match the Subdivision Ordinance to State Code; · Improve the organization and clarity of the ordinances; · Add new processes or changes to provide better customer service; · Improve consistency among the Subdivision, Utility and Zoning Ordinances. During the work session the following highlights regarding the amendments to the Subdivision Utility and Zoning Ordinances will be covered. ' Preparer: ~~d'~ ~~ Title: Director of Planning Th~%as E Ja~ob-o~/ ' ' C:DAT~AGEND~2001 / JAN2401.2 Attachments- Yes No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 3 Minor Subdivisions: · A new process that will make it easier to subdivide up to five (5) lots when no new streets will be developed; · Quicker and less costly than the current process; · More effective use of staff resources Parcel Divisions (Road stripped parcels) · A new proceSs to review the division of agricultural parcels to assure compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance; · Assure that these divisions are legal and that Planning can recommend approval of building permits; · The Clerk of the Circuit Court was a key partner in this change. Subdivision Access Standards · Minimize amount of traffic on typical residential streets; · Improve access for police, fire and rescue personnel; · Minimize exceptions to new standards to assure balance between subdivision traffic and emergency access. Comply with State Code and Case Law · Address recent changes in the State Code including changes which affect the Health Department's review of lots that have septic systems; · State Code and case law limit content of Subdivision Ordinance. Modification to Existing Road Stripped Parcels · Currently difficult and costly to make minor changes to the size and shape of their older road stripped parcels; · A new streamlined process will reduce time and cost for property owners; · More effective use of staff resources Underground Utilities · The current ordinance requires utility lines to be installed underground. Transformers and service boxes may be above ground; · Amendment would require these accessories to be underground if located in the front yard of residential lots or above ground if located elsewhere in the yard. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUBDIVISION, UTILITY AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS These amendments to the Subdivision, Utilities and Zoning Ordinance incorporate the following major actions: Minor Subdivisions. A new process has been developed to make it easier to subdivide up to five (5) lots when no new streets will be developed. This process will be quicker and less costly than the current Process. Parcel Subdivisions ( Road stripped parcels ) This new process will provide a review of the division of agricultural parcels to determine that the proposal meets the minimum standards to be exempt from the formal subdivision process. This process is designed to assure that these divisions are legal and that Planning can recommend approval of building permits once the parcels are recorded. The Clerk of the Circuit Court was a key partner in this change. Subdivision access standards Existing subdivision access standards are being changed to better assure that the amount of traffic on residential streets is minimized and that safe access can be maintained for police, fire and rescue personnel. The current standard allows only fifty (50) homes to be constructed on a single access. Numerous exceptions have been granted to this standard over the years. The new standard will allow up to 100 homes on collector streets and attempts to minimize exceptions to assure safe access. Match ordinance to State Code and case law. The eXisting ordinance does not comply with recent changes in the State Code including changes which effect the Health Department's review of lots that have septic systems. There have also been several court cases which have required changes to the current ordinance. · Improve the organization and clarity of the ordinance Numerous changes were made to describe the subdivision process more clearly, def'me terms and incorporate current development policies. · Parcel'Line Modifications. The current ordinance makes it difficult for owners of older parcels of land to make minor changes to the size and shape of their property. A more streamlined process has been developed to address this need. 007 ATFACHMENT 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997 AS AMENDED BY AMENDING, AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 17- I THRU 91 RELATING TO SUBDIVISION OF LAND BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 17-1 et seq, of the Code of the Count. of Cheste~eld. 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Subdivision Ordinance GENERAL Purpose of chapter. Definitions. Interpretation of chapter. Administration of chapter. Transfer or sale without approved plat prohibited. Building permits restrictions Tentative and final approved plats to comply with chapter. Alternatives to chapter provisions~'~aeratly. Sec. 17-9. S,~,,~-----Pl,,~d---~~,~" .... *,,,,,v,,,~,,,~' ........ Conditions. Sec. 17-10. o___ O,~,,~--,.~,:ll,~l,~,,~. Planned developmems Sec. 17-11: Fees. Sec. 17-12. Legal remedies for violations. Sec. 17-13. Penalties. Secs. 17-14--17-30. Reserved. ARTICLE I. IN Sec. 17-1. Sec. 17-2. Sec. 17-3. Sec. 17-4. Sec. 17-5. Sec. 17-6. Sec. 17-7. Sec. 17-8. ARTICLE II. PLATS AND PLATTINCr*- DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 17-31. Subdivision ~'--:---' ....... '--by ~-' ...... f pl ' - · ,~,~,~..,~ ,~,,,~.,~,~.. ,~,,~, o annn~g t,, layout of-had. Sec. 17 32" .... ,__ _, ..... : ...... ~, ..... _,__, __.1__,:_.:.:__ - .,,,~..,~,,., ,l,~..~,~,,, ,.,,~., ,,~ ~,.,.,,~,~,~ ~-~,,~,,.. Procedure for subdivision approval. Sec. 17-33. tL'~'ubdivisioa. Procedure for appeals. Sec. 17-34. Rcscr~-cd area~ prokdbitc~. Vacation. alteration, etc.. of recorded subdivision Sec. 17-35. Proccdurc ~, ..... ~--':--'-:-- approval. Amended and resubdivision nlat~q, Sec. 17-36. Recordation of plat prior to compliance with zoning ordinance prohibited. DMSION 2. PREPARATION AND CONTENTS OF TENTATIVE PLATS Sec. 17-37.. Generally. Sec. 17-38. Required information. Sec. 17-39. '"-' -' .... ~- ..... -'-- ~ Plat reduction reouired. Sec. 1740.~. Overall conceptual subdivision plan, DIVISION 3. PREPARATION AND CONTENTS OF FINAL CHECK AND RECORD PLATS* Sec. 1741 ~':--'-'-' ' · ..u~a, t,,a[ may ..... : ..... "-- · ,.~,.o,[-L,. ,~., ,,~ portion of approvcd tcrr~ativ¢ -'-' General. Sec. 1742. Application for approval. Subdivision Review. Sec. 1743. Fiml-pht: Required information. DIVISION 4. PREPARATION AND CONTENTS OF FINAL CHECK AND RECORD PLATS FOR RESIDENTIAL PARCEL SUBDMSIONS AND PARCEL PROPERTy LINE MODIFICATIONS Sec. 1744. General. Sec. 1745. Procedure for residential parcel subdivision and property, line modification anDroval. Sec. 1746. Residential parcel subdivision and parcel line modification plat requirements, Secs. 1747--17-60. Reserved. Sec. 17-62. Sec. 17-63. Sec. 17-64. Sec. 17-65. Sec. 17-66. Sec. 17-67. Sec. 17-68. Sec. 17-69. Sec. 17-70. Sec. 17-71. ARTICLE 1II. DESIGN STANDARDS DIVISION 1. GENERALLY MINIMUM STANDARDS AND REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS Sec. 17-61. Conformity to applicable rules and regulations. Standard conditions. h-aprovcmcn'~ --Rcquircd. Floodplains. Sam¢--Mahatcnancc. Preservation of natural features and amenities. · -,v,_,~,~,,,., o~,~ ~L~,,l,.V,,~, conh-ol. Property. markers / Geodetic MonUments. Prcscrvafion -~' ......' ~ ......... ~' ' ' ,,~ -,,..~,, ,~,~,~o ,,u amcratics. Stormwater Drainae~, Propc~' corncrs.~ Dedication ~,~ ,,~,~ ~,,~ t,-Ol~,, usc. Easements, ~*,,~'-", ~, "'*v*~,*~'-~-~ ,~,~, bonding. Street names and street signs, Prcscrvation ,,, ~,,,,~ ,,,. v,o,,,, spaccs,,.,~---' fioodplaira. Buffers and Special Sec. Sec. -~u",*,,-',,,* ,-'- ,,:-',., ~,~, v..o-,. -~. Designation of land for public use. 17-72. F'.lood damage coraidci-ations. Improvements - Required, 17-73.~ Installation of irnprovements and bonding. 17-74.-StmeflighOag Maintenance requirements and bonding, DMSION 2. STReW'ETS AND '' ' ,,,,,~ .~,~,.,~- o STREET STANDARDS Sec. 17-75 78.-6enemi~. General· Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. 17-76-79.-Arrangem.~.~ 17-77 o,, __ o,,. Railroads ~ highways. Access to arterial or collector street~ o~. ~,.,~,~oo to,, ~,~,,, or ,~,,,,,.,~L,.,~ strcct~. Street rieht-of-wav_ _ width, 17 79 o,, o ..... 'ght - o~. o~[ ri -of-way --' ""-- ,,,,. Cul-de-sac streets. 17-80 o., ~.., ,,o. ,~,.-~,.-,,,~ or ,~,.,,~-,..,~ s~rcct~. Street intersections, 17-81 ° o-.. llalf-s~rccZs. Alleys. 2 Sec. 17-82oo.°~ o~." ..... intersections. Sidewalks. DP/ISION 3. BLOCKS DMSION 4. ,.,_,,o* "'~'" 3 LOT AND PARCEL STANDARDS Sec. 17-83-90:-. Minimum requirements. Sec. 17-84-9t-:-. Size of lots served by convc.-itional scptic on-site disposal~ Secs. 17-85-91. Reserved, Chapter 17 SUBDIVISION OF LAND ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 17-1. Purpose of chapter. This chapter is adopted for the following purposes: '(a~) To promote the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare. (Lr-2) To further the orderly layout and use of land. (~) To avoid undue concentration of population and overcrowding of land. (.Q_4) To lessen congestion in the streets and highways. (.~-5) To provide for adequate light and air and for identifying soil characteristics. (~[-6) To facilitate adequate provisions for transportation, water, wastewater sewage, storm ~ schools, parks, ptay,grov:m~, and other public requirements. (g-7) To provide for adequate access and mitigating street improvemeIg$ proper h-~grcss and egress. (118) To ensure proper legal description and proper monumenting of subdivided land. 0-9) To promote secure safety from fire, flood, panic, and other dangers. (j_~-0) To facilitate the further resubdivision of tracts or parcels of land. (k) To promote the preservation and integration of environmental resources into subdivision layouts. (1) To minimize the impact of development on environmental resources, These regulations are established with reasonable consideration of the character of the county with a view toward conserving the value of buildings upon the land and providing the best possible environment for human habitation. It is intended that these regulations shall supplement and facilitate the enforcement of the provisions and development standards contained in thc Uniform Statewide Building Code, chapters 18 and 19 of this Code, thc -atilitlcs dcpa~-hiicnt --,-a'~cr and o,.,~,~. ,~,,~,~o~l~ ,,~ the comprehensiv~ gemerat plan. and other applicable laws and regulations. A copy of this chapter shall be maintained on file in the office of the director of planning. 4 State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. Sec. 17-2. ~rmitions. 15.2.2240-2241. '- -,,~ ,~,~,'.--",~-~,., ,,, "-o ~,~v~-, Tthe definitions contained in this section shall be observed and applied, except when the context clearly indicates otherwise: Access: The right to cross between public and private pro~rty_ allowing pedestrians and vehicles to enter and exit pro~rty.. Adjacent: Property. having a common boundary, other than across a street or alley. Alley: As defined bv chaUter 19. A ---~-':- -- ' ' ' ' . _ .,. ,.~,,,,.-,.,,.- ,,,. ,:,..,,, prhniarily dcsigncd ,~, ~,~, ,,. as Best Management Practice (BMP): As def'med by chapter 19, Buffer: A designated area of existing or proposed vegetation, berms, fences or walls intended to address at least one of the following; 1. provide open space between streets, properties and certain uses. 2. preserve existing vegetation or provide for vegetation, 3. provide transition and separation. 4. reduce noise and glare, 5. maintain privacy, and 6. restrict vehicular access, A buffer ma_v also be a desiLmated area of vegetation intended to provide o~n space between are.a.~ zoned for or used for residential or residential townhouse uses and sensitive environmental or topographic features or historic features to preserve existing vegetation, provide transition and separation, maintain privacy, and control access, Buildablefootprint: The area of the building envelOpe which is in compliance with the building site standards as specified in this code by having sufficient area to contain the planned structures. but in no case shall any of the four sides of the buildable foo _tprint for single family detached units have a minimum peru_ endicular interior dimension less than twenty-five (25) feet or as required to meet conditions of zoning. Buildable footprintq depicted on plats shall demonstrate the abili .ty 5 of the subdivider to Comply with all standards and on lots or parcels with on-site disposal systems that the buildable footprint location does not encroach upon the approved disposal site. Buildable lot: A lot that is recorded in accordance with provisions of the Code as well as state law and that has at least one building envelope. Buildable Parcel: A parcel that is recorded in accordance with provisions of the Code as well as. state law and that has at least one building envelope. Building envelope: The area of the lot or parcel which is in Compliance with the building site standards as specified in this code. All building envelopes shall have sufficient area to contain the planned structures, but in no case shall any of the four sides of the building envelope for single family detached units have a minimum perp_ endicular interior dimension less than twenty-five (25) feet or as required to meet conditions of zoning. Building envelopes shall not include easements unless otherWise approved by the applicable authority_, Building setback line: A line or-Hnes within a lot or parcel ~'4and so designated on a recorded plat or as otherwise established by la--,,- the Code. and that defines the building envelope. Building setback line. _front: As def'med by chapter 19. Chesapeake Bay. Preservation Act ( CBPA ): The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. Virginia Code ~_~ 2100 et seq. Code: The Chesterfield County_ Code of Ordinances as adopted and amended. Common open spaCe: An area or areas within a development designed and developed for the use or enjoyment of all residents of the development and whose title is or will be held by a homeowners association. Common open space is not a buildable lot, Commonwealth: The Commonwealth of Virgini.a, como_rehensiv¢ C:xene~plan: t:heptatrAn overall guide to manage Chesterfield County's physical growth adopted pursuant to de}iaeat~q~ the Code of Virginia, §§ 15.1-466. I, 15.2-2223 et seq. Construction p/ans: A set of drawings and related specifications for the construction of facilities within or serving a subdivision including, but not limited to. streets, water and wastew.a, ter systems, stormwater improvement~, Count_: Chesterfield County. Virginia, 6 Cul-de-sac: A street with only one outlet to another street and havLng an appropriate terminus teemim-} for the safe and conveniem reversal of traffic movement. A "T" or "Y" or other cor~g-drafioa ...... ' ~ '- ..... : ~--- ~ Director of / Chief of: As defined by chapter 19. Easement: defined bv chaoter 19. A grant b~ a ~,W.L-,,-,-,v' '-.,--~. Engineer: An engineer licensed by the Commonwealth. Flag lot: A lot which has a narrow appendage providing the required street frontage and through which access is provided to an enlarged portion of the lot typically located behind another lot that abuts the street. Flag lots shall only be utilized to protect or limit irnpacts to environmental or historic resources. Frontage: As del'reed by chapter 19. Geographic information system ( GIS ): Geographic information system owned and operated by the county.. Highway engineer: The Virginia Departmem of Transportation residem engineer or their designee serving the County. l~..,~gll 11~11L U10.A,,,~.,~.,O~ L%,~ WJL I,LWlII UJ.~., Ota111~, ~..,A~,.,,~,,IJL %,~Jll.,.,y O.& ~U&,II .[.~,~llll.~ 0..11~.1 1/1 OU&,11 111talU1%,.l tad lLl~,y U~.., U~LkllIJJ~U &)~ Lll~ ~&~llk ~U&IJUilL~ ll~¥J/l~ JUJ. i~uikUWl/ wY~.,l ~l~ll , Lot: As defined by. chaoter_ 19. Apiccc or parcel of la-id wi'&,h-i .. ~..~,,~.v.~.,.,.--'--'-'--: ...... ,,.. ,~,. b.~ mc~;s and A dfi ..... thc Lot, corner: s e ned bv chauter 19, A '-' --' ..... -' ' '~-- -' ....... :-- -~ ......... Lot depth: As def'med by chapter 19. Lot, interior: As defined bv charter 19. A' .... ~--- '~-- a ~,~.,~ ,,,. Lot. recorded: As defined by chapter 19. Lot, through: As defined bv chaoter 19. A ' ..... '-:-'- '- ....:- -~ ....."- '-' ': ....' ........ Natural riparian corridor: Naturally vegetated buffer areas adjacent and contiguous to streams which may include non-isolated Wetlands and other water bodies. No Building Permit ( NBP): Lot requires inspection prior to issuance of building permit which serves as the Land Disturbance Permit for single family residential construction. On-site disposal system: A sewage disposal system or any other sewage treatment device not connected to the County's public wastewater system approved by the county health department as being in accordance with the rules and re_mdations of the state department of health, and applicable provisions of this Code. Overall conceptual subdivision plan: A preliminary, plan depicting the general layout of street rights of way. lots. major utility lines and drainage facilities as specified in sec. 17-40. Owner: Any person, group of persons, f'm'nL~ or-ftm~, corporationL~ or~l~eati~, or any other legal entity having legal title to the land sought to be subdivided under this chapter. Parcel: Land not part of a lot-subdivision, Planned development: As defined bv chanter 19. ~"- .... '---:--"-- -~' .......... ' ...... -'-- iiigl Planning Commission: As def'med by chapter 19, 8 Plat, amended: A recorded alteration ~rre~-tflxti~isioa of a recorded plat stflxtiv/s/o~, or portion thereof, which does not involve a change in property lines. ~ ~ may include, but are not limited to, name changes and corrections relating to metes and bounds descriptions, 9oordinate points, eorrectiem-of floodplain ~ lines, wetland limits. RPA lines. .text .-~w.,~, setback lines, drainage easements, buffers, misnumbered lots and -: .... Plat, final check: The plat plan of a proposed subdivision of land which meets all the -~' "-:- "'- -'- including any accompanying material, UI requirements of this chapter and chapter 19 ,-~ ,~,,,~, as described in division 3 of article II of this chapter, submitted for review prior to the proposed record' plat~. Plat, record: The plat pla~t of a subdivision of land which meets all the requirements of this -" "-:- '-'--'- including any accompanying material UI chapter and chapter 19 as well as state laws ,,,, as described in division 3 of article II of this chapter, that has been recorded by the clerk of the circuit court of the county. Plat, resubdivision: ~m-at~h~ized A recorded change in a recorded plat ~ which alterations ~ ...... :.... 1 .... "1.- ----1 .... -' ........ : ........ involves uro~ertv line . ,~,~ -~,, -,~,-,,~ -,~ ~*~-~,~" ~ ""~"~" ~ ~"~, ""~ ......... ~ ..... ~,: ..... ~ .....~'~ ...... Resubdivisions may include, but are not limited to. combining loB. dividing a lot between adjacent lots and alterations of lot l~es. Plat, tentative: A plan map showing the reauired information for -':--' f~,,,.~,~ a proposed subdivision, in accordance with section 17-38. roviewed and approved by subtrfi't~-to the director of planning or planning commission for purposes of determining conceptual conformity with article II division 2 ---' .... -' ........ ..4 .... :__ ~/1%,, 1 U.I J.U, IIiU. ,y ~UIJ~ lU~,l O. LIUIA. Plat. tentative a4iusted: A plat showing a change(s! to an approved tentative plat. An adjusted tentative is used when change(s) effect more than ten (10) percent of the lots or alters the street layout or which, requires changes to approved conditions to achieve conformance with construction olans. Adjusted tentative plats are revieWed and approved by the director of planning in accordance with section 17-32 (al (1)(A) or if the adjusted plat is for a tentative approved by the planning commission, it shall be reviewed and apprOved by the planning commission in accordance with section 17-32 (al (l!(B). Plat. tentative substitute: A plat intended to replace an auproved tentative plat in accordance with the requirements of section 174. showing minor changes including but not limited to: subdivision or street mine change(s!, an alteration of not more than ten (Iff} percent of the lo? and that does not alter the street layout nor change conditions to achieve conformance with construction plans. Property: Any piece, tract, lot, parcel of land or several of the same collected together for the purpose of subdividing. Right-of-way: the property_, or interest therein, dedicated for use as a public Street which is in or is designated to become part of the Virginia state transportation system. A plccc Roadway: That portion of a street uscd prhaiarily for paved for use by vehicular traffic. Resource Management Area ( RMA ): Resource managemem area as defined and regulated by chapter 19. Resource Protection Area ( RPA ): Resource protection area as defined and re_c, ulated by chapter 19. Setbacks: A series of lines established on a lot or parcel based.upon the minimum applicable yard requirements set forth in chanter 19. this chapter or otherwise set forth in the Code beyond which no structure may be constructed. Stormwater Management (SWM): Measures taken to mitigate the impact of stormwater on the hydrologic cycle resulting from changes to the landscape which occur when land is developed. Stormwater Management /Best Management Practice (SWM/BMP): A facility, or system whose purpose is to impact storm water management from both a water quanti.ty and water quali.ty standpoint. Street: As defined bv chauter 19. A Sst _a-Art 19 ......... '- "- reet, erial: As defined bv chauter , ' "- '"' --- : .... :-- '- ----' ..... '- -~'' .... "~- .... ' : .... "' .... :-- "- .... '- ..... '----'--- --id ............. 1 't. 1- ........ ____~l~i~ CCa~I 10 Street. eyebrow loop: A portion of a local street that has an enlarged right of way area upon which lots front, incorporatin? an area of pavement that is separated from the travel lanes by a small landscaped island or an extended pavement width. Eyebrow loop streets are not permitted on residential collectors, collectors, or arterial sweets. The maximum depth of an eyebrow loop street shall be less than two (2) times the required right of way width as measured from the adjacent right of way line of the through street to the inside right of way line of the eyebrow or similar location if the eyebrow is totally contained within right of way. Street. limited access: As defined by chapter 19. ....... ~' '-":'--' conth-iui~- .... ~ primarily for acc. cs: ~street,_llzocal: As defined by cha~ter 19. A Street. loop: A local street that has tWO (2) points of intersection onto a street. The minimum depth of a loop street shall be not less than three (3) times the required right of way width as measured from the adjacent right of way line of the through street to the inside right of way line of the loop or similar location if the loop is totally contained within right of way. Street. residential collector: A street which is projected to carry, average daily traffic volumes above the acceptable level established by the planning commission Stub Road Policy and ~_ pically does not permit access to individual lots except as provided for by section 17-77. out.&.M, ~,J~,,,t Yt~.,. ~J, l-)utJii~,,. ,.~LJ.V-~k, Lt ~,.t.t~i(xIi~Y IJuJ. Ctlt~,i.I. Xi~ axiu VUtILJ.~UUU~ LU atL~itai ~LL~,~.,L~ ~JLJJ, XXCIJ. UL.y Street, ~tub-road: A street road upon wl-,ich no lot ha~ it~,,..~(--'-- a~r¢ct ,~,~,~,o ........ ,~,,~-' which is shown on a subdivision plat to dt~aB--erd-~r terminate at adjacent property tO provide access for future development. Structure: As defined by chapter i9. Subdivider: Any owner, proprietor or contract purchaser of a lot or tract of land ~ ~ " ...... '-- ~ "' -""--'- '~--'- duly o~ o~.,. ~-,~ ,,~ .,,~ ,~.,.~ or their authorized representative of-an-owner including olanncrs._ architects, landscape architects, surveyors, engineers and others having training and experience in subdivision planning or design, who undertakes the subdivision of land as def'med herein. 11 Subdivision. Lot: The division of an.v parcel of land for residential or residential townhouse use. into two or more lots. any one of which is less than five (5) acres, or which has street frontage on which access is located of less than three hundred (300) feet or two hundred and fifty_ (250) feet if a legally established access shared by no more than two lots is used. for the purpose, either immediate or future, of transfer of ownership or development for residential or residential townhouse use. Lot subdivisions shall exclude: (a) Family subdivisions as defined in residential parcel subdivision. (b) Granting or extin_euishing easements, and division of land for augmented estates. subordination or lien priority., plats of confirmation and open space not directed at the creation of lots or parcels for sale. and not done for the purpose of circumventing this chapter. (c) Division of any parcel of land for residential use. into two or more parcels which are each more than five (5) acres. (d) Division of land with commercial or industrial zoning as def'med by chapter 19 of this code for the purpose of office, business, or industrial development. Subdivision. Conventional: A subdivision for single family dwellings or two family dwellings as defined in chapter 19. including but not limited to: dwellings with standard lot setbacks. dwellings with specified bulk requirements, zero lot line dwellings, z'lot dwellings, and cluster Subdivision. Minor: A lot subdivision which is exempted from the tentative plat approVal 12 reayirement and conforms to all of the following: (a) Not more than five (5) lots fronting on an existing local street: Co) Does not create an.v new streets: (c) Does not require the extension of wastewater or water lines: (d) Does not require the installation of stormwater improvements as determined by the director of environmental engineering: (e) Is in compliance with provisions of the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act by having an average lot size of one acre. is opted out. and is outside the Swift Creek Reservoir .(t3 Conforms to the provisions of this chapter: (g) Provides for right of way as shown in the thoroughfare plan and bulk requirements of the zonin~ ordinance. Subdivision. Residential Parcel: The division, per article II division IV. of any parcel of land for residential use. into two (2) or more parcels all of which are more than five (5) acres, and which: 1. have frontage of not less than three hundred (300) feet or two hundred and fifty_ (250) feet if a legally established access shared by no more than two parcels is used on an existing street, and: 2. access to the parcel is provided within the area of required frontage, and: 3. the required minimum parcel width, per 1. above, is maintained for a depth required to create a five (5) acre parcel or in an arrangement approved by the director of Planning after determining that the configuration is appropriate based ur>on limitations imposed by the parcel shape and environmental features on the parcel and is not for the purpose of circumventine this subsection. (a) Residential parcel subdivisions shall include; Family subdivisions which shall be def'med as a single division of land to create a lot or a parcel for the purpose of a sale or gift to a member of the immediate family of the property_ owner including a partition of property, owned by immediate family members. Only one such division shall be allowed per family member and shall not be for the purpose of circumventing this chapter. For the purpose of this subsection, a member of the immediate family shall be defined as an.v person who is a natural or legally defined offspring, spouse, sibling, grandchild, grandparent or parent of the owner, Family subdivision shall comply with all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance and the. standards set forth in this chapter. Access shall be provided as required by the Code of Residential parcel subdivisions shall excl~Jde: Granting or extinguishing easements, and division of land for augmented estates subordination or lien priori .ty. plats of confirmation and open space, not directed at the. creation of lots or parcels for sale. and not done for the pu~ose of circumventing this chapter. 13 Subdivision. parcel property line modification: An existing legally created parcel that may or may not meet the current area or dimensional requirements of this chapter and chapter 19 may be altered to increase the parcel area subject to the requirements of section 1744 (b). Subdivision. recorded: A subdivision that has been approved by the county in accordance with this chapter and has been duly recorded by the clerk of the court of Chesterfield County_. Subdivision. Townhouse: A subdivision for townhouses as defined in chapter 19. Subdivision. unrecorded: A proposed tentative or final check plat that has been officially submitted for approval by the coun .ty in accordance with this chapter and has not been recorded by the clerk of the court of Chesterfield County. Subdivision dexign standards: The basic land-planning'standards established in this ch~ter and ch~ter 19 as guides for the preparation of-tentative plats. Surveyor: A certified land surveyor authorized under the laws of the Ceommonwealth. Tract: See Parcel. Vicinity sketch: A location map of the subdivision with the existing streets and street names which provide access shown to a scale of one inch equals 2,000 feet. Water supply, individual well: A well supplying a source of water to one lot. Water supply, public system: A water supply and distribution system owned and operated by the county. Wastewater. public system: A .wastewater system owned and operated by the county_. Wetlands: As defined by chapter 19. (Code 1978, § 18.1-2; Ord. of 12-10-97, § I) Cross reference(s)--Definitions and rules of construction generally, § 1-2. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. ~ 15.2-2240. Sec. 17-3. Interpretation of chapter. _'1-_1! 1-_ I--_1-1 ~_ (a) The provisions of this chapter are ~,~,, o,. ,~,,, ~,, bc the minimum requirements for the promotion of the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare. 14 CO) Where the conditions imposed by any provisiora of this chapter upon "-,,,. .... ,-o,~,,'--':--'~o~,,--:-- of lO~,,'-- ~ diffe fr the -"~ ...... ' :~" ..... ' ....... ' :-': .... ~-- mp abl nditi are rent om eiui,.t more ,~,ut~.,,~ ,, i,.o~ ,~u,,.,,~ u,,,1 co ar e co ons imposed by any other provisions of this chapter or of any other applicable law, ordka~ac¢, ~,.,,,~-,,,,**,'--'-' .... ,..,,.,'- ,,~-- regulation of any kind, the regulations which are more restrictive and impose higher standards or requirements shall govern. (c) This chapter is not intended to invalidate abrogate any easement, covenant, or other private agreement; provided, that where the regulations of this chapter are more restrictive or impose higher standards or regulations than such easement, covenant, or other private agreement, the requirements of this chapter shall govern. ~ ~dc § J.O. J.~l O, State law reference(s). Code of Vkgiffia. ~ 15.2-2240. Sec. 17-4. Administration of chapter. (a) The agent director of planning is hereby delegated the authority to administer this chapter. Co) The agent director of planning shall perform all duties regarding subdivision and subdividing in accordance with this chapter and applicable state law. (c) In thc pcrformancc of ,~s duties, Tthe director of planning agent may call on opinions or decisions, either verbal or written, from county officials in cOnsidering details of any submitted plat. 9i_pJalllli~ agent may. from time to time, establish any reasonable administrative procedures deemed necessary for the proper administration of this chapter. (e) The director of planning may accept a substitute tentative plat in lieu of the approved tentative plat. The director shall, as a part of the acceptance, determine that the substitute plat has no substantive impact on an appealable issue. The director shall advise the subdivider if the plat is acceptable without providing additional notice or appeal rights. (I-e) Notwithstanding the above, the directors of environmental engineering, transportation and utilities shall hav~h~'my~ administer the improvements required by section~ 17- 72-74-63ff~. State law reference(s)~--~,~,.,~..~,~..,,,,,,,,~-~ ~..,,...v,,,,,.,---'-~:--'-: .... ,,,,,..,o~.,.~.: ..... Code of Virginia. §§ · o..--~,,..,,.~/, 15. ~-474. ~ 15 Sec. 1%5. Transfer or sale without approved plat prohibited. No person shall subdivide land without making and recording a plat of the subdivision and without fully complying with the provisions of this chapter of the Code. No plat of any subdivision shall be recorded unless and until it has been submitted to and approved by the planning commission or director of planning. No person shall sell or transfer any lot or parcel of an unrecorded subdivision, before a plat has been duly approved and recorded in the circuit court clerk's Office. ( ) -~' "--' ..... :-- f Virgini State law reference s .--Basis ,, ~,,o o,.,.,,,~,, Code 0 a, §.o.~--,,o' ~ * '"~ 15.2-2254. Sec. 17-6. Building permits restrictions ...,. ,.,, b~' ..... (a) No building permit shall be issued for the construction of any building or structure on a lot or parcel if the lot or parcel is created or established in violation of the provisions of this chapter. ~). No building permit shall be issued on a proposed lot that has not been recorded, (c) No building permit shall be issued on a lot or parcel which is not in compliance with Chapter 8 of the Code of Chesterfield County.. (d) No building permit shall be issued on, parcels recorded after (INSERT DATE ) that have not been reviewed and approved in accordance with article II division 4 of this chapter. (e) No building permit shall be issued on a lot or parcel until such time the county, ha.q assigned all necessary_ coding and addressing, (fl Parcels and / or lots recorded prior to January. 1. 1980 shall be considered buildable if they meet all standards relative to the appropriate zoning district. If frontage and width standards cannot be met. the parcel or lot is eligible to apply for a variance, (g) Parcels recorded between Janus_ 1. 1980 and Au_mist 24. 1988. shall be considered buildable (1) The parent parcel was only split once into two (2) parcels, each meeting all zoning standards, or (2) The parent parcel was split for immediate family members. If all zonine stand_axd$ cannot be met. the parcel or lot is eligible to apply for a variance, or 16 " Olg3 (3) The parent parcel was split several times into "exemption lots" whereby each lot has a minimum of thirty-thousand (30.000) square feet and a minimum of one hundred and twenty-five (125) feet of frontage, provided that seventy-five (75) feet from the center line of the street the parcel width measures a minimum of one hundred and fifty_ (150) feet. The last parcel remaining may meet the minimum standards relative to that zoning district, (h)' Parcels recorded betWeen August 25. 1988 and June 22. 1993. shall be considered buildable (1) The parent parcel was only split into parcels containing a minimum of five (5) acres and a minimum of tWo hundred (200) feet of frontage and a minimum of one hundred and fifty, feet of width at the required minimum building setback or building location, or (2) The parent parcel was split for immediate family members. If all zoning standards cannot be met. the parcel is eligible to apply for a variance. (3) The utilities and health department confunn that the parcel complies with the utility. connection requirements or the increased bulk standards related to the usage of well and septic. (i) Parcels recorded between June 23. 1993 and June 30. 1999. shall be considered buildable if the utiliti¢~ and health departments confirm that the parcel complies with the utility_ connection requirements or the increased bulk standards related to the usage of well and septic, and: (1) The parent parcel was only split into parcels containing a minimum of five (5) acres and a minimum of three hundred (300~ feet of frontage or two hundred and fifty_ (250) feet of frontage if there is a shared common access and a minimum of one hundred and fifty_ (150) feet of width at the required minimum building setback or building location, or (2) The parent Parcel was split for immediate family members. If all zoning standard~ cannot be met. the parcel or lot is eligible to apply for a variance. (j) Parcels recorded between July 1. 1999 and ( INSERT DATE }. shall be considered buildabl? if the utilities and health departments confu'm that the parcel complies with the utility, connection requirements or the increased bulk standards related to the usage of well and septic, and' (1) The parent parcel was only split into parcels containing a minimum of five (5) acres and a minimum of three hundred (300) feet of frontage or two hundred and fifty. (250) feet of frontage if an access shared by no more than two lots or parcels is used. for a depth of one thousand (1000) feet or that necessary_ to create a five (_5) acre parcel. Access to the lots or parcels shall be from the location of the frontage, or (2) The parent parcel was split for immediate family members. If all zonine standards cannot be met. the parcel or lot is eligible to ar>ply for a variance. 17 024 State law reference(s). Uniform Statewide Building Code.(USBC) ~ 108.1. Sec. 17'7. Tentative~ ;,,-id final check and record ~ plats to comply with chapter. No.plat of a subdivision shall be approved which does not comply with all of the provisions of this chapter. State law reference(S). Code of Virginia. ~ 15.2-2254. Sec. 17-8. Alternatives to chapter provisions--Oenelndty. Unless mandated by state code. ~fhen the director of planning or planning commission finds-that · ~,o,.,L .,,.~. o,~,,.~ ,.,,,,,~,.,,.,.~ ,~..~ ,~.o ,..,,.W,.l, .,. may approve alternatives to the_ eeneral teehni~ provisions of this chapter- in cases of unusual situations or where strict adherence to these general re~lations would result in substantial injustice or hardship. The director of planning may refer an.v request to the planning commission, in-so-fat-as Ssuch alternatives shall substantially comply with the provisions of this chapter so that substamiat justice may be done and the public interest.secured~;qmyvided;n~a Ssuch alternatives shall not have the effect of nullifying the intent hap and purpose of fids c ter; and.,~.,~':--"- ....... t.,,.1,~,~,:-'-~ "--'.~.~ the alternative,~u,.,.~,.-': ....... ,,~" ~,,,~;:-- shall not be app ~ -' ..... : ...... - '-- p ' ' -~'~-'- cl-aptc, r nless-he -'--" rOy azt,~z{.latzv~o tv uzv i-O-v'iSiO~ ut uno U ortaiz .,~ ~.,~.~ presented by the subdivider presents evidence that: m each (a_{) The granting of the alternative will not be detrimental to the public safety, health or welfare, or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is locate~; (h--2) The conditions upon which the request for an alternative is based are unique to the property for which the alternative is sought, and are not applicable, generally, to other property,; (c3) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the provisions of this chapter were carried out-and (d%) The purpose of the alternative is not based exclusively upon a financial consideration. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. ~ 15.2-2242. 18 Sec. 17- 9. Conditions. In approving alternatives, the director of planning or planning commission may irnpose such conditions specifically related to the impact of the proposed subdivision as may be deemed necessary, to secure substamially the objectives of the standards and requirements of this Code. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. ~ 15.2-2242. Sec. 17-10. Planned developments. The standards and requirements of this chapter may be modified in the case of planned developments when the planning commission or director of planning finds the developments provide adequate public spaces, improvements for the circulation of traffic, recreation, light, air. stormwater management, and public utilities service needs for the fully developed tract, and also provide such covenants or other legal provisions as will assure conformity and achievement of the comprehensive plan.. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. ~ 15.2-2242. Sec. 17-11. Fees. The fees for processing subdivisions by the county shall be payable upon submission of the plats to the county for tentative or final approval and shall be equal to the following: (a_~) Tentative subdivision approval, or resubmittal of an expired previously approved tentative: CLa) Original submittal, including up to two resubmittals... $300.00 Plus, per lot... $20.00 (2_b) Renewal of previously approved tentative, including up to two resubmittals~ 19 with provisions of Section 1%32... $300.00 Plus, per lot... $20.00 L3__e ) Third and subsequent submittal for (1~ and (2~ t~~, per submittal $ 200.00 (_4_d) Substitute to approved tentative, per submittal ~... $50.00 110.00. f5 ¢) Adjusted tentative for previously approved tentative, including up to two resubmittals... $3.00.00 Plus. per lot ( within twelve months of approval )... $15.00 or Plus. per lot ( beyond twelve months of approval )... $20.00 Third and subsequent, per submittal . . $200..00 (b) Final check, amended and resubdivision plat review: (1 i) Final check plat subdivision and minor subdivision review approv~... $650.00 ( Only one base fee will be required for final check plats required to be submitted in multiple sections due to provisions of section 17,42, ) Plus, per lot... $5.00 (2) Final check resubdivision plat review appto~... $500.00 Plus. per lot.. , $5.00 (3~ Final check amended plat review approv~... $300,00 PluS. per lot'... $5.00 (c) Residential parcel subdivision .... $35,00 per parcel (d) Parcel line modification review ..... $25.00 per parcel (2-3) Appeal of decision of director of planning... $260.00 (f) Onsite sewage disposal system soils analysis review ,..$155 per lot/parcel 20 State ( ) lO' - ~' .............. :~- ~-- ~'--- ~'-- Fl .... : .... Code f Virgini law reference s .--Author ,,~ ~,,~[~ [,~ w,,w~,,~ ~,~, ~ ~,,~ at ~,~w,~,~, o a, § ~ 15.2-2241. Sec. 17-12. Legal remedies for violations. (a) In addition to the penalties specified in section 17-13. - .... :~-~ ~'-- "- '-'-'-'-- -~ "-- ehapt~, the county administrator or director of planning agent may institute any appropriate action or proceedings by injth-iction or o~e,-~-is¢, to prevent such violation or attempted violation of this chapter and to restrain, correct or abate such violation or attempted violation, or to prevent any (b) The board may exempt a parcel from the Subdivision Ordinance as a condition of a CUPD when requested in writing by a bona fide purchaser of such parcel without notice that the parcel was created in violation of the provisions of this chapter where the following additional circumstances exist: 1. The parcel is zoned Agricultural (A); and 2. The parcel is located in an area that is designated for rural conservation on the Comprehensive Plan; and 3. A building permit was issued for the parcel at a time when the parcel was legally configured. State law reference(s), Code of Virginia, § 15.2-2241. -2254. -2255. Sec. 17-13. Penalties. Any person violating the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to a judicially imposed f'me in the appropriate court of not more than $500.00 for each lot or parcel of land so subdivided or transferred or sold; the description of such lot or parcel by metes and bounds in the instrument of transfer or other document used in the process of selling or transferring shall not exempt the transaction from such penalties or from the remedies herein provided. State law reference(s).--Basis,,~- ,,,~: ..... o,~,[,,~.,"-- Code of Virginia, § ~.~ Secs. 17-14--17-30. Reserved. 21 ARTICLE H. PLATS AND PLATTING DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 1%31. SubdivisionPai-t,,~ul.~.- -' ........ .... '-- '- ' ......" .... ' -'-- '- ..,~.,,o.. ,,~ mi ~L,,. o. l''"''lU'l~ .' layout of-land. The director of planning or the planning commission, in the examination of subdivision plats for approval,,,,,~-- -1 ,,,:- "-,~l,. .... ,:__ ... __,,.A~ .,_:,,,a_ -'- ..... re~airemeats~ ~vv-~---~, ~V~l, shall take into cOnsideration the the Comprehensive Plan. the community,-and the best layout use of the land being subdivided. Pafdetdar Aattention shall be given to items including but not limited to: ri_mhts of way widtl~ and location of streets, suitable sanitary utilities, stormwater management surfacc drainage, lot sizcs a~ arrangements, and r)ublic facility as-wetFas local requirements such as parks and -' ......... -1- schools,,.,~---1 ,,.,.~,~,~,~,'-- o,[,.a,-~"~ and other facilities ~. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia, § 15.2-2241. ....... -1.1 .............. .'.3_-1 1-__ va,~a~u ,..x,..,..p,. aa p, uv,u~u07 State Sec. 17-32 Procedure for lot subdivision approval. (a) Following is a summary, of the approval procedure for subdivisions All proposed lot subdivisions, except minor and parcel subdivisions, must submit a tentative plat for approval in accordance with division 2 of this article. Tentative platq are, submitted to the director of planning. The subdivider may specify, whether the plat is to be reviewed administratively or by the planning commission. An overall conceptual subdivision plan shall be submitted if the subdivision will be. develo~d in phases, contains mixed uses. or if such a plan is required by a condition of (3) Changes to an approved tentative plat shall be submitted as an adjusted plat or a substitute plat. in accordance with section i7-4, (4) Approved tentative plats shall be valid for five (5) years from the date of aooroval. 22 Adjusted and substitute tentative plats shall expire on the date of the initial tentativ, expiration. (5) Once a tentative plat is approved, construction plans may be submitted for undeveloped subdivisions. The construction plans shall be submitted to the director of environmental engineering. Once construction plans are approved, a land disturbance permit may be issued. (6) Final check plats may be submitted for approval an_v time after approval of a tentative plat and construction plans, if required. Final check plats are required for all previously unrecorded lot subdivision plats, amended or resubdivision plats and minor subdivisiom, (7) After the final check plat has been reviewed and commented upon by the planning commission or director of planning, the subdivider may submit the record plat for recordation. Once the record plat has been recorded, lots in the subdivision may be sold. (8) Changes to a record plat may be made by submitting an amended or resubdivision plat in accordance with sections 17-35 and 36, Procedure for Approving Tentative Plats. AdjUsted Tentative Plats and Tentative Renewals (1) Unless otherwise required, cornpleted applications and plats submitted by subdividers to the director of planning, shall be reviewed and approved under the administrative review and approval procedure set forth in subsection (A) of this section unless the subdivider elects to submit the completed application and plat for review and approval under the planning commission review and approval procedure set forth in subsection 03) of this section. During the administrative review procedure, the subdivider or director of planning may amend the application and refer the plat to the planning commission for approval. The submission to the director of planning of a completed application shall grant the county, and its agentq the right to enter the pro_Dem_ at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting the property_ in conjunction with the review of the proposed subdivision, (A) The following procedure shall be followed for administrative review and a~oproval of tentative plats and adjusted tentative plats; (i) The subdivider shall prepare a tentative plat for all proposed subdivisions excluding minor subdivisions in accordance with the provisions of division 2 of this article.md submit such plat to the director of planning who shall determine that the plat is in Conformity with the provisions of this cha_mer, and obtain recommendations from the applicable departments and other public entities. The subdivider shall have the right tO defer receipt of the recommendations for a maximum of ninety_ (90) calendar days from the date of submission. The deferral request shall be made in writing to the director of planning. After receipt of such recommendations, the director of planning shall' 23 0/ O 1. Approve such graphically correct tentative plat submission with or without conditions. Approval shall be made not less than twenty-two (22) calendar days nor more thirty_ (30) calendar days after receipt of a complete tentative plat submission unless the subdivider requests a deferral, or 2. Disapprove the tentative plat providing written findings giving specific reasons for disapproval to the subdivider within thirty. (30) calendar days after receipt of a completed tentative plat submission unless the subdivider requests a deferral. Such reasons shall relate to issues which prevent the approval of the plat 3. Refer the plat to the plann!ng commission for review, if the director receives written request from an adjacent pro~rty_ owner or pro~rty_ owner directly across the street from the property, or an adjacent property_ owner within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the sign posting and such request relates to the proposed location of streets, water, wastewater, stormwater conveyance systems and stormwater facilities or to the implementation of conditions of zoning required to be cornplied with at time Of tentative plat approval. 4. If the director of planning fails to approve or disapprove a tentative plat adjusted plat or tentative renewal within sixty (60) calendar days after submittal of the tentative, unless the subdivider requests a deferral, the subdivider may petition the Chesterfield Circuit Court in accordance with state law, (ii) Approved tentative plats shall be valid for five (5) years from the date of approval, Adjusted and substitute tentative plats shall expire on the date of the initial tentative expiration. (iii) Tentative plat renewals shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with section 17- 32 (b) for initial tentative plat approval. Applications for tentative renewal shall be, submitted at least t~_ (30) calendar days prior to expiration. The director of plojming may renew tentative plats for additional five-year periods subject to all previously imposed conditions or irnpose new conditions based upon applicable codes and ordinances not in effect at the time of the original approval or changes in the built environment. When the subdivider pro_m)ses changes to the approved tentative, renewal requests shall be evaluat~ by the director of planning who may deem the submission to constitute a new tentative plat. '(iv) The planning commission reserves the right to recall any portion of an approved tentative plat that has not been recorded (B) The following procedure shall be followed for planning commission review and approval of tentative plats: (i) The subdivider shall Prepare a tentative plat which is in accordance with the provisions 24 of division 2 of this article. The director of planning shall obtain the recommendations from the applicable departments and other public entities and submit a report to the planning commission outlining the recommendations. After recent of such report, the planning com, inission shall make one of the following two decisions. 1. Approve such tentative plat with or without conditions within six _ty (60) calendar days after submission of the completed application including a referral of the final approval to staff to insure that any required graphical changes are made. Deferral of approval of the plat at the subdivider's request to enable the subdivider to make chances shall be deemed to extend the decision deadline date. 2. Disapprove the tentative plat within sixty_ (.60) calendar days after submission of the completed application. Written findings giving specific reasons for disapproval shall be reported to the subdivider at the time of disapproval, Such reasons shall also state the modifications or corrections as will permit approval of the plat. Deferral of approval of the plat at the subdivider's request to enable the.. subdivider to make changes shall be deemed to extend the decision deadline date If the planning commission fails to approve or disapprove a tentative plat. adjusted plat or tentative renewal within sixty. (60) calendar days after submission of the comnleted application the subdivider may ~tition the Chesterfield Circuit Court in accordance with state law. An.v deferral at the subdivider's request shall be deemed to have extended the decision deadline date, (ii) Approved tentative plats shall be valid for five (5) years from the d_ate of approval, Adjusted and substitute tentative plats shall expire on the date of the initial tentative., expiration. (iii) Unless specifically approved otherwise, adjustment or renewal of tentative platq approved by the planning commission will be performed by the planning commission pursuant to provisions of Section 17-32 Co) (1) ¢, (iv) The planning commission reserves the right to recall any portion of an approved tentative plat that has not been recorded. (C) Procedure for posting of public notices on property, (i) The director of planning upon receipt of a tentative, adjusted tentative, tentative, renewal or minor subdivision final check plat application shall post a sign on the subject property_ to inform the public of the application. Such posting must occur for at lea~t twenty-one (21) calendar days before: '1. the planning commission hearing on any adjusted tentative, tentative renewal or minor subdivision final check plat. or 2. the date of administrative approval of a tentative, adjusted tentative, tentative 25 reneWal or minor subdivision final check plat. (ii). No approval of an initial tentative submission may occur umil after the twenty-one (21) day notice period, An application will not be considered complete until the twenty_- one (21) day notice ~riod has expired. If the director of planning receives written notice from an adjacent property, owner or property, owner directly across the .street from the property_ or an adjacem property, owner concerned about conditions solely relating to the proposed location of streets, water, wastewater, stormwater conveyance systems, and stormwater facilities or to the implementation of conditions of zoning required to be complied with and implemented at the time of tentative approval, within fifteen (15) calendar days of the posting of the si_ma for a plat under administrative review, the director shall refer the plat to the planning commission for review. The review will be conducted as set forth in subsection lB). (iii) The notice provided for by this section shall also be Posted at reasonable interval.~ along streets abutting the subject property, or. if there is no abutting street, then at the. proposed street entrance to the property.. The notice shall be posted in locations so as to be reasonably visible from the street(s). The validity, of any action on an application, or an appeal as provided for in this section, shall not be affected by the unauthorized removal of a notice which has been duly posted in accordance with this section. iD) Procedure for Review of Construction Plans, Prior to submitting construction plans, subdividers shall obtain tentative plat approval. (ii) All construction plans shall be submitted to the director of environmental engineering for distribution to applicable dep~ents and agencies for review .and approval. (iii) Issuance of a land disturbance permit by the erosion and sedimem program administrator shall constitute notification that the construction plans have been approved, (E) Procedure for Review of Final Check Plats. (i) Prior to submitting final check plats for subdivisions that require construction plans subdividers shall submit those plans and obtain approval from the director of environmental engineering, (ii) Final check plats shall be submitted for all previously unrecorded subdivision plats amended or resubdivision plat and minor subdivisions. 1. The subdivider shall prepare and submit to the director of planning Pa_mr copies of the final check plat incom_ orating all requirements of an approved and non expired tentative plat and approved construction drawings and in accordance with 26 the provisions of division 3 of this article. However. the tentative plat may expire during the final check process, 2. A sUbdivider proposing an amended or resubdivision plat shall prepare and submit to the director of planning paper copies of the final check plat in compliance with the provisions of divisiOn 3 of this article. 3. A subdivider proposing a minor subdivision shall prepare and submit to the director of planning paper cOpies of the final check plat in compliance with the provisions of division 3 of this article. Conditions imposed on the project resulting from the review of a minor subdivision shall be considered tentative plat approv.al conditions. Notice of the proposed minor subdivision shall be posted on the affected property, as required in section 17-32. Administrative delivery_ of conditions to the subdivider shall constitute a final review of the plat. (iii) The director of planning shall review the final check plat and all necessa~_ certificates to determine its conformity, with the approved tentative plat if applicable and the requirements established in this chapter and obtain comments from other departments and public entities within thirty. (30) calendar days of its submission unless the time is extended by written request of the subdivider. The director of planning shall notify_ the subdivider of required changes to incorporate in the Preparation of the record plat: or send such plat to the planning commission for their recommendation as to final action thereon if the subdivider and director of planning differ as to the plats cornpliance with requirement~ Of the Code or tentative conditions. (iv) The director of environmental engineering shall review the plat and veri .fy the items required in section 17- 43 have been provided, and 1. The Richmond Regional /Crater Planning District road name approval is current;, 2. Payment in the appropriate amount, made to the treasurer of Chesterfield County_. has been provided for new street signs and the streetlight fees including the program administration fee. 3. All bonding required by section 17-73 is in force 4. A copy of the subdivider's snow removal contract has been received, 5. All erosion control ordinance requirements, including satisfactory_ implementation and/or maintenance of erosion control measures in the field, have 6. No areas within any orooosed subdivision or resubdivision plat shall be sA* 27 aside for future use or otherwise carry_ the designation "reserved." (v) After the final check plat has been reviewed and commented upOn by the director of planning, the subdivider may submit the record plat for recordation incom_ orating the final check plat comments. (vi) Final check plat review comments are valid for a period of six (6) months durim, which time the record plat must be submitted for approval. If record plats are not submitted within this period, the subdivider shall submit a neW application, fee and final check plat for review. Procedure for Aovroval of Record Plats, (i) The subdivider shall submit to the director of planning one (1) print conforming to the. Virginia State Library_ and Archives Standards for platS and two (2) transparencies ~hotographic positive polyester film~ of the record plat. (ii) An .authorized staff member of the planning department shall review and sign the plat if it is determined to be in compliance with the planning department's final check comments. The plat will then be forwarded to the directOr of environmental engineering. (iii) After the authorized staff member of the planning department signs the plat. the director of environmental engineering shall review the plat and verify_ the item.~ rea_uired in section 1743 have been provided and. 1. The plat has been at>proved for recordation by the assessor's office and GIS to include House Numbering. 2. The Richmond Regional/Crater Planning District road name approval is current. 3. Payment in the appropriate amount, made to the treasurer of Chesterfield County.. has been provided for new street signs and the streetlight fees including the program administration fee, 4, All bonding required by section 17-73 is in force 5. A copy of the subdivider's snow removal contract has been received. 6. All erosion control ordinance requirements, including satisfactory. irnplementation and/or maintenance of erosion control measures in the field, have. If the plat is determined to be in compliance with the above and applicable sections of the Code. the director of environmental engineering shall sign the plat. The director of 28 environmental engineering shall not approve a plat that has not been verified by either the director of utilities as meeting utility, requirements or the director of the health department if utilizing wells and/or on-site disposal. The subdivider shall have six (.6) months from the date of submission of the record plat to achieve compliance and obtain approval from the director of environmental engineering. If the subdivider fails to obtain approval wi_thin that timeframe, the subdivider shall resubmit the plat. with a new application and fee beginning at the final check plat submission. The tentative plat must be current if ,a resubmission is required. (iv) The director of environmental engineering shall return the plat to the director of planning who shall sign the plat upon receipt. The director of planning shall not approve a plat for recordation that has not been approved by the director of environmental engineering. Administrative approval or disapproval shall constitute a final decision on the plat. Once the plat has been approved by all applicable departments, the director of planning shall submit the print to be recorded in the clerk's office of the circuit court of the county_, retain one, mylar for the planning department and send the second mylar to the environmental engineering department. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia ~ 15.2-2258 - 2261, Sec.17-33. Procedure for appeals. (a) If the director of planning or the planning commission does not act upon the proposed.. tentative plat within sixty. (60) calendar days from the date the completed application has been submitted, the subdivider, after ten (.10~ calen~r days written notice to the planning commi.qsion, may petition the circuit court of the county, to decide whether the plat should or should not bc 29 approved in accordance with state law. Deferral of approval of the tentative plat at the subdivider's request to enable the subdivider to make changes shall be deemed to extend the decision deadline date. (b) If the director of planning or the planning commission takes action on a tentative plat and the subdivider contends that such action was not consistent with this chapter, or was arbitrary, or capricious, an appeal may be filed with the circuit court of the county_ in accordance with state law. (c) If the director of planning or the planning commission does not act uPon the proposed final check or record plat within six .ty (60) calendar days from the date the application was submitted. the subdivider, after ten (10) calendar days written notice to the planning commission, may ~tition the circuit court of the county to decide whether the plat should or should not be approved in accordance with state law. Deferral of approval of the plat at the subdivider's re,est to enable the subdivider to make changes shall be deemed to extend the decision deadline (late, (d) If the director of planning or the planning commission takes action on a final check or recor(1 plat and the subdivider contends that such action was not consistent with this chanter, or was arbitrary_ or capricious, an appeal may be filed with the circuit court of the county_ in accordance with state law. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. ~.~ 15.2-2259. 2260. See. 17-34. Vacation. alteration. etc., of recorded subdivision Record plats may be changed, altered or vacated as provided by state law and ~ 16-31 of the County Code. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. 68 15.2.2270 to - 2275, 30 ..,. z~,vj~vc uz~ L~ZZU~LZV~ Flac 31 03~ l~iiuuo OUUJ~.~L LU ~11 ~i~VIUL~x~ IIXX~U~W ~UII~ILIUI/~. II1 Lll~ ~¥~iiI IL i~ ~1~111~U il~,~XIJ LU ~%p~iUVgXlj iXUYY~¥~Ij ~il~,~LIUIJ~ lUX i~.~iI~W~i ~ilali ~ ~UUXIIILL~U aL i~gL~l..J~J ua,..,y~ IJliUJL tu 32 039 capricious hc may appeal '- "- pla~-~ag ....... :--: .... ~" .......:--:-- -'-" ' ..... ~ %ll~., a~.,ii;, ailai% iii.iL ~iaiiL vvaiY~t L9 a ~tLUUiYi~%Vii [~i9~JVDai %i ai%~ Ui 9%~, %uii9wlu~ ~9%%uit1911~ ~Al~t. ' /., J.)911U. l~.&l_Ulil.,ill~,lll~ 191 iJl.lUll~., lllllJlV¥~,lll~.,lll, O lk, tJ. Ulllll~ Ulk, IJVaLw 91 i)WIJk,i YI~gi~ ak, tlgll. 33 040 -~aLIi,~ v, puc, iu.. -XVLX~a Vii FZVl.,~J.c.y. I~IIU UI UIJ. IIU. III~ 111¥~1¥~,~U. 111 IJ. llJ ~J.~lJll~,~lJ, tl~ll ~Jl alJI. J~O.l~ O~ II~LI~, ~Jl LII~, ....m_ :__,t_ ........ _..'L. :__~. .......... --.,-- :£ ,~.. ----- .' ..... m- : ......... 'L. .... .Z. _ J .~laL aL O. Ll.~' LUIJ. l.,~ nlXU Ll..11Lat%¥~* LI.~_/,[JXU¥O.1%]1 Ll1~, [.)10..~ ~11~,11 ~,2~**~.11%.,, 11¥~, ..,,vl,.,~.l~ 11~11.1 &11t... %.l.~&L~, VI 34 041 ..J. ilU l~Jt ~..I~,~aL~U LLII~JU~II LII~ %~A~III[JLIUII IJIU%~,~O~ OIi~lll tJk~ ~IX~IUX~ lUX XU/LII~I YYglXy~x /~/ gX 35 ~x~xx~ w,u.t mx -,l.,Vzuwu CC, iiCC u~v~x~}ml,...x,~, pxmx. Sec. 17-35. Amended and resubdivision plats. (a) All amended or resubdivision plats shall be submitted to the director of planning for review prior to recordation. If based upon a review of the proposed alteration to the record plat. the director of planning determines that the changes to the record plat are of a sufficient magnitude to require a new tentative plat. the amended or resubdivision plat shall not be auproved and a new tentative plat must be submitted and approved in accordance with Section 17-32 (1). No amende, xl or resubdivision plats shall be recorded until approved in the same manner as record plats per section 17-32 (5). (b) In districts zoned for residential or residential townhouse uses, no resubdivision shall be approved where the newly created lot(s) are smaller than the average lot size and lot width of other lots in that block. However, this requirement shall not apply to the resubdivision of lots within an existing subdivision where the purpose is to adjust lot lines and no new lots are created. or where the resubdivision involves a submission of a new tentative plat that Mcorp_ orates more than ninety_ (90) percent of the originally recorded block or section. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. _6 15.2-227~, Sec. 17-36. Recordation of subdivision plat prior to compliance with zoning ordinance prohibited. No plat for a lot subdivision of ao~-,,.,v,~,,,,---~--':---' .......... ,,, ,,,,,~ shall be recorded by u,,. ~,o,.,v~d~ unless ~ ~e l~d ~ is ~cluded wi~ a residential, or tow~ouse residential zoning disffict, or is a residential use in a commercial zo~g dis~ict as defined by chapter 19 of ~s C~e. ~ ~lo~ ~ ~o.~-~1] State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. ~ 15.2-2254 36 DMSION 2. PREPARATION AND CONTENTS OF TENTATIVE PLATS* Sec. 17-37. Generally. (a) Every proposed lot-subdiviSion excluding minor subdivisions shall be submitted to the director of planning or the planning commission for tentative approval in accordance with the proVisions of section 17-32 (35 in the form of a tentative plat prior to the submission of a final check plat. The tentative plat is not intended to be a final check plat and shall be prepared in such form as not to be confused with a final check plat. Its purpose is to show graphically all facts needed for to enable the director of planning or the planning commission and other public entities ~ to determine whether the proposed subdivision layout ~ff-theqa~ ~ is in cornpliance with state law. the Code and conditions of zoning_ aooroval.__~,,~,,,~,,,--':-~ ...... ~ fro,,-n '~-,,,. ..... ~,~-~ point ,,,-~ .,_A~ imbtie~me~ The plat shall be prepared by the subdivider ( i.e.. the owner of the land. planners. architects, landscape architects, surveyors, engineers and others having training and experience in subdivision planning or design). Co) The graphic and descriptive items set out in sections 17-38 and-t-%40 are required to be shown on the tentative plat. The lack of information under any item specified herein, or improper information supplied by the subdivider, may be cause for rejection as an incomplete application or disapproval.of a tentative plat or rejection as a~i ,,,~u.,F.~,. ,v},.~,,~l~,,,. ~,.~od~ § .t.~ t ~ * State law reference.. AW=--''-- Virginia. §~o.~--.,.,'~ ' ~"~ 15.2-2260. Sec. 17-38. Required information. Written application for approval by the ~ subdivider,,,~.,~, ....... ' o ............ ~,~},,,~o,~..~,~.,,.,-'--- shall accompany 'each submittal of a tentative, substitute, adjusted, or tentative renewal plat. The tentative plat shall be drawn at a scale no greater than one inch equals fifty_ (50) feet for townhouse subdivisions: other subdivisions shall be at a scale of one inch equals one hundred (100) feet. Variations in scale may be made upon request at t_he discretion of the director of planning. The plat shall show correctly the following information: (a{) Name for ~e identification la. Name of subdivision if property is within an existing subdivision. which shall not duplicate the name of any existing or tentatively approYed subdivision or series-~ names of streets or commercial developments in-the (]/-2) Location and description of the property. Location of property by tax identification 37 {)44 (d) number(s) ~ as designated on county tax property, maps. Basic facts and proposals pertaining to the property shown as general notes:: la. Size eff-traet in acres; or ~,. ,--.~L-.s .,~., - an)-, a. square feet. Existing zoning classification(s), and applicable zoning cases _n_umber(s) of subjeet' the property --~ ..,~ ,.~j.,.,.l~ p:opc~-,,..,~ any rczor..ag proposcd L,~ ~ rcqucat~. 3. Proffers and / or conditions of zoning and schematic plan conditions, 4e. Number of lots proposed in subdivision. Area of lots, streets, open space and common space proposed: minimum, average and maximum lot size in square feet. fie. Proposed use type of water and wastewater sewer facilities. l. 7. Method of street stormwater conveyance. ,-~l:, ,.,~,.~ w,,v,.,~-,*, ~",~- as ['parcels or land intended to be dedicated; or conveyed,-om'c'~s-erv~ for public use, and the conditions proposed for such disposal and use as specified in sections 17-71 9, Date. revision dates, and scale. 10. The name. mailing address, street address, phone number, and fax number anal ~- mail address if available of the owner(s), proposed owner(s) and the subdivider 11. The method by which Chesapeake Bay Protection Act ( CBPA ) compliance is achieved, Basic facts and proposals pertaining to the property, including the following shall be graphically shown: 1. Graphic scale. North American Datum (NAD) 83 north arrow and vicinity_ map. 2. The length and bearing of the exterior boundaries of the subdivision. Dimensions 38 10. 11. shall be expressed in feet at a minimum to the first decimal poillt, Adjacent subdivision name(s), adjacent parcel owner name(s) and tax identification number(s), side boundary_ lines of adjoining lots and parcels and county_ bounda~. line if applicable. Existing zoning boundaries on the property, and adjacent property. Location. width, state route numbers and names of all existing and platted streets alleys, and other rights of ways and existing onsite and offsite easements buildings, bridges, on or adjacent to the tract and other pertinent data a.q determined by the director of planning, Layout. and width, of all proposed lots. streets with centerline curve data and names per County ordinance, alleys, sidewalks, offsite easement~q for wastewater water and stormwater intended to serve the property_. All lots shown shall be, buildable lots (this may require a building envelope to be shown). The layout and size of the existing and proposed wastewater, water mains, ftre hydrants, and existing storm sewers/culverts, and other underground structures within the tract or immediately adjacent thereto. The utility layout shall be consistent with the County's water and sewer specifications and procedures. An_v deviation must be requested in writing and approved by the director of utilities. Water and wastewater connections shall be graphically shown where feasibl? otherwise a note indicating the approximate distance and contract number of the existing water / wastewater line(s). Water and wastewater lines shown shall not be located within any stormwater management or best management plan facili _ty unless approved by the directors of enVironmental engineering and utilities. Approximate dimensions of lots and sequential lot Numbers. Proposed front building setback lines on lots where the minimum lot width is not met at the minimum setback linc, Labeled contours at vertical intervals of not more than five (5) feet and at more, frequent intervals if required by the director of planning, for land with flat topography. Labeling shall occur at ten (10) foot vertical interval. Source of topography and mean sea level datum shall be stated on the plat. U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) quadrangle sheets shall not be an acceptable source. All existing USGS or county_ control monuments for surveying purposes located The limits of established watercourses, drainage ditches, manmade open channels. floodplains, preliminary_ wetland boundaries, conservation areas. RPAs. RMAs. and approximate location and surface area of BMP's. 39 12. Chesapeake Bay preservation areas described in chapter 19, 13. All proposed street names per county ordinance, 14. The location and approximate size of any cemeteries, grave. marking a place of burial, object or structure 15. Recorded sections depicting the actual recorded layout with recordation dotes and state route numbers on streets shall be clearly shown for tentative renewals amended or substitute plats. 16, The location and width of an_v required buffers, landscape strips or tree preservation areas. An overall conceptual subdivision plan must be submitted in.accordance with section 1740 by (1) subdividers seeking tentative approval for a subdivision in phases, or (.2) subdividers proposing a development that contains mixed uses. although all uses may be residential in nature, or (.3) subdividers required by zoning to submit an overall conceptual subdivision plan. The portion of the plan covered by the tentative plat must be outlined. The overall conceptual subdivision plan shall be updated to reflect previously approved layouts and shall be submitted with each initial tentative. 'tentative renewal, amended or substitute tentative plat submission. fl) Special Limited Power of Attorney only for nonowner/developer submiasions. Water flow calculations shall accompany the initial tentative plat submittal. Flow reo_uirements shall meet Fire Department re_c, ulations. Flow test submittal reo_uirementn shall be per Chesterfield Department of Utilities specifications, ill) Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act plan and calculations (i) Letter from the appropriate region_a! planning district commission indicating approval of all street names. (j) Virginia Department of Transportation checklist shall accompany initial submissioI1, Every "'- · ,u tentative plat must haw -'--" '-- ,,,,l, o,. accepted withoat complete information to be Subdivisions that contain easements for petroleum or natural gas-based products shall provide the easement holder with a copy of the tentative plat. Evidence of the submi.qsio0 shall be provided to the director of planning, State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. ~ 15.2-2240 to -2242.-2258.- 2260, 40 Sec. 17-39.Plat sketch required. Plat reductions required, (a) A reduced copy of the tentative plat to 8.5 x 11 inches shall accompan.v each submission. (b) A copy of the tentative plat on a maximum sheet size of 24 x 36 inches shall accompany each submission if the overall olat exceeds onb sheet of this size, - L 0 · .L --L~J] (c) If available, upon request a digital copy of the plat shall be supplied in a format acceptable to the director of environmental engineering. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. _~ 15.2-2260, ti] J./nLt.,~ OI,4tit, q ~llU IIUL[II ,Lyt/iilL. 41 Sec. 17-40. Overall conceptu_a! subdivision plan When required for tentative plat approval per section 17-38. an overall conceptual subdivisio, plan shall be prepared by the subdivider to cover all area ut, to the limit~ of the parcel(s) that wa,: zoned. The conceptual subdivision plan shall be drawn at a scale that will fit on a sheet size of 24 x 36 inches. The plat shall show correctly the following information: Name for file identificatioll (b) Location and description of the property_. Location of property_ by tax 42 (dj identification number(s) as designated on county, property_ maps. Basic facts and proposals pertaining to the property, including the following in general notes: 1. Overall size in acres. Existing zoning classification(s).applicable zoning case(s), and zoning boundaries of the property, and adjacent property_. 3. Approximate number of lots. 4. Proposed uSe of water and wastewater facilities. 5. Date. revision dates. Scale. The name. mailing address, street address, and phone number and fax number and e-mail address if available of the owner(s), proposed owner(s) and the subdivider. Basic facts and proposals pertaining to the property_ including the following in 1. Graphic scale, north arrow and vicinity_ map. Subdivision names and side bounda~_ lines of adjoining lots and parcels. Existing zoning boundaries of the property_ and adjacent property_. Location. and names of all existing and platted streets. Approximate location of all thoroughfare plan and residential collector streets. A pedestrian circulation layout. Residential pods with approximate acreage and density_. Access points from Pods to the roadway network. Any pod submitted for tentative approval shall be shown as depicted on that plat. Approximate layout of large water mains, trunk wastewater lines, limits of ¢~tablished floodplains, available wetland data. conservation areas. RPA limits, RMAs location, and location of proposed BMP's. 6. phasing lines. Contours at vertical intervals properly labeled of not more than five (5) feet. 43 8. Parcels or land intended to be dedicated or conveyed for public use, State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. _~ 15.2-2260. DIVISION 3. PREPARATION AND CONTENTS OF FINAL CHECK AND RECORD PLATSa- ? Sec. 17-41. General Fi.~l,--- ,,~ ~.~,~..~ ~,, ~ ~,~, ~,o. ~, appr~ve~ ...... ,.~.,~,~,~: ..... ~,l,,~. Final check and record plats may constitute all or only a portion of the area contained in the approved tentative plat and ar)proved construction plans; provided, that the public improvements to be constructed in the area covered by the final check and record plat are sufficient by and of themselves to accomplish a proper development and to provide adequately for the health, safety and convenience of the proposed residents therein and for adequate access to adjacent areas. The section limits of the final check .and record plats shall have a contiguous lot and street network. State law reference('s). Code of Virginia. ~ 15.2-2241. Sec. 17-42. Subdivision Review Application A cornplete agrpplication by ~ the subdivider OWl-,cr's rcprcscntativ¢ for approval shall accompany each final check and record plat. Such application shall include amt-eomaia the following information: (~) Any eExisting or proposed covenants and homeowner association documents required by section 19-560 if applicable or if required by zoning or tentative conditiorh--iga~. (1/3) Name and mailing address, street address, including telephone number, and fax number and e-mail address if available, of the owner, subdividgr m'-his-agv-~ and the certified professional engineer as applicable or land surveyor who prepares the plat. (~)1. Whenever any pond, lake or similar body of water is proposed to be located within lots Gl- auja~.~.ll[ ilO auou, v~,lOll, the subdivider,,~-' .... v~,lO},,.,' .... or cnginccr shall present a plan to the director of environmental engineering and the county_ attorney's office for review and approval outlining any construction to occur and a proposed plan for the indemnification, and perpetual maintenance of any such body of water. 2. Whenever an_v pond. lake or similar body of water is proposed to be located within common area or open space, the subdivider shall present the recorded articles of incorporation for a homeowners association and draft restrictive covenants to the director 44 of environmental engineering .and the county_ attorney's office for review and apprOval. _These documents shall outline any construction to occur and shall contain a proposed plmx noting the indemnification and responsibilities of the homeowners association in any perpe.mal maintenance of any such body of water. (d) Payment in the appropriate arno!mt for new street signs and for the streetlight fees jlacluding the pro,am administration shall be submitted to the director of envirorunental ¢llgineering with the record plat. (e) A copy of the valid snow removal contract shall be submitted to the director of cnvironmemal engineering with the final check plat or prior to submission of the record plat. (.f) A letter from the appropriate regional review agency indicating approval of all street names if requested by the director of environmental engineering. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. ~ 15.2-2241. Sec. 17-43. Required information Final-plat. The f'mal 9beck and record plat sheet(s) shall be 16 inches by 24 inches and shall be prepared~ ~igned and sealed by a certified professional engineer as applicable or land surveyor. The f'mal check and record plat of "-..,~ .... o..o~,'--"--:-:--,,~,~l, shall conform to the approved taSn:mt'~f'fl~ tentative plat ~nd approved construction plans. ---'u,-~o~ .... ,~,,~s,~o~- ................. o~,~ ,t,},~,,, ~,~" ,,~,~---' The fiBal check and record "~--- the following information: plats shall show on iu ~,,.,~ ........ ~ -,-- ,---~ --'- -':--: ~--' Surveyor's certification statin~ "To the best of my knowledge and belief all of the requirements as set forth in the ordinance for approving plats of subdivisions in Chesterfield County_. Virginia have been complied with. Monuments will be set by ( insert date)." (12-2) Subdivision certificate stating "The platting or dedication of the following described land (here insert a correct description of the !and to be subdivided) is with the free consent ~nd in accordance with the desire of the undersigned owners, proprietors and trustees, if any. All easements and streets are of the width and extent shown and are dedicated to the Cou,ty of Chesterfield free and unrestricted by any previous agreements or easements except as noted on this plat as of the time of recordation. The dedication of easements to the County_ of Chesterfield. includes granting the right to make reasonable use of adjoining !and for construction and maintenance of public facilities within the boundaries of easements shown hereon. All easements are for surface and underground drainage and uladerground utilities except as restricted in use on this plat.' If there is an easement granted for street light installation it shall be included in this statement and read as follows "An additional easement of five (5) feet on all lots adjacent to right of ways is dedicated 45 to the County_ of Chesterfield for future street light installation.' This statement shall be E,,~,,,,~,~t a ,~t..,~.-,~ sjened bv ~e ~reoarer of ~e ~lat seRhe fo~ ~e source of ~e title of ~e owner(s) of ~e l~d subdivided ~dicating ~e dam. d~ book and page ~d ~e place of record of ~e last ~m~ment ~ ~e chain of title. When ~e plat is of land aca~k~ ~om more than one source of title. ~e outlines of ~e several parcelu ~hall be ~dicated u~on such The following i~o~ation shall be noted on ~e plat: All no,cs ,~ pc~cn~ ~ ~ (1) l~d use~ (2) zoning classificaionfs). ~vplicable zoning case num~rfs). ~offers. conditio~ of zoninm schematic ~d / or tentative plat conditio~ relating to co~ction such as bulk exceptions, minimum satire footage, colors, rea~ired improvemenm on lob or restrictio~ on lots. (3) method of street dra~ge. O) me,od of Wastewater and water. (5) total ~um~r of loB. (6) ~ea ~ loB. s~eeB. ~d open space. (7) total subdivision acreage. dra~ gc Property location as to corresponding county tax identification numbers tax-map Vicinity map. (g) Sequentially numbered lots· 46 fill-t-) Area in square feet ,-?~qam'e-f'~ge of. each individual lot, if requested by the director of planning deparmaem. fi-l-Cz-) Date, scale and north arrow per NAD83. ~jt--3-) Thc cxact length and bearing of all lot lines and cumulative total of each perimeter tangent dimension. The following information shall be shown in a curve table for each non-tangent curve in the survey: chord bearing, chord distance, radius, delta, tangent and arc length. t~{4-) Location;, and width and-size of all street rights-of-way and easements. Where any easement bisects a lot. prOvide tiedowns to property, comers. (1) All street names per county_ ordinance, approved by the director of environmental BIl-tS-) Location alld_lallglJllg of-att to include conservation areas and areas of wetlands if applicable, of RPA's tteodplai~with tielines or tiedowns. (n) A note has been provided with an asterisk on each lot between RPA limits and creek, "Conservation area to remain in its natural state, no structure to be located within the (o~ Location of U.S. Arm.v Corps of Engineers (USACOE) or Commonwealth of Virginia jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the United States and associated building setbacks ~) A note with corresponding reference symbol for wetlands stating "U.S. Army Com_s of Engineers or Commonwealth of Virginia jurisdictional wetla_n_ds not to' be disturbed without written ~rmission from the Com_s or the Department of Environmental Quality," (q) Location and labeling of floodplains with survey tielines and / or tiedowns and backwater location(s) and elevation(s), (1: -1-6) Those areas to be dedicated for public use in accordance with lggliOll_/Tz.7~- t-7-68. (~_t-7) Two Virginia state plane system coordinate points per NAD 1983, (t) Location of existing U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) or county_ monument, if located within the subdivision. /31t-8-) The location of any cemeteries, grave, object or structure marking a place of burial 47 and associated access easement. L~'9) Chesapeake Bay preservation areas described in chapter 19. (`w) A note indicating the method of CBPA cOmpliance, the _type of facili .ty utilized, as well as the recordation information. (`x) SWM/BMP maintenance responsibilities, (y) A note indicating that the BMP/storm water management maintenance agreement has been recorded including the deed book and page number reference for the agreement. (z) A note indicating that any BMP contained within the lot limits will become the sole maintenance responsibility_ of the lot owners. (.aa) Location and labeling of open space and common areas as to ownership and maintenance responsibilities. (`bb) Minimum finished floor (MFF) elevations for lots. as applicable, {cc) Minimum crawl space (MCS) elevations for lots. as applicable, (`dd) Lots are shown as NBP as appropriate. fee) Location and labeling of buffers, landscape strips or tree preservation areas as to width, and applicable restrictions. State law reference(s), --Rcqulaltc l%r~,~l~---' },~,~,~-'-'-, Code of Virginia; § § -1-5x-t-.4-76 15.2-2241.- 2262. DIVISION 4. PREPARATION AND CONTENTS OF FINAL CI-I~.CK AND RECORD PLATS FOR RESIDENTIAL PARCEL SUBDIVISION AND PROPERTY LINE MODIFICATION Sec. 1744. General fa) Any plat for non-residemial usage shall be prominemly labeled by the subdivider "Not for residential use" and the following statement" I. (INSERT NAME) affu'm that I am the owner of the property, depicted on this plat and do hereby affirm that the sale/transfer of this pro_oerty_ is not for purposes of creating a parcel for residential use". With these two notes, the plat will not be subject to a review in accordance with thi,q division. No residential building permit will be approved on plats so labeled. No parcel plat shall be recorded that does not have these statements or does not cornply with 48 (b) Subdividers. that intend that the property, shall be eligible to have a residential building permit issued on it. shall submit the plat for review and approval in accordance with this chapter. There will be a two step process for review and approval. The first step will be the submission of a fillal check plat and the second step will be the submission of the record plat. When the record plat is approved, it will be stamped, signed by the director of planning and recorded with the clerk of the court indicating the plat was determined to be in compliance as a parcel for residential ~ls~ge in accordance with this division. (1) A residential parcel subdivision does not require the submission of a tentative plat. The subdivider may elect to submit a preliminary_ layout to the director of planning to obtain comments to ~ide the layout of the final check and record plats. The f'mal check and record plat may constitute all or only a portion of the area contained in the parent parcel provided that the size of the remainder of the parent parcel after subdivision meets the minimum standards for a parcel. When the plat does not contain all of the area of the parent parcel, a sketch of the residential parcel subdivision in relation to the parent parcel shall be included on the plat. (2) The review will determine consistency with the COlnprehensive Plan with respect to historic and visual resources: compliance with the applicable sections of the zoning 9rdinance dealing with residential uses. setbacks and parcel size: applicable sections of this ch~apter dealing with parcel width, frontage, and size: the general location of lakes, ponds. streams and RPA's as shown on the GIS: and rea_uirements of the health department for wells and on-site wastewater disposal systems. (c) Parcel line modification plats may be submitted for an existing parcel that does not meet the current area or dimensional requirements of cha_mer 19. The existing parcel may be altered to increase the area subject to the following: (1) The parcel from which land is being transferred shall meet all applicable standards of this cll0pter and chapter 19 after the transfer is accomplished. A parcel line modification will not make a parcel buildable that was not created in accordance with the standards in place at the time of its recordation unless it brings the resulting parcel into compliance with current standards. The parcel line modification does not create a new parcel. (2) The resulting parcel shall not become peculiarly shaped due to transfer. (3) The bulk standards on the resulting parcel will be based upon rea_uirements at the time of the original recordation. the applicable (4) The plat shall show the original and proposed parcel boundaries and an original recordation date, with the deed. will. or plat book and page, State law referencefs). Code of Virginia. _~ 15.2-2241.- 2244, Sec.17-45. Procedure for residential parcel subdivision and parcel property line modific,~ation 49 annroval. All completed applications and plats shall be submitted by subdividers to the director of planning to be reviewed and approved administratively as set forth below. During the review, the subdivider or director of planning may amend the application and refer the plat to the planning commission for approval. The submission to the director of planning of a completed application shall _erant the county and its agents the right to enter the property_ at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting the property_ in conjunction with the review of the proposed subdivision, fa) The following procedure shall be followed for review of the residential parcel subdivision and parcel line modification final check plats: (1) The subdivider shall submit to the director of planning a completed application and three (3) prints of the proposed parcel line modification or residential parcel subdivision. Additionally. subdividers seeking approval for a residential parcel subdivision shall submit a copy of the report required by section 17-84 for the health department use in conducting the on-site review. The subdivider may submit the report to the health department prior to submission of the final check plat. The review of the health department may take up to sixty. (60) calendar days in accordance with state law. The on-site review shall be, conducted in accordance with Code of Virginia _~ 32.1-163.5 (2) Within three (3) business days. an authorized staff member of the planning department shall review the plats for consistency with the requirements of this chapter, applicable sections of the zoning ordinance, the general location of lakes, ponds, streams, and RPA's. and consistency section with 19-508 for historic and visual resource sites included in the comprehensive plan, (3) The director of planning shall compile all comments including any from the health department after completing their on-site review and prepare a composite plat depicting an_v graphical changes required t° the plat, (A) If the plat complies with all requirements, the composite final check plat Shall be so noted and returned to the subdivider with any comments. (B) If the plat does not comply with all requirements, the final check plat and a written explanation of the required changes shall be returned to the subdivider for modification and resubmission. (b) The following procedure shall be followed for approval of residential parcel subdivision and parcel line modification record plats' (1) The subdivider shall submit to the director' of planning four (4) prints conforming tO the Virginia State Library. and Archives Standards for record plat~. (2) Within two (2) business days after submittal, an authorized staff member of the 50 planning department shall determine if the plats comply with the final check plat comments, and if determined to be in compliance shall starnp the plats, and forward them to the director of planning for signing. The stamp shall indicate that the plat is for residential purposes and has been reviewed a~,~ determined to be in compliance with the requirements of this division. Parcels exempterl from the requirements of this division will not be eligible to obtain a residential buildin~ permit until such time it is reviewed and approved under the requirements of thi,~ division. A. If the plat is not approved, the plat shall be returned to the subdivider with written findings giving specific reasons why the plat was not approved. Such reasons shall provide in general terms the modifications or corrections that will permit approval of the plat, tc) One (1) copy of the starnped signed plat shall be recorded in the clerk's office of the circuit court of the county.. One (1) copy will be retak~ed by the planning department. One ti) will be forwarded to GIS. One ti) copy will be returned to the subdivider, rd) After recordation, the subdivider shall be permitted to sell parcels, State law referencets). Code of Virginia. !~!~ 15.2-2241.- 2244. Sec. 17-46. Residential parcel subdivision and parcel line modification plat requirementq ta) A complete application by the subdivider for approval shall accompany each record plat, (b) The maximum record plat sheet size shall be 16 inches by 24 inches and shall be prepared, signed and sealed by a certified land surveyor. An area of'four (4) incheS by three t3) inches shall be left clear for the approval stamp. (1) The record plat shall have the following certificates; (A) Surveyor's certification stating "I have personally read and believe to the best of my knowledge that the requirements for residential parcel-subdivisions and pro~rty_ lirlC modifications as to required area. minimum width, frontage standards and the zonine ordinance for required parcel area and setbacks in Chesterfield County. Vireinia ha~q bcen complied with. Plat bearings reflect NAD 83." tB) Source of title signed by the preparer of the plat setting forth the date. deed or will book and page. and the place of record of the last instrument in the chain of title. When the plat is of land acquired from more than one (1) source of title, the outlines of the several parcels shall be indicated upon such plat, (C) Advisory. certificate "Thi.q plat is prepared on the basis of field surveys. The 51 mapping information is not intended to represent all topographic and environmental features on the parcel which could limit or preclude buildability. Additional engineering research on such items as but not limited to: wetlands, floodplains, adequate culverts for driveways crossings of streams or floodplains, etc. may be required based upon individual parcel requirements at time of building permit review." (2) The record plat shall have the following information in notes: (A] Method of wastewater and water service. (B) Total number of parcels. (C) Total acreage. (D) Existing county, tax identification numbers for each parcel involved. (3) The record plat shall graphically show the following: (A) Vicinity. map. .CB) Sequentially numbered parcels. (C) Area in acres of each parcel. (D) Date. scale and north arrow and bearings per NAD 83. (E) The length and bearing of all parcel lines and cumulative total of each perimeter. ~pgent dimension referenced to NAD 83. The following information shall be shown in a curve table for each non-tangent curve in the survey: chord bearing, chord distance. radius, delta, tangent and arc length. (F) The location and labeling of lakes, ponds, streams. RPA's. historic sites or visual resources. (G) Two (2) Virginia state plane system coordinate points per NAD 1983 when new property_ lines are not contiguous with existing property, lines. (I-I) The location of an_v cemeteries. ~aves. objects or structures marking a place of burial and associated access easement. State law reference(s)Code of Virginia, 1~ ~ 15.2 -2262. -2264. Secs. 17-d.7. 44-1%60. Reserved. 52 ARTICLE IH. DESIGN STANDARDS* DIVISION 1. MINIMUM STANDARDS AND IMPROVEMENTS REOUIRED Sec. 17-61. Conformity to applicable requirements rules and regulations. (a--k) The provisiom of the Code of Virginia, tit. '.,,.., ~ ',.,.-~-. I'., art. 7t~r° -.,.*--,,,.,~ ~ ~ ~,~ ,.,-' scq.]Tifle 15.2 Chapter 22 Article 6 (Virginia Code ~ 15.2-2240 through 15,2-2279). (b) Chapter 8 of the Code of Chesterfield County_. Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. (c4) Chapter 18 of the Code of Chesterfield County_. Water and Sewer Ordinance. (d-2) Chapter 19 of the this Code of Chesterfield County_. Zoning Ordinance. (~.Jr) The Chesterfield ~enemt,"',,~,-- and a,--ncn&-~¢nts "-,~,~l,.,o .... Comprehensive_ Plan. (f-4) Code of Virginia, Title ~ 32.1, and the requirements rt~s of the state health department relating to lot size and lot elevation if the subdivision is not served by a public wastewater system ~ and provision for such service has not been made. (g_5) The requirements ~ of the ~ L)departmem of Ttransportation and the county, transportation departmem including access control, rights of way dedication and construction of mitigating street improvements as relating to safety cff-aee~ss and the preservation of the public interest and h-r,-¢s~cnt :- '~ .......' if"- .... '-~:--:-:-- any- ' ...... -' .... ~ "----'- -~ ......... (11-7) Other applicable laws, ordinances, policies -rotes and requirements ~gt~atiom. ~ lO. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. ~ 15.2-2260 53 060 Sec. 17-62. Standard conditions, The applicability, of the following requirements will be determined at the time of tentative plat approval The subdivider will be notified of the applicable requirements in the approval letter. The requirements will be referred to as standard conditions without citin~ this subsection, Compliance with these standard conditions must be achieved by the time of subsequent plan and (a) The requirements of the Environmental Engineering Reference Manual, (b) The requirements associated with obtaining a land disturbance permit from the environmental engineering department by: (i) providing satisfactory, documentation that all applicable federal and state wetlandq permits have been obtained (ii) obtaining a land use permit from the Virginia Department of Tran.~portation allowing access onto and construction within state maintained right Of way, (c) The sUbdivider shall provide access easemem(s) to the SWM/BMP(s) as required aCCeptable to the environmental engineering department prior to or in conjunction with recordation. 54 (d) The dimensions and approximate location of all easements shall be shown on all f'mal check and record plats. (e) A twenty-five (25) foot minimum setback shall be provided from the 100-year floodplain / backwater. twenty-five (25) foot minimum setback shall be provided from wetlands. (g) A twenty_-five (25) foot minimum setback shall be provided from conservation areas. Oa) An.v required buffers are subject to the requirements of section 17-70. (i) Buffers areas are exclusive of setbacks. (j) A twenty_ (20) foot minimum setback for all structures shall be provided from any petroleum product transmission pipeline easement or thirty-five (35) feet from the pipeline whichever is .(lc) The subdivider shall provide hOrizontal control for the final check and record plat tied into the Virginia Coordinate System. south zone. Boundary_ tiedown will be accomnlished by X and Y coordinate values being designated for at least two points. (1) Copies of an_v restrictive covenants required as a condition of zoning shall be filed with the director of planning and county, attorneys' office for a revieW to determine consistency with the conditions of zoning. The required restrictive covenantq shall be recorded in conjunction with the record plat. Subsequent changes to restrictive covenants are not subject to review or approval by the County.. (m) Copies of all required articles of incom_ oration for homeowners associations shall be filed with the director of planning and the county, attorney's office for review and approval prior to recordation of an_v section. When SWM/BMP facilities are to be maintained by a homeowners association, the articles of incorporation must also be submitted to the director of environmental engineering for review and approval. When there are private streets, alleys or sidewalks to be maintained by a homeowners association, the articles of incom_ oration must also be submitted to the director of transportation for review and approval (n) Final check and record plats for subdivisions adjacent to or including existing and proposed residential collector, collector and/or arterial streets shall show the proposed right of way location. (o) Every_ residential lot. except those lots in a subdivision for townhouses, shall front on a local street except as may be provided for in section 17-77. (p) Prior to plat recordation of an.v residential subdivision that includes streets, sidewalks. wastewater, water, stormwater imnrovements and/or other imnrovements, the subdivider shall 55 provide the county_ with a surety, bond in the amount equal to the construction cost of all unimnlemented .improvements and 10% of the construction costs of all satisfactorily implemented improvements, with a minimum bond amount of not less than 10% of the total project costs. Prior to submittal of the bond for auoroval, an itemized cost estimate for streets, sidewalks. wastewater, water, stormwater and other improvements establishing the required bond amount shall be submitted to. reviewed and approved by the director of environmental engineering and county, attorney's office. (q) Prior to plat recordation of any townhouse subdivisions that includes streets, private accessways and parking areas, sidewalks, wastewater, water, stormwater improvements and/or other improvements the subdivider, shall provide the county, with a surety_ bond in the amount equal to the construction cost of all unimplemented improvements and 10 % of the construction costs of all satisfactorily implemented improvements, with a minimum bond amount of not less than 10% of the total project costs. Prior to submittal of the bond for approval, an itemized cost estimate for streets and other paving, sidewalks, wastewater, water, stormwater improvements. and other improvements establishing the required bond amount shall be submitted to. reviewed and approved by the director of environmental engineering and county_ attorney's office. (r) Prior to board of su_~rvisors adoption of a resolution to accept the streets into the state system. the construction of all irnprovements shall be acceptable to the directors of environmental engineering and utilities. (s) The subdivider shall place the following note on the final check and record plats and enforce the restriction through covenants: "No structure embellishments will be allOwed on right of way without the commitment of. or issuance of a VDOT land use permit. Within the ten (10) foot clear zone ( measured from the edge of the street pavement out ten (10) feet ). no structural embellishment will be permitted that is closer than two (2) feet from the edge of pavement of the street or higher than six (6) inches above the surface of the drive." 56 libU Ui OU~il ~'m~llibitL UIk UU~tA UI ~i¥1OUiO IU,m~ ~LU¥1U%~ LUX glib ~U~LUi~ ............................... ~ij JJJ. a [JJ. LJI. JLJaL,,U ~ULJ~.IIVJ. a.LL.;ii 'VVii~.~ll dl.l.~ J. LJL iii LIXU OL~l. J3~J. Vii~iL;li iia~ all ~u.~.,a L;i l~,.i)~ LLKIll LJIIU WXJA~AI ~. UUX.LUXJ. X~ [.J~,,J. IJ. LtL l~ ~"l'J X,UL O. [JJ. LJI. Jt.J~U i~UUU.LYJ.~I~JIJ. YYXUXXJ, X LLt~., J.'L;.I. XL~VYLI. i~ O..I.~L UX U.J.~., ~UU.IJ.L~y ~MX~,' ~.JUULLU.,J.,I..I. OJ, tU U~illlilil~ Gl. IJ/~., UUUIIUIII~ llil~ Lr~LWC~ll ~.-lib~Li~/ll~.,IU ~..,UliilL~ alu I UVYIIllLI311 ~..,~JU.LLL,)' ~.L ILO IJ~mL UI IIIL~.~JL~,..,~,,LIUII !A/ILII ~,II~I. II~I_L/.~II.L~.I I~.UGM.~ LII~.II~,.,~.,, g,,Al,lk,,llM, lll~ OULLLIIVY~LI~J. ~I. IUII~ LII~. ~,~,,IIL~.,I 11115 UI '- ...... -'-- aou~wa~d ' '- '-'-- -'~ '" '-' '" '__ _]"---d '- -"- point __.-,r :-'" ........ ' ..... -"' '* ' Road; 1- ' -1 along ILu¢01' 57 58 Sec. 17'63. Floodplains. (a) No land shall be subdivided unless it complies with Article III. division 3 of chapter 19 and the Environmental Engineering Reference Manual as determined by the director of environmental Cross reference(s)--Floodplain districts. ~ 19-55 et seq. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. ~ 15.2-2241(3). U,,y LLI.~,,,, ~.,~JUullg~Y UX ~uj lllk ~tLUUI¥1LikL Oll{lll L~ lk~tllikU gU iii5 ~1 UUIIkl ~ILLI ill5 ~,~Ut~IIL~ ~llUl -U Ogltk G%~k4,~tflll~,~,~ LLI 59 Sec. 1%64. Preservation of natural features and historic resources. Trees. streams and natural riparian corridors which would add value to developments or to the county, as a whole, shall be protected whenever practicable in the design of the subdivision. Historic sites, features and similar amenities and assets, including identified visual resources adopted as part of the county_ 's comprehensive plan shall be identified on all plats and be protected as provided for in County_ Code section 19-508. No filling within the natural features shall be permitted to circumvent any applicable part of the Code. Sec. 17-65. Property markers / Geodetic Monuments. Property. markers shall be installed in all subdivisions at all lot comers, angle points, radial points .of curves in streets, and at all intermediate points along streets or property_ lines where pro_r~rty Ir~0xkers cannot readily be seen one from the 9ther. The replacement of any geodetic control monuments, including but not limited to Natioml Oce.ananic and Atmospheric Administration/National Geodetic Survey (NOAA/NGS). United States Geological Survey (USGS). and county_ control monuments, removed or destroyed durin~ the development of the subdivision shall be the responsibility of the subdivider. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia ~ 15.2-2241 (7). Sec. 1%66. l'r~er-,-atio.a of aat~-al feala,-ea aad,~.~,,,t,~,' -'-- 60 067 Sec. 17-66. Stomwater Drainage. fa) All proposed stormwater drainage systems shall be separate and independent from any wastewater system. Stormwater facilities including but not limited to underground pipes, culverts. inlets, catchbasins, o~n ditches, stormwater management basin/ponds, and BMP's. as determined by the director of environmental engineering shall provide for the adequate discharge of surface water via gravity flow into adequate natural drainage courses and shall be installed according to con~tmction plans approved by the director of enviromental engineering. (b) All stormwater drainage facilities installed in the subdivision shall be sized and installed to accommodate the runoff from the contributing watershed based on ultimate development as determined by the comprehensive plan. (c) All facilities shall conform to the design requirements of the Environmental Engineering Reference Manual. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. _~15.2-2241.(4) Sec. 17-67. Streetlighting, (al Streetlighting shall be provided and installed in residemial and residemial townhouse districtq and commercial districts with residential development at certain intersections and along arterial or collector streets for safety. Lighting shall be installed in accordance with the street light policy approved by the board of supervisors and administered by the environmental engineering department through the construction plan/final check plat review process. fbi All installation costs of streetlighting shall be the responsibility_ of the subdivider. The subdivider shall provide full payment to the county_ of all installation charges estimated by thc, utility, company as well as administrative costs to the county_. 61 Reference -- Board of Supervisors Street Light 'Policy State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. _~ 15.2-2241(5) Sec. '- Sec. 17-68, Easements. Easements for public use shall be provided to. the Cou_nty to include but not limited to: (a) Easements sixteen (16) feet in width for proposed or possible water, wastewater and drainage improvements. _(b) g,a.qements eight (8) feet in width shall be provided along the rear of the lot. (¢) Easements of eight (8) feet in width along the side lot lines where the side pro_r~rty_ line is the rear of another lot. (d) Easements of variable width may be required for Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) slope, drainage, and sight distance easements identified on construction plans. (e) The County. may require specific easements to address conditions of zoning, tentative plat and construction plan approval. (f) Easements of greater width may be required by the director of environmental engineering for drainage purposes or by the director of utilities for utility_ purposes. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia, _~ 15.2-2241( 3.6 ) 62 63 Sec. 17-69. Street and subdivision names and street signs. (a) Street and subdivision names shall not duplicate the name of an existing or tentatively ar)proved street, site. or subdivision. The naming of streets within a subdivisiOn may. to a limited extent, duplicate the subdivision name. Streets that are continuations of other streets shall bear the name of the existing street. The naming of proposed streets shall comply with the County. Street Naming and Building Numbering Ordinance. Chapter 16. and approved by the director of environmental engineering and the appropriate regional planning district commission. Co) The subdivider shall fund the fabrication and installation of street signs showing the names of streets at intersections in the subdivision in accordance with section 16-14 of the Code. (c) If the subdivider elects to install custom street signs, they shall conform to design specifications approved by the director of environmental engineering and VDOT at the time of construction plan approval. Installation of custom street signs by the subdivider does not relieve them from the f'mancial responsibilities of funding in Co) above. (d) All street signs shall be made of a material and located to be clearly visible by day and by 64 071 Sec 17-70 Buffers and Special Setbacks. (a) For lots which have a tentative plat approved after ( INSERT DATE ). buffers shall be exclusive of easements which are generally parallel to the buffer, required setbacks and street cut and fill slobs, and shall be preserved in an undisturbed condition unless otherwise approved by the director of planning. Easement.~ crossing buffers shall generally be at right angles or shall cross the buffer so as to have the least imnact to the buffer. Co) Post construction vegetation within the buffer shall meet a standard of not less than one arid one half ( 1 lA ) times the Perimeter Yard Landscaping "C' quantity, requirements as defined in County. Code section 19-518 prorated for every_ twen_ty-five (25) feet of depth. If insufficient vegetation exists within the buff6r as determined by the director of planning, the subdivider shall submit a landsca_~ plan to the director of planning for review and approval prior to release of the final check plat review comments. The subdivider shall install the required plant material prior to recordation. If conditions do not exist for good plant survival as determined by the director of planning, surety, shall be provided to the county_ in the amount sufficient to _m~_a_rantee the installation approved by the director of planning and in a form as indicated in section 17-73 (a), The planning department shall hold an_v required sure _ry. Any such installation ~hall be comnletecl prior to state acceptance of the subdivision's streets, (c) Buffers of the following minimum width shall be provided adjacent to existing, and proposed streets with the following classifications: (1) Arterial streets - fifty_ (50) feet, (2) Collector streets - thirty_-five feet (35) (3) Residential collector streets - thirty_ (30) feet (4) Local streets to negate double frontage condition - twenty. (20) feet, (d) Adjacent to limited access streets, a setback distance of two hundred (200) feet. exclusive of required yards, shall be prOvided from the limited access street right of way. unless a noise study demonstrates that a lesser distance is acceptable as approved by the directOr of transportation. Natural vegetation shall be retained within the setback area unless removal is required to in~tall noise attenuation measures or is approved by the planning commission, (e). Setbacks from temporary, turnarounds easements shall conform to permanent cul-de-sac rieht of way standards, - 65 (D A minimum setback for all structures of twenty_ (20) feet shall be provided from an.v petroleum product transmission pipeline easement or thirty-five (35) feet from the pipeline whichever is greater. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia, ~. 15.2-2279, 66 Sec. 17-71. Designation of land for public use, fa) All subdivisions shall comply with the conditions of zoning requiring dedication or reservation of land for possible acquisition fOr public uses including but not limited to: parks, schools, libraries, fire stations, etc. (b) Tentative plats shall accommodate planned public uses as required by conditions of zoning, Whenever a tract includes a proposed site for such use. it shall be suitably incorporated by tile, subdivider into the plat after the planning commission or director of planning determines whether such property_ is needed by the county.. (c) The planning commission or director of planning, based upon conditions of zonine, shall verify, whether the land is to be: 1. dedicated to the County. by the subdivider, or' 2. made available for acquisition by the County_, (d) The planning commission or director of planning shall verify_ that the land is: 1. required for the proposed public use. and: 2. suitable for the proposed public use, If the planning commission or director of planning determines that the land is not required, the director shall advise the subdivider of said determination and. if allowed by conditions of zoning, shall ,advise the subdivider as to the ability_ to rearrange lots in the proposed subdivision to incorporate the land,. If the plhnning commission or director of.planning determines that the land is not suitable for the proposed use. the planning commission or director may refuse to ar)prove such dedication or confi_mtration arid require the rearrangement of lots in the proposed subdivision. (e) After the planning commission or director of planning verifies that the land is: 1. required to be dedicated and appropriate for the proposed public use. the subdivider shall be informed of this finding, and shall proceed with the tentative plat approval process. When the plat is recorded, such record_a_ti_on shall constitute acceptance of thc, land for the designated public purpose 2. required to be made available for acquisition, and appropriate for the proposed public, use. the subdivider shall be informed of this finding, The director of planning may also propose alternate areas on the subject parcel for acquisition. The director of planning and the appropriate county officer or other public entity involved in the acquisition or use of each such site shall seek a commitment to purchase such site by the board of supervisors and shall include an estimate of the time required to complete the acquisition. The planning commission or director of planning shall not approve the tentative plat for a minimum Of thirty, f30) calendar days to allow the board of supervisors to acl;r fa) If the planning commi.qsion or director of planning receiVes an affirmative 67 074 oction, the subdivider shall designate on the tentative plats that area proposed to be acquired by the board of supervisors. (b) If the planning commission or director of planning receives a negative reply. the subdivider shall be advised to incom_ orate the area as lots on the tentative plat. Sec. 17-72. Improvements --Required. (a) Unless the director of transportation can determine required mitigating street improvements. a traffic imnact analysis based upon transportation department standards shall be submitted to. and approved by. the director of transportation if: (1) The proposed development is expected to generate 10.000 average daily tr~s (ADT) or more. based on trip generation rates as defined by the Institute of TranSportation Engineers' publication. "Trip Generation. "as amended. (2) The director of transportation requests the analysis because the proposed development is expected to significantly impact the transportation network. ~) The director of transportation shall determine the transportation improvements necessary_ to accommodate a proposed subdivision and to provide a safe and efficient access in accordance with (1) The thoroughfare plan or other existing or planned transuortation improvements. (2) Maintenance of a minimum D level of service based upon a twenty. (20) year traffic demand projection, as provided by the director of transportation, or in areas designated by the director of transportation, no level of service below that which currently exists, (c) The subdivider shall be responsible for provision of transportation improvements, the need for which is generated by the development, as determined by the director of transportation. (d) The director of transportation shall be responsible for determining the functional classification of streets, (e) The director of transportation may require development restrictions to achieve acceptable 68 levels of service, as outlined in this subsection. (I3 The subdivider shall at his expense satisfactorily construct or provide any street, curb. gutter. sidewalk, surface drainage, stormwater facility_, wastewater system, waterline, as part of a public system and other improvements dedicated to the public use. and maintained by the county, the commonwealth, or other public agency, and for the provision of other-site improvements for vehicular in_re'ess and egress, including traffic signalization and control, for streets, for structures r~ecessary to ensure stability of critical slopes, and for stormwater management facilities and for items associated with the construction of said improvements as indicated on the approved construction plans and as determined to be necessary_ in the field bv the county based ut>on site conditions. The sale of the lot(s) does not absolve the subdivider from this responsibility_ Prior to state acceptance of streets and for a period of one (1) year after the streets are taken into the state system. (g) The subdivider shall at his ex_mnse satisfactorily construct or provide .any private street, alley. accessway, curb. _cutter. sidewalk, surface drainage, stormwater facility_, wastewater system. waterline, as part of a private system and other improvements dedicated for the use by home owners of the subdivision, and owned and maintained by the homeowners assoCiation or individual lot owners, and for the provision of other site related improvements for vehicular ingress and egress., including traffic signalization and control, for accessways, or streets, for strucCtres necessary_ to ensure stability_ of critical slopes, and for storm water management facilities and items associated with the construction of said elements as indicated on the avr~roved construction plans and as determined to be necessary_ in the field by the county based upon site conditions. The sale of the lot(s) does not absolve the subdivider from this responsibility for a period of one (1) year from the date of issuance of the last certificate of occupancy permit. th) The subdivider of land shall pay or provide for the payment of his pro rata share of the COst of providing reasonable and necessa~_ wastewater, water and stormwater facilities, located outside the property_ limits of the land owned or controlled by him but necessitated or required, at least in part. by the construction or improvement of the subdivision: however, no such payment shall be rea_uired until such time as the board of supervisors establishes a general wastewater: water. and drainage improvement program for an area having related and common wastewater, water: and drainage conditions and within which the land owned or controlled by the subdivider is located or the board of supervisors has committed itself by ordinance to the establishment of such a pro_cram. Said pro rata share shall be limited to the proportionate share of total estimated cost of ultimate wastewater, water and stormwater facilities based upon demand or projected flows required to adequately serve a related and common area. when and if fully developed in accord with the adopted comprehensive plan. that shall be borne bv each subdivider within the area. Such share shall be limited to the proportion of such total estimated cost which the increased sewage flow or increased volume of stormwater runoff to be actually caused by the subdivision bears to total estimated volume and of such sewage or runoff from such area in its fully developed state. In calculating the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff, the county shall take into account the effect of all onsite stormwater facilities (SWMs) or best management practices (BMPs) constmcterl or required to be constructed by the subdivider and give appropriate credit therefor. 69 (i) Each such payment received shall be expended only for necessary_ engineering and related. studies and the construction of those facilities identified in the established wastewater, water and stormwater program: however, in lieu of such payment the board of supervisors may accept the posting of a personal, corn_ orate or property, bond. cash escrow or other method of ~rforma_n_ce guarantee satisfactory, to the board conditioned on' payment at commencement of such studies or construction. The payments received shall be kept in a separate account for each of the individual improvement programs until such time as they are expended for the improvement program..All bonds, payments, cash escrows or other performance _mJ_arantees hereunder shall be released and used. with any interest earned, as a tax credit on the real estate taxes on the property_ if constmction of the facilities identified in the established water, sewer and stormwater program.~ is not commenced within twelve (12) years from the date of the posting of the bond. payment. cash escrow or other performance guarantee. (j) Any funds collected for pro rata programs under this section prior to July 1. 1990. shall continue to be held in separate, interest bearing accOUnts for the project(s) for which the funds were collected and any interest from such accounts shall continue to accrue to the benefit of the subdivider until such time as the project(s) are completed or until such time as a general water, wastewater and stormwater improvement program is established to replace a prior wastewater and drainage improvement program. If such a general improvement pro_re:am is established, the board of su_r)ervisors may abolish any remaining separate accounm and require the transfer of the assctn therein into a separate fund for the su_r)port of each of the established wastewater, water, and stormwater programs. Upon the tran,qfer of such assets, subdividers who had met the terms of any existing agreements made under a previous pro rata program shall receive any outstandine interest which has accrued up to the date of transfer: and such subdividers shall be released ~rom any further obligation under those existing agreements. All bonds, payments, cash escrows or other performance guarantees hereunder shall be released and used. with any interest earned, as a ~X credit on the real estate taxes on the property_ if construction of the facilities identified in the, established water, wastewater and stormwater programs is not commenced within twelve years from the date of the posting of the bond. payment, cash escrow or other performance guarantee, (k) Connection to the county, water supply system shall be required in an_v of the followin_~ circumstances except as may be waived by the planning commission per County. Code section 63: (1) When an.v lot in the subdivision has an area of less than forty_ thousand (40.000) square feet. or: (2) When an_v parcel recorded after ( INSERT DATE ) has an area less than one (1) acre, Parcels created prior to this date are subject to requirements in place at the time of theh recordation, and (3) When an existing water line. is less than two hundred (200) feet from an_v pro_mxty_ lint; of the lot for which a building permit application has been made for a new structure, or' (4) When a lot is located within the Southern and Western Plan area unless residential 70 077 ;~0ning was obtained for such subdivision prior to June 23. 1993. or: (5) When a lot is located within the Route 288 Corridor Plan area unless residential zonine was obtained for such Subdivision prior to May 25. 1999. fl) The subdivider shall provide payment to the director of the utility_ department based upon an ~pproved engineers's estimate sufficient to cover the cost of water line installation in conjunction with the submission of the final check plat for any subdivision within two (2) miles of an existing water line if the existing water line has sufficient hydraulic capacity to provide the required quali .ty and quantity to serve the proposed development, or within two (2) miles of a subdivision that will use public water, when the lot size in the proposed subdivision is greater than one acre but less than five (5) acres. The distance to the nearest water line shall be determined by using the most reasonable route, as determined by the director of the utilities department. The payment made under this subsection shall be used solely for the installation of water lines within the proposed subdivision. Until such time as the water lines are extended to the proposed subdivision and installed within the subdivision, the subdivider shall c0rnply with requirements of section 17-72 (m). (m) Individual wells may be used to provide water for domestic consumption subject to the following conditions: (1) All lots in the subdivision shall have an area of more than forty_ thousand (40.000) square feet. be located more than two (2) miles from an existing water line and are not subject to the mandatory_ connection requirements in section 17-72 (k) (4 and 5): and (2) A hydrologic study shall be submitted by the subdivider to the health department for review and comment which provides a scientific determination that there is an adequate quality_ and quantity, of potable water in the underlying aquifer under both "normal" and "drought" conditions for the area under consideration: and (3) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the well shall be installed on the lot and the well water shall be tested and approved by the health department: and (4) The Chesterfield local health department shall enforce this and other applicable sections of the Code relating to well construction and well permitting requirements of the Commonwealth. (n) Connection to the county wastewater supply system shall be required in any of the following circumstances except as may be waived by the planning commission per County_ Code section 18- 64: (1) When an_v subdivision recorded after (INSERT DATE ) has an average lot area of less than forty_ thousand ( 40.000 ) square feet. or less than ninety (90) percent of the lots have an area of forty_ thousand (40.000) square feet. or an_v lot has an area of thirty thousand (30.000) square feet. 71 (2) When an.v parcel recorded after (INSERT DATE) has an area less than one (1) acre Parcels created prior to this date are subject to requirements in place at the time of their recordation. (3) When an existing wastewater line is less than two hundred (200) feet from an_v pro~rty line of the lot or parcel for which a building permit application has been made for a new structure. (4) When the lot is located within the Southern and Western Plan area unless residential zoning was obtained prior to June 23. 1993 (5) When the lot is located within the Route 288 Corridor Plan area adopted unless residential zoning was obtained prior to May 25. 1999. (o) An_v subdivision granted tentative approval prior to January 27. 1988. shall be exemPt from the requirements of subsections (k). (1). (m). and (n)(1). (2) and (3) of this section unless tentative approval has expired. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. ~ 15.2-2241(5). 2243 Sec. 17-73. Installation of improvements and.bonding, (a) Prior to record plat approval, after all other required approvals are obtained, all imnrovementn shown on the approved ~construction plans shall be completed to 'the satisfaction of ~e directors of environmental engineering and utilities, at the ex_oense of the subdivider. In lieu of act~jal completion of the required improvements, the subdivider may record a plat by fumishine TO the. director of environmental engineering surety in the form approved by the county attomey'~ office, (1) a certified check; (2) cash escrow; (3) a sure .ty bond: or (4) a bank's letter of creditL 72 079 The amount of the surety_ shall be sufficient to cover the costs and guarantee the installation and completion of all reqnired improvements. The sure _ty amount shall be at>prOved by the director of environmental engineering based upon unit prices for new construction .in the county_. The surety_ may also include a reasOnable allowance for estimated administrative costs, inflation mA potential damage to existing streets or utilities which shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the estimated construction costs. If the subdivider proceeds by this method, the subdivider shall install and cornplete the required improvements to the satisfaction of the director of environmental engineering subject to the following conditions: (1) The streets shall be accepted into the state system not more than two (2) years after the date of plat recordation. (2) No more than fifty_ (50) percent of the building permits in any recorded section of a residential or residential townhouse subdivision shall be issued until the paving requirements in that section have been completed, (3) No more than eighty/80) percent of the building permits in any section of a residential or residential townhouse subdivision shall be issued until the streets have been constmct~ to state standards and accepted into the state system as applicable. (4) An extension may be approved bv the director of environmental engineering to condition three (3) directly above. Co) Surety reductions, as approved by the director of environmental engineering may be maple in a cumulative amount of not more than ninety (90) ~rcent of the total cost of satisfactorily completed required improvements. Surety reductions based upon the ~rcent_age of improvements completed may not occur before the completion of at least thirty. (30) ~rcent of the improvements. The director of environmental engineering shall not execute more than three (3) surety r~uctions in any twelve (12) month period per bonded subdivision section, Upon final completion and acceptance of said improvements in residential or residential townhou~e subdivisions with streets, the release of any remaining surety shall be sub_iect to the requirementq of section 17-74. For the purpose of final release, the term "acceptance" shall be defined as the date of the meeting of the county's board of supervisors ( board ) at which the board is formally advised of the street acceptance by VDOT and assignment of the state route number(s), Upon final completion and acceptance of said improvement.q in residential townhouse subdivisions. the release of any remaining surety, shall be subject to requirements of section 17-74. For the pu~ose of final release the term "acceptance" shall be the date of the written notice to the subdivider of the completion of the required improvements to the satisfaction of the director of environmental engrafting, State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. ~ 15.2-2241(5) 73 Sec, 17-74. Maintenance and boIIding (a) The subdivider shall be required to maintain_ and assume liability_ for the construction and maintenance of all required improvements per section 17-73. This includes but is not limited to snow removal on streets and sidewalks until acceptance of said improvements by the comz~y, stat,,. or third party_ approved by the director of planning Co) The subdivider shall be' re _quired-to provide surety_ in an amount of ten (10) percent of the cosl of the required improvements as approved by the director of environmental engineerinm in a form as outlined in section 17-73 to assure the satisfactory_ maintenance of the required im~-,rovements for a ~riod of one (1) year after the date of their acceptance in accordance with section 17-73. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. $ 15.2-2241 (.5). -"'-~:--'-'-- -'--" '--: .... "-~ underground :- accordancc d g d--'-""-'-- -'-"---- --'--':--:-' ...... · ,--'-,- -,- ......... ,-. _-. ........ _,_ ~., ,,,-, ....... ~ ...... thc ............ ~ ...... :-- dcrgi-our, d cxcccds th p pcr~,j' prop sod 74 081 l~ou~.,u u.y u.t~., ,'l_[jijll~au].,~ ~.~v,l~Uj. aLUl..y aUtilUilC.,y. DIVISION 2. STREET STANDARDS Sec. 17-75. General. The purpose and intent of this section is to re_cmlate residential and residential town_house development in order to maintain or improve the level of service of streets: to minimize the number of access points to streets: to promote the ability, of travel between subdivisions: to ensure that the existing and proposed transportation facilities are adequate to accommodate thc traffic generated by the proposed development: to ensure that appropriate traffic mitigatio, measures are provided: to provide appropriate pedestrian circulation networks amone residentia_l residential townhouse, commercial, and recreational areas a_n_d public facilities: and tO enhance': safety, and convenience for the public, Loop. eyebrow loop. residential collector, cul-de-sac and local streets within a subdivision shall'. at a minimum, comply with the following VDOT road standards: Subdivision Street Requiremeni,: (SSR% 24 VAC 30-9-10 as amended and the VDOT Pavement Design Guidelines for Secovdary Roads as applicable unless otherwise specified herein. All limited access, arterial ( principle and minor ) and collector streets shall comply with the VDOT Road Design Manual for urban streets. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia, ~ 15.2-2241.(2) Sec. 17-76. Arram,ement (a) Streets shall be designed to ensure proper integration and coordination with other existing, recorded or planned streets within and contiguous to the subdivision. Subdivision layouts shal1 be arranged to maintain proper relationship to topographical conditions and natural tetiain featur¢l; such as streams and existing vegetation. Streets shall be desiLmed to facilitate public Convenienc,, 75 and safety., including adequate access for emergency services equipment. Local streets within residential and residential townhouse developments shall not be used as access to commercial or industrial uses as indicated in chapter 19. The director of transportatiOn shall consult the comprehensive plan when reviewing a proposed street layout. Co) All streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance with this chapter, the current standards and specifications 'of the Virginia Department of Transportation. or County_ standards. whichever are more strineent. (c) Residential collector streets shall be arranged to: (`13 facilitate conformance to the Planning Commission Stub Road Policy. (,2) facilitate traffic circulation from one subdivision to another on non-thoroughfare streets, and (`3) require the minimum number of street intersections with arterial and collector street,q necessary_ to provide convenient and safe access to property_. (d) Local streets shall be arranged to: (1) conform to the Planning Commission Stub Road Policy, (`2) discourage speeding and cut through traffic. (3) permit effective stormwater drainage and efficient utili .ty systems. (4) require the minimum number of street intersections with arterial and collector streets necessary, to provide safe access to property_, and (5) minimize impacts to topographic and environmental features, (`e) The use of residential collector streets, curvilinear streets, cul-de-sacs, or looped streets may be required in conventional subdivision design. (f} To facilitate orderly development, the necessa~_ rights-of-way and easements for stub streets to provide adequate access to adjacent property_ (not included in the tentative) shall be dedicated to the boundary, lines of the tract to be subdivided, in locations that are compatible with future development of the adjacent tract. This requirement may be waived if. in the opinion of the, directors of transportation and planning or the planning commission, such stub streets are not necessary, or desirable for the coordination of the layout of the subdivision with the existing stree,t~ or the most advantageous future development of adjacent tracts. When the adjacent property_ is develo_txxl, the subdivider of such property, shall extend the streets and Utility. service to connect with the adjacent existing subdivision unless such connections are waived by the planning commission or director of planning, after review by the directors of transportation and fire. or are,, in violation of zoning conditions or requirements of thi,~ chapter (g) The necessa~, rights-of-way and easements for stub streets to provide adequate access to the adjacent property_ shall be dedicated at the time a subdivision is recorded. th) Subdivisions shall adeqtmtely accommodate continui _ty of streets and shall provide for proper extension to subsequent phases and development of adjacent property, as determined by the director of planning, the director of transportation and the chief of the fire department. 76 (1) A local street shall provide sole access to a cumulative total of no more than fifty. (50)~ lots. (2) The first street into the subdivision shall be designed and constructed as a residenti.al collector if: a. the number of lots shown on the tentative plat. accessible by only one street, connected to a suitable street with two (2) points of access~ is in excess of fifty_ (50) lots but less than one-hundred (100) lots. or b. the connection to an adjacent Undeveloped parcel as required by section 17-76 (g) or existing stub is anticipated to generate traffic volumes in excess of ff~c. Planning Commission Stub Road Policy on any Subdivision street, or c. the street is identified on the thoroughfare plan. The street design shall comply' with the classification as identified on the plan', (3) A second street, providing access to all lots. shall be constructed prior to. or in conjunction with. the recordation of the fifty-first (5 l st) lot unless: (a) a residential collector, collector or arterial street, with only one way in an_d out.fie, a dead end) is proposed to provide access to more than one hundred (100) lots. Residential collectors shall be shown to the limit of the tentative and/or parcel line as applicable. Bonding shall not be required for any unbuilt section, (4) The director of transportation shall determine the maximum number of lots for whicl, a residential collector, connected to two (2) suitable street(s) with two (2) poin~Jq of access may provide access. (5) Relief to these requirements may be granted by the planning commission or directol a. existing severe topo~aphic, physical or extenuating circumstances exist so that there is no other practical means of providing another access, ant' b. financial hardship is not the princ~al reason for the waiver c. In addition, the planning commission may grant relief to these requirements if the resultant traffic on a local street will exceed the Planning Commission's Stub Road Policy as determined by the director of transportationi (i) Subdividers of all parcels or lots located at existing or proposed crossovers, and an_v break i,, the median of a divided street., shall submit and receive approval of a plan which addresses acces;~ for the surrounding area from the director of transportation, prior to tentative subdivision 77 approval. The director of transportation may require the owner(s7 of such parcels or lot~ tO provide access to adjacent properties. 07 Curb and gutter shall be required on all local streets in all subdivisions, where the average lot has less than one hundred (1007 feet of street frontage. The calculation excludes those lot*. fronting on the radial terminus of a cul-de-sac. Curb and gutter installation may be waiVed, in whole or in part. by the director of planning or planning commission to preserve the existin~ neighborhood local street drainage method. (lc) The minimum pavement desi~ for all local streets, residential collector streets, private streets, alleys and accessways in an_v subdivision shall have at a minimum two (2) inches of bituminous concrete including the surface course, (17 Design standards for arterial and collector streets shall be approved by the director of transportation, except no street shall have a design less than VDOT standards. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. ~ 15.2-2241.(2- 4) Sec. 17'77. Access to arterial or collector streets, (aT The director of transportation shall approve direct access to arterial and collector streets from subdivisions that border on or contain an existing or proposed arterial or collector street. Each subdivision shall be limited to one (1) direct access unless an access plan is submitted to and approved by the director of transportation for more than one (17. access, (b) No lot shall access on an existing or proposed arterial, collector street or residential collector unless approved by the director of transportation. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. ~ 15.2,2241 78 Sec. 17-78. Street right-of-way width, Right of way of all streets shall be determined by the director of transportation: except, that street shall have a street right-of-way width less than VDOT standards or as identified on the thoroughfare plan. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. t 15.2-2241 79 ~,J.] ~-,uJ.u u~lu ~ULL~.,X ~llllll U%~ I~,~JUJI~.,U iix llll ~I, iUUX¥1~XUXI~m YYXI~.,XIv LIl~, (1V~.~XCL~., 1_, L__ 1___ k ~dlJ~;)~k ~Jj~J/~ ~4Lk DL~UIIULLkU lUX ~lUY~Xi UII UI g~lLki Ok~L~,~XXXU~I IJ9 Sec 17-79. Cul-de-sac streets, Cul-de-sac sweets shall not provide access to more than fifty. (50) lots. Cul-de-sac streets with less than twenty-five (25) lots shall provide a minimum pavemem radius of thirty-five (35) feet. Cul de-sac streets with greater than twenty-five (25) lots shall provide a minimum pavemci,t radiu:; of forty-five (45) feet. 8O Temporary. turnarounds shall comply with the previous stated pavemem radius standards. Temporary_ mrnarounds within the limits of the tentative plat shall, at the direction of the director of environmemal engineering, be constructed on easements beyond the limits of the record plat. On temporal_ turnarounds not so constructed, building setbacks shall conform to dedicated culqle- sac standards. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. _~ 15.2-2241 Sec 17-80· Street intersections, (a) Street intersections along one side of an existing or proposed street shall align with an_v existing or proposed intersections on the opposite side of such street unless otherwise approved by the director of transportation and VDOT. Street jogs with centerline offsets of less than one hundred and fifty_ (150) feet shall be prohibited. Where streets intersect arterial or collector streets, their aligment shall be continuous or separated by a distance between centerlines as determined by the director of transportation. (b) Alley intersections with streets shall be constructed to VDOT entrance ~taladards. (c) At an.v street interSection sight distance easements per VDOT standards may be required. (d) Adequate paved radii shall be provided at all intersections. Generally in conventional subdivision design the minimum Comer radius shall be thirty-five (35) feet for local streets and fi~_ (50) feet for other streets. In nonconventional subdivisions, the minimum turning radii shall be approved by the fire chief, director of transportation and VDOT based upon a demonstrated abili .ty to provide for adequate emergency vehicle access. 81 (e) Local streets shall intersect with residential collector streets or with the street that provides primary, access to the subdivision at a point beyond the vehicle stacking area of the intersection of that street with an arterial or collector street. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. ~ 15.2-2241 a ,.~ulp u, ims.u as.uill~, us.,,... J-',..a l. Jiui. n.,it.y J.m~ us. c,u~.,u iULO. ~tl, II~XXL ~IX~S.~,O L~J ~tJ.~,ll 0.. ~11~1 3Ll~/~k.,L9 Y~XLXX LIX~ IK,,O.J. XXXX~D UX LX~*.,XX L~IXZlXXIXXS. XUL~ Un~l~J~l~ UIILU LII~ ~J l~J ~IX.I.~S.~k,--.LCLXJ. IJJ. J S.UL 3ll~ll IX'kJLtL Ul.~ O.,XS. nlL~tinlo See. 17-81. Alleys. (a) Dead-end alleys are prohibited unless adeojJate turnaround facilities are provided at the Co) Alleys are not required by the county_ and therefore shall not be dedicated as right of way. They shall be shown as common area or in a form approved by the directors of planning and tramportation and owned and maintained by a homeowners association as sp~ified in section 19 560. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. ~ 15.2-2241 82 Sec. 17-82. Sidew~dks, Subdividers shall provide sidewalks in accordance with the Planning Commission Residential Sidewalk Policy on all streets where they qualify for VDOT or county maintenance, and any additional or other locations if required as a condition of zoning. Exceptions to the Planning Commission Residential Sidewalk Policy shall be at the discretion of the planning commission or directors of transportation and planning. Sidewalk requirements shall be determined through the tentative subdivision process u_n_less otherwise determined by the county. The sidewalks shall be shown on the tentative plat and the overall conceptual plan. as applicable. Construction may be phased as approved by the county_ but as a minimum, shall be bonded and constructed with each section recorded through which the sidewalk passes. The subdivider shall construct all required sidewalks per the Residential Sidewalks Requirementq and Procedures. Where sidewalks qualify, for maintenance by VDOT or the County_. they shall be designed and installed in accordance with VDOT subdivision street requirements. For all private sidewalks, the subdivider shall demonstrate a design and long term m.aintenanc~ responsibility in accordance with section 19-559, t~aa VD OT .... -' -- ~ - - ' ""~' ~--, o,.,~,,:~. Cul-de-sac streets shall not b~ longer 'Jan ~,~,~., ~,~.,. ~I'.¢ agcn~ ~ay vais- 83 DIVISION 3. LOT AND PARCEl, STANDARDS, Sec. 17-83. Minimum Requirements, (a) In general, the size. shape orientation, and soils of lots and parcels shall be appropriate for the, location of the subdivision and for the .type~ of development. Lot dimensions shall conform to the requirements of chapter 19 or conditions of zoning approval. (bh Lots and parcels to be served by on site wastewater disposal systems shall comply with the roles of the health department and the provisions of section 17-84 and chapter 12 of this Code. (ch If a subdivision borders on or contain~ an existing or proposed arterial or collector street, the director of transportation may require the subdivider to limit access to said street(s) requiring a local street design utilizing a series of cul-de-sacs and/or loop streets. The lots shall only be entered from such a local street, and a buffer as required in section 17-70 shall be provided along the lot lines adjacent to the arterial or collector street. (dh Where lots are permitted to front on an arterial, collector or residenti_a! collector street as provided for by section 17-77. the minimum building setback line shall be increasc{l by an additional twenty_-five (25h feet. except where a specified distance is approved by conditions of' (eh Lots and parcels shall be laid out so as to enable positive drainage to be provided away from all buildings. Individual lot and parcel drainage shall be coordinated with the general stormwater drainage pattern for the area. Drainage shall be designed so as to avoid concentration 0f stormwater discharging into inappropriate receiving areas within lots. The director of environmental engineering may require the subdivider to depict the building envelope .a.s established by a professional engineer on the final check and record plats. (f~ Lots and lot lines shall comply with the following standards: (lb All lots shall be buildable lots with at least one building envelope. (2) LOts at right angles to each other shall be avoided where possible, (3) Double frontage lots are permitted only when one street frontage incorporates a buffer or where required to overcome specific disadvantages of topography, (4h Lots shall not contain peculiarly shaped elongations solely to provido. necessa~_ square footage of area which would be unusable for normal purposes (5) Lots shall not contain isolated remanents separated from the major portion Of the lot by a creek or drainageway which would be unusable for normal purposes unless located on the perimeter of the tract, (6) Comer lots shall be of sufficient width to provide the applicable front / comer (7) Side lot lines shall be approximately at right angles or radial to street lines (8h The building envelope shall be within county, boundary_ lines and within ,a single zoning case boundary_, 84 0'._)1 (g) Parcels and parcel lines shall comply with the following standards: (1) All parcels shall be buildable parcels with at least one building envelope (2) Parcels at right angles to each other shall be avoid¢0 (3) Double frontage parcels shall be avoided. (4) Parcels shall not contain peculiarly Shaped elongations solely to provide necessary, square footage of area which would be unusable for normal purposes, (5) Parcels shall not contain isolated remanents separated from the major portioll of the lot by a creek or drainageway. (6) Comer parcels shall be of sufficient width to provide the applicable front / comer yard setbacks, (7) Side lot lines shall be approximately at right angles or radial to street lines (8) The building envelop shall be within coun_ty boundary_ lines anql withirl a single zoning case boundary_, if applicable (h) Flag lots shall be designated during the review of the tentative plat. The director of planning may require the subdivider to establish the locatiOn and orientation of residences located on and abutting flag lots for determining lot size compliance. The na_rrowest portion of an_v flagpole, pi~stem or other nomenclature for the narrow access portion of the lot shall be thirty_ (30) feet, This portion of the lot is not considered buildable. The lot area requirements shall be met in thc, buildable portion of the lot. Flag lots shall only be utilized to protect or limit impacts tO environmental or historic resources. State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. ~ 15.2-2241, Sec. 17-84 Standards for lots and parcels served by on-site sewage disposal system.q (a) All subdivisions for which residential zoning was obtained prior to February 23. 1989 lltilizint, on-site sewage disposal systems shall comply with the bulk requirements in place at the time o-f zoning and the requirements of section 17-84 Co) (5) to (7). Lots which were recorded aft¢- January_ 1. 1991 and prior to ( INSERT DATE ) shall comply with section 17-84 Co) (1) to (4), ~) .all lot subdivisions for which residential zoning was obtained after Febrnary 23. 1989 lltilizin,2 on-site sewage disposal systems and have not been recorded shall comply with the following: (1) The average lot size shall be no less than forty, thousand (40.000) square fe~t, 85 0.'.)2 (2) At least ninety. (90) percent of the lots shall be at least forty, thousand (40.000) square feet in size. (3) The minimum lot size shall be thirty, thousand (30.000) square feet in size. (4) All lots shall have a minimum lot width of one hundred and twenty_ (120) f~t measured at the building line, (5) At the time of submiSsion of construction plans, the subdivider shall submit a report from a certified soil scientist or an authorized on site Soil evaluator to the director of the health department certifying that all on site sewage disposal system sites on lots within the subdivision comply with the Board of Health and County. ordinances which regulate on-site sewage disposal systems. The Chesterfield local health department shall enforce this subsection and other applicable sectiom of the Code as relating to onsite sewage disposal system requirements of the Commonwealth. The certified soil scientist or authorized onsite soil evaluator shall provide a report for each proposed lot which at a minimum contains: a. information on borings for no less than three (3) holes in the proposed drainfield site if the profile is uniform. b. a description of the soil characteristics at the proposed system site, with soil profiles to a minimum depth of five (5) feet for each of the holes. c. an estimated percolation rate of the soils at the proposed drain field depth. d. the scaled location of the proposed sewage disposal system and drain field, the reserve site. and the proposed buildable footprint on the lot, e. a recommended installation depth of the proposed system f. the slope of the proposed drain field area. g. depth to rock or impervious strata., h. depth to seasonal water table, i. maximum projected sewage flow for the proposed lot. If design restrictions are imposed on the lot. they shall appear on the final check and record plats, (6) The subdivider shall provide sufficient information regarding the location of the proposed onsite .sewage disposal drain field sites for an agent of the County to field verify_ the findings of the certified soil scientist or onsite soil evaluator, The sites shall be well marked on the lot. At the request of the director of the. health department, the certified soil scientist or the site soil evalua_tor shall accompany the agent of the County_ to the proposed primau and secondary_ system sites and locate them. In conjunction with submission of the construction plans, the subdivider shall submit a home site planing layout prepared by the certified soil scientist for review and approval by the direCtor of the health department. Construction plans shall show all construction limits that are outside the limits of the right of way. The record plat will not be approved until the on site review is completed. The director of the health department shall advise the director of environmental engineering when the record plat may be signe0 86 (7) Disposal sites shall not encroach on or be encroached on by easements RPA's. buffers or construction limits of streets, (b) No subdivision of land within the Southern and Western Plan Area for which residentiol zoning is obtained after June 23. 1993 may utilize on-site wastewater disposal systems unless all lots in such subdivision are at least one acre in size and located in those areas designated in the county. 's comprehensive plan for single-family residential use in the lowest density_ category. (Areas colored tan on the Southern and Western Area Land Use Plan,) (c) No subdivision of land within the Route 288 Corridor Plan Area for which residential zonin~ is obtained after May 25. 1999 may utilize on-site wastewater disposal systems unless all lots in such subdivision are at least one acre in size and located in those areas desi[mated in the county's comprehensive plan for single-family residential use in the lowest density_ category.. (Areas colored tan on the Route 288 Corridor Plan.) Cross reference(s)--Septic tanks and septic systems, t$12-11 et Seq, State law reference(s). Code of Virginia. ~ 15.2-2242. -': .......... '"-:-"- ...........: ........ '-- ""- .......... '-- - ..... ' VDOT h~ada~ds) DI',~SION 3. DLOCIiS 88 (Code 1978, § '° ' ~ , o..-o2) 89 J..~IU,~ ~ J.O,.L-,d"r~ -1-;-v~. That this ordinance shall be effective January 1, 2001. 9O ATTACHMENT 2 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 19-69, 19-79, 19-89, 19-94, 19-99, 19-105, 19-551 RELATING TO REQUIRE_M~NTS FOR SETBACKS AND FRONTING BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section 19-69, 19-79, 19-89, 19-94; 19-99, 19-105, 19-551 of the Code of the County. of Cheste_r[ieM. 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Sec. 19-69. Required conditions. The conditions specified in this section shall be met in the R-88 District. OOO (e) Front yard. Minimum of 75 feet in depth. On lots located along cul-de-sacs, if the radius of the cul-de-sac is 40 feet or less, the building setback around the cul-de-sac shall be at least 30 feet. aNhere When the radius of the cul-de-sac is more'than 40 feet, the building setback slmll not be les~~--- ~ ..,,,--' '-~,~ ..... ...,~, ~ than 25 feet. Minimum setbacks shall be increased where necessary to obtain the required lot width at the front building line. Through the subdivision process, an additional setback of up to 25 feet may be added to the minimum setback, if the lot is loca_t_~! along an arterial or collector street. This additional setback requirement will be noted 'on the. 000 Sec. 19-79. Required conditions. The conditions specified in this section shall be met in the R-25 District. 000 (c) Front yard. Minimum of 50 feet in ~ wide. On lots located along cul-de-sacs, if the radius of the cul-de-sac is 40 feet or less, the building setback around the cul-de-sac shall be at least 30 feet. :~Zhere When the radius of the cul-de-sac is more than 40 feet, the building setback shall not be les~ ac. cd not ~,c more than' 25 feet. Minimum setbacks shall be increased where necessary to obtain the required lot width at the front building line. Through the subdivision process, an additional setback of up to 25 feet may be add_,xl to the minimum setback, if the lot is located along_ an arterial or collector street. This additional setback re_retirement will be not~ on the record nlat. oo0 Sec. 19-89. Required conditions. The following.conditions specified in this section shall be met in the R-12 District: OOO (c) Front yard. Minimum of 35 feet in depth. On lots located along cul-de-sacs, if the radius of the cul-de-sac is 40 feet or less, the building setback around the cul-de-sac shall be at least 30 feet. xOv~m'e When the radius of the cul-de-sac is more than 40 feet, the building setback shall no~; be less,,~,~----' ,~,,L--~ '-~,,~- more than 25 feet. Minimum setbacks shall be increased where necessary to obtain the required lot width at the front building line. Through the subdivision process, an additional setback of up to 25 feet may be added to the minimum setback, if the lot is located along an arterial or collector street. Thia additiom! setback requirement will be noted on the record plat. OOO Sec. 19-94. Required conditions. The conditions specified in this section shall be met in the R-9 District: 000 (c) Front yard. Minimum of 30 feet in depth. On lots located along cul-de-sacs, if the radius of the cul-de-sac is 40 feet or less, the building setback around the cul-de-sac shall be at least 30 feet. ~ac"re When the radius of the cul-de-sac is more than 40 feet, the building setback shall not be less nc. cd not be more than 25 feet. Minimum setbacks shall be increased where necessary to obtain the required lot width at the front building line. Through the subdivision process, an additional setback of up to 25 feet may be added to the minimum setback, if the lot is located along an arterial or collector street. Thia additional setback requirement will be noted on the,. OOO Sec. 19-99. Required conditions. The conditions specified in this section shall be met in the R-7 District: 000 2 (c) Front yard. Minimum of 30 feet in depth. On lots located along cul-de-sacs, if the radius of the cul-de-sac is 40 feet or less, the building setback around the cul,de-sac shall be at least 30 feet. ~the~ When the radius of the cul-de-sac is more than 40 feet, the building setback shall not be less ---'~ not · ,,~,.~ ~ raor¢ than 25 feet. Minimum setbacks shall be increased where necessary to obtain the required lot width at the front building line. Through the subdivision process, an additional setback of up to 25 feet may be added to the minimum setback, if the lot is lociiterl along an arterial or collector street. This additional setback requirement will be noted on the record plat. 000 Sec. 19-105. Required conditions. The purpose and goal of the following conditions is to create developments that protect against overcrowding, undue density of population, obstruction of light and air and that are attractive, convenient and harmonious. To this end, buildings should be designed to impart harmonious proportions and to avoid monotonous facades or large bulky masses. Townhouse buildings should possess architectural variety but enhance an overall cohesive residential character. Character should be achieved through the creative use of design elements such as balconies and/or terraces, articulation of doors and windows,' sculptural or textural relief of facades, architectural ornamentation, varied rooflines or other appurtenances such as lighting fixtures and/or planting. Townhouse rows of more than six units shall be clustered and employ .sufficient variety of setbacks between units to avoid monotonous facades and bulky masses. The conditions specified in this section shall be met in the R-TH District, except as noted in section 19-106: 000 (1) Frontage on public street. All lots shall have frontage on a public street, or access thereto by common right-of-way within 500 feet. Townhouse lots not fronting on a public street shall front on paved accessways designed and constructed in accorrl_ance with VDOT paving specifications for Subdivisions and Secondary_ Roads, 000 Seca. 19-551. Street frontage required--Residential (except for MH-1) and agricultural. (a) Unless otherwise specified and except for farm buildings, a lot outside a subdivision, as def'med in section, 17-2 used in whole or in part for dwelling purposes, including permanent manufactured or-mobile homes, shall have abut-for at least fifty. ~501 feet oLfr. o. lllaX~ upon a street. After (INSERT DATE). lots within a subdivision shall have street frontage of at least fifty thirty "'- ' .... ~&ag "-- ' ' publ' (50'}. _ feet noon_ a local street or l,,, ,,~, ,,, parcel,,,-~' 1,,.,,'---' abu ,~ ;co-maas of .- i,~ 3 5.0O at-least ~301 feet on a permanent recorded cul-de-sac. FrOntage of at least thirty_ (30) feet may be permitted at the radial terminus of a loop street or on the flagpole portion of a flag lot. but all other lots shall have at least fifty. (50) feet of frontage. Where lots are permitted to from on arterial, collector or residential collector street the minimum frontage shall be at least fifty. (50) feet and the number and location of driveways shall be approved by the director of transportation Parcels as defmed in the Subdivision Ordinance shall have frontage as required by section 17-2 No lot or parcel abutting the terminus line of a public street shall be considered to have frontat, e unless it fronts for at least thi~. (30) feet on a recorded cul-de-sac or the stub street is not amicipated to be extended is approved, through the tentative or minor subdivision plat review process, by the planning commission or the directors of the planning and transportation departments as frontage. A lot or parcel without street frontage may be used for temporary dwelling purposes with a manufactured or mobile home; however, in considering applications for ~l~anufac:arcd or ~ob~l¢ home permits and special exceptions, in addition to other land use considerations, due regard shall be given to whether the lot or parcel has abu~ at least fifty, f50~ feet ~ upon-a~-~. (b) Unless otherwise specified, no permit for erecting, moving or converting any building on a parcel outside a subdivision, as def'med in section, 17-2 shall be issued unless the street adjoining the parcel where the building is to be erected, moved or converted is a part of the state highway system, primary or secondary. This provision shall not apply to farm buildings or other structures not designed for human habitation. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 4 ATrACHMENT 3 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIEIJ), 1997, AS AMENDED BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 19-301 RELATING TO DEFINITIONS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section 19-301 oft he Code oft he Count. of Cheste_rffeld, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Sec. 19-301. Def'mifions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phraSes shall have the following meanings: 000 Alley: A pas:,agc or way open to public ,,, t,-vatc ...... ' - -- ' ....... ~'~'"',,,, ,,,, s,-"~,,- ,~,,,,,~ ~-~",,,-,,~,. A oublic or orivatc ri~ht-of-wav orimarilv desimaed tO serve as access to the side or rear of those properties whose principal frontave is on a street. Additionally. the alley may be used for drainage and utill _ty easementq and/or improvcmentq, OOO Best ]~management [¥racfice~ or BMPa: A practice, or a combination of practices, that is determined by a state or designated arm-wide planning agency, or director of environmental cnghtccr~ to be the most effective, practical mean.q of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint-sources to a level compatible with water quality goals. A_BJ~ includes, but is not limited to.. detention or retention basins. ,,,,",~,,,,j ,,. ,,~,~,vv...,...[ v, ,,,,,, o,,,,... ~,,,,~,,,. A set of adjacent lOts or parcels bounded by streets, or by a combination of streets and public parks, cemeteries, railroad righm-of-way shorelines of waterways, or bound_a_r3,- lines of the county, 000 Building: Any structure, including a ~ manufactured or-mobile home, having a roof supported by columns or walls built for the support, shelter or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels Or property of any kind. The word "building" does not include a tent, ~cra~rao- ~obil,. home or temporary manufactured home. The word "building" includes.the word "structure.' 000 Building setback line. _front: A line within a lot or parcel so designated on a recorded plat or as otherwise established by the Code at the minimum front yard. setback distance that defines the, front building envelope limits and/or by the location where the lot or parcel achieves the minimuq] width requirement. If the required width is not met at the minimum front yard setback line. the location of the front building setback line is determined where the minimum required width between the side lines has generally equal angles created by the intersection of the setback line and each side line. The narrowest lot frontage shall always be the front yard. 0OO Easement: A grant of rights by a property owner to another individual, group or governmental unit to make iimited a suecified use of a portion of real property for a OOO 000 Frontage: The continuous len_~th of the property, line of a lot or parcel of land measured along a single street, against which the land abuts. Access easements do not constitute frontage. Stub streets do not constitute frontage except as permitted in section 19-551. OOO Lot: A single recorded partitioned land area set off by metes and bounds paz, eei-of-la~ occupied, or intended to be occupied, by a principal building or buildings and accessory buildings and uses, together with such open spaces as are required under this chapter having not less than the minimttm area required by this chapter for a lot in the district in which it is situated and fronting on a street except as otherwise permitted in R-TH districts. For purposes of this Chapter only. a The-word "lot" includes a the-words "plot," "parcel" or and "premises." 000 Lot, corner: A '-'" -"'-": ............... :- ' .... : .... ':--'-~ '~- =--' '-' ':-- -~ "-- ~'--" ....: ...... A lot situated at the intersection of two 2 streets that generally has an adjacent interior angle not greater than 135 degrees 000 Lot, through: A lot having a pair of opposite lot lines along two more or less parallel public streets, and which is not a comer lot. On a "through lot'v Bhoth street lines shall be deemed front lot lines excluding lots that include a buffer along one street in a residential or residential townhouse district. In this situation, the land adjacent to the buffer shall be deemed the rear yard. Lot width: The horizontal distance between the side lines of a lot measured along the minimum from ht!il/lillg yard setback line. o00 Planned development: One or more contiguous lots zoned under section 19-14 or one or more contiguous lots under single ownership or unified control, planned as a whole for development in a single or programmed series of phases operations, in accordance with an approved master plan which may include multiple land uses and as further outlined in section 17-9 and 19-14 as applicable. o00 public right,Sway whch provides vehcular a~ess to pro~ies, or provides for ~ough Waffle whe~er desigmted as ~ a~erial, collector, residential collector. ~ghway. par~ay, s~eel avenue, road. boulev~d, lane. place, cul~e-sac, or a~v o~er public way. A s~t shall be deemed ~e total len~ and wid~ of ~e s~ of laod dedicated or deSigned for public ~awl ~cBd~g such ~rovement~q reoflked to b~ome p~ of ~e Vkginia s~ ~an~po~tion system. Street. arterial: A street identified on the thoroughfare plan as a major arterial which provides major circulation movements and accommodates through travel, serves the major center(s) of activity, has a high traffic volume, and .typically accommodates long and moderate trip leneths, Arterials shall include, but not be limited to. major arterials having a right-of-way width of_I~ (90) feet or one hundred twenty_ (120) to two hundred (200) feet as determined by the director of transportation. ooo Street, collector: A road--"-:-'- .....-'~-- '---' ..... '~,",-~, v-,,,,,~,-~ bo~h.o~,., access service and h-afEic circulation within ,.,..o,.,.,,..,,,-,,.,, .,,..,~l,b,_,~.h,.,,..,d~, -- -' ......... ' -' ---' -'--' ..... 3 '"-'"~'"'* "~ ~'-"-"~" '"~ -*~ '-,"'q-"',",,~*,,, v,~,. A street identified on the thoroughfare Dian as a collector that collects traffic from local streets in commercial and industrial areas and neighborhoods and channels such traffic into the arterial systems and .typically does not permit access to individual residential or residential townhouse lots. Collectors have a fight-of-way width of sixty. (60) to seventy (70) feet. as determined by the director of tra~sportatioll. 000 Street. limited access: A street shown on the thoroughfare plan as a limited access street with fully controlled access that is intended to provide for safe and efficientmovement of high volumes Of traffic at relatively high s_r~xt. Fully controlled access meam that the a-thority to control access is exercised to give preference to through traffic and is the condition where the right of owners abutting land to access a street is fully or partially controlled by public authority_. These streets shall include, but not be limited to. limited access sweets with a right-of-way width of two hundred (200) feet. as determined by the director of tran,qportation. The term "limited access street" shall include but not be limited to the words "limited access road(s)". "freeway" and "expressway". OOO ~ A sUeet of l~ited continui~ used primarily for access to abusing properties a~d se~ing local needs, 000 Wetlands: "'-'-'-' ---' ....'~-' ..... ,--a. .,,,,, o~ .v.,~,. ,~,,o~. Areas that are inundated or sa_n~rated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in sa_n~rated soil conditions and over which the Commonwealth of Virginia or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers exercises jurisdiction. Wetlands _typically include swamps, marshes, bogs. and similar areas 0OO (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 4 ATTACHMENT 4 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED BY ADDING SECTION 19-508.1 AND DELETING SECTION 19-571 RELATING TO UNDERGROUND UTK,ITIF_~ BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section 19-508.1 of the Code of the Count. of Cheste_rtieM. 199Z as amended, is added to read as follows: Sec. 19-508.1 UfiH~_ Hnes underground, All utility lines such as electric, telephone. CATV or other similar lines shall be install~l under~ound. Where transmission lines traverse the property_ proposed for subdivision, th.-_ subdivider shall not be required to place such line under~ound. This requirement shall apply to lines serving individual 'office. commercial and industrial sites as well as to utility lines necessary In addition, all related e _qu~ment for electric, telephone. CATV or similar utiliti~ mn~ be loc_a_t~ under~ound if placed in the front yard of a residential or residential townhouse lot (2) That Section 19-571 of the Code of the CoUnty_ of Cheste_rfieM, 199Z as amended, is deleted a~ follows: (3) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. ATTA .5 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF TIlE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 19-518 RELATING TO STANDARDS FOR STREET TREES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County{ (1) That Section 19-518 of the COde q£the County. qf Cheste_r~ieM, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Seca. 19-518. Plant material specifications. OOO (h) Street Trees: During the subdivision process, required street trei~s shall be shown on a plan showing the proposed tree locations, s_r~cies and caliper, and submitted 'to and approved by the. director of planning and VDOT. The street tree plan shall be submitted as a hart of construction plans. Unless otherwise re_attired, trees at a maximum spacing of forty_ (40) feet on c~nt.er shall be located no _creater than five (5) feet outaide of .the right of way in an easement granted to the homeowners association or within the right of way if approved by VDOT. For single .trunk-trees the minimum allowable ~li_~r measured four (4) feet above ~ade shall be two and one half (2 ~A ) inches. Mulfistem trees shall have a minimum of three canes and be a minimum of ten feet in height. Species selected for planting shall be suitable for ~owing in thi.~ vegetative zone and shall'be drought tolerant. The subdivider or developer shall at their expense in,qtall all rea_uired street tre~q identified on the approved plans prior to recordation or surety ,qhall be provided in the amount approved by,the director of planning and in a form accept~ by the, county_ attorney's office, sufficient to _~___a_rantee installation. Any surety_ shall be, held by the director of planning, lmtallation within a subdivision .qhall completed prior to state acceptance of the subdivision's streets. Rea_uired street trees shall be guaranteed by the installer .for a neriod of not le~qq than one (_1) year. Replacement of dead trees is required in accordance with section 19-5t8(d). Maintenance re _sponsibilifies of the required stroet trees within a subdivision shall be specified on the final check plan and record nlat to be the. responsibility_ of the homeowners association. Street trees.shall not be removed during or after residences are constructed. Trees removed shall be replaced with . a like species and in a size comparable to the original planting, (2) That this ordinance shall become effective itmnediately upon adoption. ATTACHMENT 6 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED BY ADDING SECTION 19-559 RELATIlqG TO REQUIREMENTS FOR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section 19-559 of the Code of the County. o_f Cheste_rl~eld, 1997, as amended, is added to read as follows: Sec. 19-559. Required Homeowners Association. A homeowner's association shall be required to be formed during the subdivision proce-q.~ when any of the following conditions are proposed: (_1) There is. to be commonly held pro_t~rty or open space: There are to be streetslalleys/vehicular/_r~destfian access ways. and/or sid~wal~ that are not maintained by the county or VDOT: a~d There are to be SWM/BMP's located on commonly held property, (Hereinafter these items are referred to as commonly held pro_t~erty,) In conjunction with the submi.qsion of the final check plat. the subdivider shall submit. articles of incom_ oration, bylaws, and restrictive covenantq (collectively bylaws~}' tO tl~_ director of planning and the county attorney's office for review and approval. additional copy shall be submitted for review and apprOval by the dir_~2~tor of environmental engineering if SWMfBMP's are located on commonly held pro_r~rty_. additional copy shall be submitted for review and approval by the director of tran. _qportati0n if there are streetslalleyslvehicularlpedestrian access ways. and/or sidewalkq that are not maintained by the coun _ty or VI)OT and an additional copy shall be submitt._~l_ for review and approval by the director of utilities for all townhonse and private road subdivisioln-*- to address ownership and maintenance responsibilities for any privately owned utilities, The followin~ elements shall be incom_ orated into the bvlaws of the homeowners' the homeowners' association shall own and maintain all commonly held open and recreation facilities: the homeowners' association shall be responsible for and required m collect sufficient dues that at a minimum provide for' a. payment of taxes on commonly held property b. fund repairs/maintenance and replacement of facilities in common property. a homeowners' association required by this section shall not have the ability, to dissolve its existence nor dispose of real property, without prior written approv.al from the directors of planning, environmental engineering and transportation. the maintenance responsibilities of the homeowners association of commonly held property, containing a SWM and/or BMP shall be detailed in the restrictive covenants. the maintenance respOnsibilities of the homeowners association of commonly held property_ containing streets/alleys/vehicular/pedestrian access ways, and/or sidewalks that are not maintained by the county, or VDOT shall be detailed in the restrictive covenants. The final check and record plats shall indicate the maintenance responsibili.ty of the homeowners' association. In conjunction with recordation, approved articles of incom_ oration shall be filed with the Virginia State Corporation commission and shall be recorded with the bylaws of the homeowners association and the restrictive covenants with the clerk of the circuit court,' Subdividers that are required to create homeowners a~,qociation under this subsection $hall fund the financial, responsibilities of the homeowners association as identified in (c) above, until such time as the operation of the association, as specified in the restrictive covenants, is controlled bv the residents of the subdivision (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 2 !09 ATTACHMENT 7 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED BY 'AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 18-64 RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS FOR MANDATORY WASTEWATER · CONNECTION IN CERTAIN AREAS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of CheSterfield County: (1) That Section 18-64 of the Code of the County_ of Chesterfield, 1997, as mended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Sec. 18-64. Mandatory wastewater connection in certain areas. (a) Ail structures which are located on property that is included in the Southern'and Western Area Plan described in the subdivision ordinance and which received zoning approval after June 23, 1993 shall connect to the' wastewater system. However, the.following structures shall not be required to connect unless connection to the wastewater system is otherwise required by law: (1) Single-family dwellings on lots which are at least forty_ thousand (40.000) square feet one-acre in size and which are located in areas that are designated in the comprehensive plan for single-family residential use in the lowest density category (areas colored tan on the Southern and Western Area Land Use Plan); (2) Temporary manufactured or mobile homes; (3) Structures that were authorized by conditional uses or special exceptions which were renewed after June 23, 1993; (4) Structures that are authorized by conditional uses or special.exceptions that were granted after June 23, 1993 if the use that is permitted by the conditional use or special exception is incidental to a principal use that was Previously allowed with a septic system; (5) Governmental structures and institutional buildings; and Residences that are located on lots that are exempt from the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. (b)' All structures which are located on property that is included in the Route 288 Corridor Plan Area as shown in the comprehensive plan, and which received zoning approval after May.25, 1999 shall connect to the wastewater system. However, the following structures shall not be required to connect unless connection to the wastewater system is otherwise required by law: (1) Single-family dwellings on lots which are at least forty_ thousand (40.000) square feet one-acre in size and which are located in areas that are designated in the comprehensive plan for single-family residential use in the lowest density category (areas colored tan on the Route 288 Corridor Plan aeea) (2) Temporary manufactured or mobile homes; (3) Stmctures that were authorized by conditional uses or special exceptions which were renewed after May 25, 1999; (4) Structures that are authorized by conditional uses or special exceptions that were granted after May 25, 1999 if the use that is permitted by the conditional use or special exception is incidental to a principal use that was previously allowed with a septic system; (5) Governmental structures and institutional buildings; and (6) Residences that are located on lots that are exempt from the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. 000 (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 2 iii CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meetin~ Date: Subject: January 24, 2001 Item Number: 6.B. Work Session on the Proposed FY2002 - FY2007 Capital Improvement Program County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: / Board Action Requested: Hold a work session on the Proposed FY2002 - FY2007 Capital Improvement Program. Summary of Information' A work session on the proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) has been scheduled for this date. The Proposed CIP encompasses a six-year period, FY2002 - FY2007. The program allows for the completion of the capital projects that were approved in the November 1996 bond referendum, advances priorities established in recent years, and begins to establish projects and priorities for the next referendum. The six year plan proposes expenditures of over $544 million. A breakdown of the CIP is as follows: General County Projects School Projects Utility Projects $186,180,400 231,941,800 126,606,000 Total Rebecca T. Dickson ~544,728,20~ Title: Director, Budget & Management Attachments: Yes ~-~No !12 Meetin~l Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA January 24, 2001 Page 2 of 2 The Proposed CIP, including revenues and specific expenditures will be reviewed at the work session. Highlights of the Schools CIP will also be presented at the work session. Details of the Utilities Department CIP will be summarized during the review of the Utilities Department operating budget at a future Board meeting. In accordance with the County Charter, the CIP must be adopted by May 1st. The Proposed CIP is attached for your review. 116 ell m mm el,mC 0 (D 0 o o= 0 0 0 I © 0 · · · · · · ell ell CHESTERFIELD COUNTY VIRGINIA Proposed Capital Improvement Program 2002- 2007 Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Board of Supervisors Renny Bush Humphrey Chairman Matoaca District Kelly E. Miller Vice Chairman Dale District J. L. McHale, III Bermuda District Arthur S. Warren Clover Hill District Edward B. Barber Midlothian District Strategic Goals To provide world-class customer service To be acknowledged for its extraordinary, quality of life To be the safest and most secure community of its size in the USA To be a unifying leader for local government To be the employer of choice To be the model for excellence in government To be the FIRST CHOICE business community CHESTERFIELD COUNTY VISION Our vision is to be the recognized leader in local government across the Commonwealth and the nation - the standard by which others measure their progress and success. Every employee has a personal devotion to excellence in public service and embraces the highest standards of ethics and integrity. Every citizen takes pride in knowing that the County provides the best customer service and highest quality of life available in any American community. And working together, we are committed to sustaining Chesterfield County as the premier community of choice - First Choice. MISSION Providing a First Choice Community through excellence in public service. GUIDING PRINCIPLES Chesterfield is a leader in shaping not only a vision, but a reality, of the metro-Richmond County employees and citizens are shareholders in our progress and serve as trustees for those values held dear;, fairness, integrity, diversity and harmony, lifelong learning, appre- ciation of history and culture, and steadfastness in long-range commitments. Our community remains committed to providing a safe and secure environment in which to live, work, and raise a family. Business has a major role in providing positive growth and a balanced community. We are committed, to our young dtizens. With boundless potential for positive contribu- tion, their education, development, and social growth ar~ vital to our progress. Employees, businesses and citizens find Chesterfield a place where imagination can flour- ish, new things can be tried, risks can be taken, freedom of expression is encouraged and human initiative and potential are unleashed. Lane B. Ramsey County Administrator CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CALENDAR ,july · · Requests for Capital projects are solicited from all County departments. Instructions for completing the Capital Improvement Project request forms, sample request forms and a timetable for completing the proposed CIP are sent to all departments. August · County departments submit project requests to Budget and Management. · Project requests are distributed to selected departments for a cursory review of project cost estimates and early indications of transportation, utility, technology, environmental or land use issues, if any. Any such issues are communicated to Budget and Management. Budget and Management presents these issues to the CIP Review Committee. September · CIP Review Committee convenes to perform a preliminary review of the Capital Project submissions -- the scope and description of the projects are verified at this initial meeting. Ineligible projects are :identified and excluded from further review. · Budget and Management determines preliminary funds availability for the applicable CIP planning years. · CIP Review Committee convenes to begin prioritizing projects. October · Budget and Management refines funds availability for the applicable CIP planning years. · CIP Review Committee continues to meet - finalizes prioritized list of projects. November · CIP Review Committee meets with County Administrator to review established list of prioritized projects. · List of prioritized projects is revised based on County Administrator's comments. December · County Administrator's proposed CIP is compiled. Tanuary · A work session on the proposed CIP is conducted with the Board of Supervisors. March · A Public Hearing on the proposed CIP is held. April · Board of Supervisors adopts the CIP along with the operating budget. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page County Administrator's Transmittal Letter ............................................................................ 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5 Process for Preparing the Capital Improvement Program .................................................. 7 Funding Options for the Recommended Capital Improvement Program ........................ 9 Financial Management Policies .............................................................................................. 10 County Indebtedness ........................................................................................................ i ....... 11 Bonded Debt Authorization .................................................................................................... 12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Total Chesterfield County Capital Improvement Program ...................................13 County Capital Improvement Program Summary .................................................. 16 Analysis of County Reserve for Capital Projects ........................ ~ ............................. 21 School Capital Improvement Program Summary .................................................... 24 Utilities Capital Improvement Program Summary ................................................. 28 COUNTY CAPITAL PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Administration of Justice ............................................................................................. 34 Airport ........................................................................................................................... 38 Environmental Engineering ........................................................................................ 41 General Services ............................................................................................................ 54 Health and Social Services ........................................................................................... 64 Libraries .......................................................................................................................... 66 Parks and Recreation .................................................................................................... 73 Public Safety ................................................................................................................... 95 Regional Projects ......................................................................................................... 110 Technology Improvements ........................................................................................ 113 Transportation ............................................................................................................. 117 Unfunded County Capital Improvements .............................................................. 123 APPENDICES Appendix A - Selected County Statistics ................................................ ' ................. 129 Appendix B - Technology Improvement Program ................................................ 132 This document was prepared by the office of: Budget and Management, Chesterfield County, Virginia, P. O. Box 40, Chesterfield, VA 23832. For additional information, contact Rebecca T. Dickson, Director of Budget and Management (804) 748-1548 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RENNY B. HUMPHREY, CHAIRMAN MATOACA DISTRICT KELLY E. MILLER, VICE CHAIRMAN DALE DISTRICT J. L. McHALE, I!1: BERMUDA DISTRICT ARTHUR S. WARREN CLOVER HILL DISTRICT EDWARD B. BARBER MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COUNT P.O. Box 40 CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832-0040 (804) 748-1211 January 24, 2001 LANE B. RAMSEY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR The Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors County of Chesterfield Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Members of the Board: I am pleased to submit to you and to the citizens of Chesterfield County the Proposed Capital Improvement Program for fiscal years 2002-2007. This Program serves as a planning tool for the efficient, effective, and equitable distribution of public improvements throughout the County. It allows for the completion of capital projects that were approved in the November 1996 bond referendum, advances priorities established in recent years, and begins to look further into the future. The Program represents a balance between finite resources and an ever-increasing number of competing County priorities. This balance was achieved using the priorities and objectives established by the Board of Supervisors and is consistent with the County's Strategic Plan. Additionally, the County continues to benefit, both economically and financially, from a credit rating of AAA on outstanding general obligation bonds from each of the three major rating agencies. This is the highest possible rating, and Chesterfield is one of only a few county governments nationw, ide to be so designated. As such, the County will realize lower interest rates on debt issued with this rating. ' The six-year Capital Improvement Program totals $544,728,200, and is comprised of County improvements of $186,180,400, School Board improvements of $231,941,800, and Utilities Department improvements of $126,606,000. Progress has been made on many projects approved in the 1996 bond referendum. Many have been completed, others are underway and are nearing completion, and others will begin in the coming year. The first year of this plan, FY2002, includes the last increment of bond funding approved by the voters. The remaining general obligation bonds will be sold in FY2002 for school and public safety projects. This year, I have prepared a six-year plan. My objective is to identify projects for your consideration to be included in a future referendum. This Program includes projects that will enable the County to enhance current service levels in Public Safety, Human Services, and the general governmental area. One of the County's biggest challenges in the coming years will be to provide funding for the renovation, expansion and/or replacement of existing general governmental capital facilities. This proposal includes a financial commitment to aging facilities most notably in the areas of Parks and Recreation and in general governmental needs. Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service 1 The Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors January 24, 2001 Page 2 This Program also includes continued and new funding in various program areas. Administration of Justice projects includes improvements to the courthouses and detention home. Upcoming general governmental projects include the Community Development Building, a new financial/human resources system, renovations to the five-story administration building and expansion of the health and social services building. Additionally, the plan proposes significant Parks and Recreation improvements with an emphasis on existing facilities and specialty parks. Library funding addresses the expansion of Meadowdale library, improvements at several facilities and a new branch to serve the Reams and Gordon communities. In the area of Public Safety, this plan features continued funding for construction at the Public Safety Training Center in Enon, completion of the Reams Road and Ashton Creek/Walthall fire stations, a new funding plan for the County and Regional Jails, and continuation of the integn:ation of technology that will assist both the Police and Fire departments. Funding for regional initiatives such as The Governors School in Richmond and The Diamond and for many other County priorities such as improvements to the County Airport and countywide drainage and road improvements are all included. Highlighted differences between the FY2001-2005 CIP and the FY2002-2007 CIP are as follows: Technology The Technology Improvement Program (TIP) is :now being included as an annual allocation of capital funds for the countywide implementation of technology initiatives. Administration of [ustice · Supplemental funding for the Juvenile Detention Home is included in FY2002. Funding for the expansion of the Circuit/District Courthouse has been increased in FY2005. General Services · Funding for the new Community Development Building has been increased. Health and Social Services Construction costs for the expansion of the Wagner Building have been addressed in FY2006. 2 The Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors January 24, 2001 Page 3 Libraries Funding for the completion of the expansion of the Meadowdale Library has been included, in addition to new funding for improvements at the Central, Bon Air and Enon Libraries while partial funding for a Western Area branch and a new Library serving the Reams/Gordon communities is also included. Parks and Recreation An emphasis on reinvesting in existing facilities has resulted in additional funding for the miscellaneous park improvement category in FY2007, as well as new allocations for Manchester Middle School, Lake Chesdin Park and the County Fairgrounds. New funds for Phase II of the Lowe's Soccer Complex and Winterpock Area Park have also been added in FY2007 as well as Midlothian High School Sports Complex. Public Safe _ty · Additional funding for the Public Safety Training Center at Enon has been added. · Funding for the construction of the Route 288/60 Fire Station has been added, as well as funds for the purchase of self-contained breathing apparatus cylinders. · New funding plans for both the local and regional jails are proposed. The projects in this Program have been reviewed for consistency with the Adopted Comprehensive Plan and the Public Facilities Plan, a form of "needs assessment" which precedes the preparation of the County's Capital Improvement Program. Further, the Public Facilities Plan is an element of the County's Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Board of Supervisors' debt ratio and financial management policies provided guidance for the development of this Capital Improvement Program. Adherence to these policies allows the County to plan for the necessary financing of capital projects while maintaining its creditworthiness. The most critical ratio for the County, and the ratio which primarily guided the establishment of planned debt issuance for Fiscal Years 2002-2007, is the ratio of debt service as a percentage of general government expenditures. At June 30, 2000, this ratio was 8.2%. While the County's target is to maintain this ratio below 10.0%, this Program was developed to attain a debt ratio closer to 9.O%. The Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors January 24, 2001 Page 4 This plan represents a continued decreased reliance on long-term financing for general county improvement projects. Further, in keeping with the Board of Supervisors' financial policy regarding funding a portion of capital improvements with current revenues, this Program exceeds the. targeted current revenue funding levels for both general county and school projects. The County has a goal of funding 20% of the general county projects and 10% of the school projects with current revenues. This Program proposes current revenue funding levels of 46% for the county projects and 21.2% for school projects over the six-year period. In summary, this Capital Improvement Program, while sustaining the County's strong financial position, proposes affordable service enhancements, including an emphasis on aging facilities, and presents to the citizens of Chesterfield County the broad range of capital facilities required of a FIRST CHOICE community. Sincerely, Lane B. Ramsey County Administrator 4 INTRODUCTION Programming capital improvements serves as a guide for the efficient and effective provision of capital facilities. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a dynamic document revised annually that proposes the acquisition, development, enhancement or replacement of public facilities to serve the County citizenry. This year, the CIP, a reflection of the physical development policies of the County, encompasses a six year period and includes projects in excess of $100,000. The CIP depicts the arrangement of selected projects in priority order and establishes cost estimates and anticipated funding sources. The CIP reflects difficult decisions in the allocation of resources among competing demands. Development of the CIP occurs in conjunction with the County's budget process. Availability of funds is driven by the County's adherence to established financial and debt management policies. Adherence to these policies helps to preserve the County's credit rating. The benefits of viable capital improvement programming include the following: Eliminates the duplication of project requests and enables the County to take advantage of joint planning and shared County facilities; Assists in implementing the County's Comprehensive and Area Plans and related policies; · Establishes a system of annual examination and prioritization of County needs; Focuses attention on community goals and objectives; · Allows for proper programming and project design; · Allows for the identification of appropriate project financing and construction schedules; · Helps provide a framework for the equitable distribution of public improvements throughout the County; · Provides a basis for formulation of bond referenda, borrowing programs or other revenue producing measures; · Facilitates capital expenditure and revenue estimates and helps to avoid emergency financing methods; · Encourages efficient government administration; · Fosters a sound and stable financial program; · Bridges the gap between day-to-day operations of County government and the County's long-range development goals. The County's Capital Improvement Program is, in part, based on the County's Public Facilities Plan. The Public Facilities Plan is a form of "needs assessment" which precedes the preparation of the Capital Improvement Program and supports the establishment of specific project priorities in the Capital Improvement Program. The Public Facilities Plan is an element of the County's Comprehensive Plan. The updated Facilities ]Plan was adopted in November, 1995 and is currently under review. The Plan comprehensively assesses County public facility needs in relation to existing and future growth patterns. Its principal goal is to forecast where existing facilities should be expanded and new facilities located to best serve the County's growing population. The Public Facilities Plan considers population growth, projected density, economic development and service levels in the evaluation of the need for public facilities. The Plan does not specify exact locations for future facilities but rather designates general locations. Identifying general locations allows for flexibility which is necessary when fundamental conditions change or analysis based on new data reaches differing conclusions. 6 PROCESS FOR PREPARING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Chesterfield, in accordance with its County Charter, typically prepares a five-year Capital Improvement Program. This program is revised annually. The current capital improvement process incorporates the principles of financial management and community planning. This program plans projects over a six year period. Preparation of the CIP is an interactive process that takes approximately six to eight months. All County departments with capital needs submit project requests subject to specific guidelines. Projects submitted for review typically cost in excess of $100,000 and are projects that do not recur annually. A review committee, appointed by the County Administrator, meets on a regular basis to consider the projects submitted for review and to consider all issues related to Capital Improvement Programming. Members of the Review Committee are as follows: Bradford S. Hammer, Deputy County Administrator Human Services AdministratiOn James J. L. Stegmaier, Deputy County Administrator Management Services Administration M. D. "Pete" Stith, Jr., Deputy County Administrator Community Development Administration Colonel Carl R. Baker Chief of Police Stephen A. Elswick Chief of Fire Thomas Jacobson, Director Planning Department Robert L. Eanes, Assistant to the County Administrator Capital Projects Fran Pitaro, Director General Services Marilyn Cole, Assistant County Administrator Allan M. Carmody, Finance Manager Budget and Management Rebecca T. Dickson, Director Budget and Management 7 Project requests are compiled by Budget staff, project costs are determined and the Review Committee discusses the requests by department and functional area. All projects are reviewed for consistency with the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan and Public Facilities Plan and are reviewed by the Utilities, Transportation, Engineering, and Information Systems Technology Depat~h~ents for any related issues. In .addition, project costs are checked for accuracy by the County's Construction Management Office. Projects are prioritized and the merits of each are discussed. The Budget and Management Department determines the availability of funds in accordance with the Board of Supervisors' established debt management policies. Determining the availability of funds includes an analysis of County debt capacity in future years and projections of funds from the Reserve for Future Capital Projects. It is at this time that difficult choices must be made to decide which projects should remain in the proposed CIP. The allocation of programming and/or design funds for those projects which may be identified on a future bond referendum was incorporated into the CIP process several years ago. These programming and design funds enable staff to perform feasibility studies, if necessary, to program the facility, if applicable or to begin design of the facility. Not all of the aforementioned phases are necessary for all projects. This process will result in more accurate project cost estimates prior to placement on a referendum. The acquisition of real property may be necessary for the construction of capital facilities. As a part of programming, selected sites may be evaluated by the County's site selection study team. The purpose of the team is to ensure that the best sites are selected for capital projects. A proposed site is evaluated based on desirability for the proposed use, impact on the community, conformance with the County's Comprehensive Plan and cost. The study team, assembled under the direction of the County's Planning Director, includes representatives from the following departments: Construction Management, Environmental Engineering, Utilities, Transportation, Planning, Utilities Right-Of-Way, Assessor, and Budget and Management. Upon completing a final analysis of projects and matching available funding with requests, staff prepares the County Administrator's proposed CIP. The proposed plan is then presented to the Board of Supervisors. After work sessions and public hearings are conducted and appropriate changes and adjustments are made, the CIP is adopted in conjunction with the County's Biennial Financial Plan. The first year of the CIP is the County's Capital Budget. Upon adoption of the CIP, funds are appropriated for those projects identified in the first year of the plan. 8 FUNDING OPTIONS FOR THE RECOMMENDED CIP A variety of funding options exist for financing the County's Capital Improvement Program. The options range from direct County contributions, such as the Reserve for Future Capital Projects and proceeds from the sale of bonds, to direct contributions from sources such as, private developer contributions, contributions from other localities, federal and state funds and grants. Following is a selected list of funding options for the CIP. Other funding options exist. Not every funding option is utilized in a particular CIP. Reserve for Capital Projects Funds reserved from County operating revenues for capital projects. General Obligation Bonds Payments from the proceeds of the sale of General Obligation Bonds. These bonds must, in most cases, be approved by a general referendum of voters of the County, and they pledge the full faith and credit of the County for their repayment. Revenue Bonds Payments from the proceeds of the sale of revenue bonds. These bonds pledge the revenue generating potential of a facility or utility system. Revenue Fund Payments from revenues generated by an enterprise activity such as water and sewer charges, or the County Airport. State Funds and payments received from the Commonwealth of Virginia. Federal Funds and payments received from the Federal Government. Developer Contributions Funds contributed by developers for infrastructure or construction of improvements. Cash Proffers Funds negotiated at the time of rezoning to help defray the capital costs associated with resultant development. As funds are collected over time, appropriations are used for specific capital facility needs. Other Locality Funds received from other locahties to assist in project construction. Community Development Block Grant Federal funds provided to a locality to be spent on projects that benefit low and moderate income areas of the locality. Chesterfield became a Block Grant entitlement community in FY92. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT POLICIES The guidelines listed below are prudent financial management policies used to guide debt issuance and operations. The County does not intend to issue tax or revenue anticipation notes to fund governmental operations. Chesterfield County intends to manage cash in a fashion that will prevent any borrowing to meet working capital needs. The County does not intend to issue Bond Anticipation Notes (BANS) for a period of longer than two years. If the County issues a bond anticipation note for a capital project, the BAN will be converted to a long-term bond or redeemed[ at its expiration. The County does not intend to establish a trend of using General Fund equity (Undesignated Fund Balance) to finance current operations. The County's General Fund equity balance has been built over the years to provide the County with sufficient working capital to enable it to finance unforeseen emergencies without borrowing. To conserve General Fund equity and to avoid reliance on this balance, the County will not finance operations from the General Fund equity balance for periods longer than two years. In accordance with the County Charter and in order to meet the debt ratio targets, to schedule debt issuance, and to systematically improve the County's capital infrastructure, each year the County will prepare and adopt a five-year Capital Improvement Program. In order to improve financial planning and decisions, the County will annually prepare a three-year projection of General Fund revenues and expenditures. The projections will assume that the percentage of capital improvements financed with current revenues is maintained at the County's goal of approximately 20%. The County is committed to funding a significant portion of capital improvements with current revenues and now funds at least 20% of general government improvement projects and 10% of school projects with current revenue. The Board of Supervisors has also established and adheres to a policy of allocating an amount equal to 5% of General Fund departmental expenditures (excluding transfers, grants, fund balance, debt service, and respective flow through expenditures having no direct benefit to the general fund) and 5% of the General Fund transfers to Schools, to pay-as-you-go capital improvements. The portion of the General Fund transfer to schools used to calculate the amount set aside excludes State sales tax, transfer to Comprehensive Services, grounds maintenance, and debt service, and is calculated on the prior year's adopted General Fund transfer. 10 COUNTY INDEBTEDNESS The Board of Supervisors generally follows the guidelines listed below in making financial decisions on debt issuance. Adherence to these guidelines allows the County to plan for the necessary financing of capital projects while maintaining credit-worthiness. In addition, adherence to these policies has enhanced Chesterfield's financial position -- Moody's Investor Service, Standard & Poor's Corporation and Fitch Investors Service all rate Chesterfield as a strong credit risk. The process of issuing general obligation bonded debt in the County begins with the department's presentation of capital expenditure needs to the County Administrator, who then presents the requests for funding to the Board of Supervisors. For debt issues to be placed on the ballot, the Board must approve the proposals by a majority vote. County residents must then vote for the projects on a bond referendum so that debt can be issued. Debt Ratio Policies As part of its debt policy, Chesterfield has established target and ceiling numbers for certain ratios. These key debt ratios are shown on the chart below. The two most critical ratios for the County are highlighted. Actual June 30, 2000 Target Ceiling Debt as a Percentage of Assessed Value Debt Per ~!~a · . ' ..... · ~.' 1.92% 3.0% 3.5% $1,320 $1,200 $1,500 ll BONDED DEBT AUTHORIZATION The Constitution of Virginia and the Public Finance Act provides the County with authority to issue general obligation debt secured solely by the pledge of its full faith and credit, as well as debt secured first by the fee revenues generated by the system for which the bonds are issued and, ff necessary, by general obligation tax revenues. The County also is authorized to issue debt secured solely by the revenues of the system for which the bonds are issued. There is no limitation imposed by state law or local ordinance on the amount of general obligation debt which a county may issue; however, with certain exceptions, all debt which either directly or indirectly is secured by the general obligation of a county must be approved at public referendum prior to issuance. Debt secured solely by the revenues generated by the system for which the bonds were issued may be issued in any amount without public referendum. The County, as of June 30, 2000, had total net general long-term outstanding obligations of $380.2 million. Those obligations consist of $314.8 million in general obligation bonds ($242.0 million for schools, $72.8 for general county improvements), $9.9 million in State Literary Fund Loans, $19.8 million in capital leases, $7.5 million in retirement plan obligations, and $28.2 million in judgments, claims, and compensated absences payable. The County also has $52.2 million in outstanding Utilities revenue bonds (net of discounts), $0.3 million in Utilities retirement plan obligations, $5,436 in Airport capital lease obligations for a total of $52.5 million in enterprise fund long-term debt. The Risk Management Internal Service Fund had $3.5 million in judgments, claims, and compensated absences payable. Retirement plan obligations for the County's internal service funds totaled $0.1 million resulting in total internal service fund long-term debt of $3.6 million. In November, 1996, County residents approved a Bond Referendum totaling $228.4 million. Following is a summary of that referendum: 1996 Referendum Issued Purpose Authorization through FY2001 Balance to Issue Schools $174,799,000 $158,964,000 $15,835,000 Public Safety 34,020,000 30,470,000 3,550,000 Libraries 10,300,000 10,300,000 0 Parks and Recreation 9,255,000 9,255,000 0 Total $228,374.000 $208.989________~.000 $1%385.000 The debt management policies referenced above were used to determine the amount of debt the County could afford to issue per year and stay within the recommended criteria. The remaining $19,385,000 in bonds that were approved in the 1996 Referendum are scheduled to be issued in FY2002. 12 COMPOSITION OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY2002- 2007 Chesterfield County's Capital Improvement Program is contained in three separate documents: County Capital Improvement Program $186,180,400 School Board Capital Improvement Program Utilities Department Capital Improvement Program 231,941,800 126,606,000 TOTAL CIP $544,728,2OO Summaries of the School Board Capital Program and the Utilities Department Capital Program are contained in this document 13 COUNTY CIP SUMMARY 15 0 0 0 16 Z 0 17 Z 0 × 0 FY2002-2007 Capital Improvement Program Revenues - County Only Other Sources 6.8% Cash Proffers 4.5% General Fund 35.1% Debt 53.6% FY2002-2007 Capital Improvement Program Expenditures - County Only Drainage 1.1% Admin. of Justice 4.8% Health & SS 6.6% General Services 17.5% Regional Projects 1.0% Airport 4.0% Parks and 10.9% Public 32.4% Libraries 8.6% Technology Improv. 5.5% Transportation 7.7% 20 .< 0 Z Z Z 0 0 Z .< 2! SCHOOL CIP SUMMARY 23 SCHOOL CIP SUMMARY SOURCES: CIP Reserve Transfer General Obligation/Debt Financing Cash Proffers State Construction Funds FY2002 $6,485,2OO 15,835,000 0 0 FY2003 $6,809,500 .34000,000 0 0 IITOTAL SOURCES $22,32~200 $40,809,500 USES: New Matoaca High School J A Chalkley Elementary Addition J G Hening Elementary Addition Meadowbrook High Renovations Technical Center Renovations Greenfield Elementary Monacan Field House Midlothian Field House Addition/Improvements Classroom Additions Floors Mechanical Systems Other Building Renovations Grounds Annual Improvements Replace Remaining Carpet Technology Master Plan Computer Equipment Video Voice Annual Upgrade/Replacement Speciality Centers New and Renovated Administrative Space New Warehouse Space Future New Schools Facility Planning~ Design, Construction, and Land Acquisition $6,135,000 4,921,200 4,000,000 2,364,00O 4,900,00O 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 5,000,000 1,ooo, ooo 1,000,000 0 7,650,600 0 913,000 0 1,910,000 0 4,347,5OO 0 4,465,000 0 1,950,000 o 2,000,000 0 5,348,400 0 0 0 0 0 3,250,000 0 600,000 0 1,375,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 $40,809,5O0 IITOTAL USES $2~320,200 24 SCHOOL CIP SUMMARY TOTAL FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2002-2007 $7,150,000 $7,507,500 $7,882,900 $8,277,000 $44,112,100 35,500,000 33,333,300 30,000,000 34,000,000 $182,668,300 0 0 0 5,161,400 $5,161,400 0 0 0 0 0 $42,650,000 $40,840,800 $37,882,900 $47,438,400 $231,941,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,135,000 0 0 0 0 $4,921,200 0 0 0 0 $4,000,000 0 0 0 0 $2,364,000 0 0 0 0 $4,900,000 0 0 0 0 $5,000,000 0 0 0 0 $1,000,000 0 0 0 0 $1,000,000 10,125,000 14,608,000 0 0 $32,383,600 0 0 0 0 $913,000 0 0 0 0 $1,910,000 0 0 0 0 $4,347,500 0 0 0 0 $4,465,000 1,950,000 2,050,000 2,050,000 2,152,000 $10,152,000 0 0 0 0 $2,000,000 0 0 0 0 $5,348,40O 9,975,000 0 0 0 $9,975,000 2,600,000 0 0 0 $2,600,000 3,250,000 3,250,000 3,250,000 3,250,000 $16,250,000 5,400,000 0 0 0 $6,000,000 8,000,000 0 0 0 $9,375,000 1,350,000 0 0 0 $1,350,000 0 20,932,800 32,582,900 36,875,000 $90,390,700 0 0 0 5,161,400 $5,161,400 $42,650,000 $40,840,800 $37,882,900 $47,438,400 $231,941,800 25 ,~.~,~' 26 UTILITIES CIP SUMMARY 27 UTILITY CIP SUMMARY WASTEWATER SYSTEM SOURCES Transfer from Wastewater Operating/Bonds Estimated Cost $0 IITOTAL SOURCES $0 Prior Appropriation $0 FY2002 $8,400,000 $0 $8,400,000 PROJECTS TYPE Miscellaneous Highway Projects E/R Rate Stabilization Reserve R Ext. for Economic Development E/R Proctor's Creek Equip. Upgrade E Bailey Bridge, Phase III E FCWWTP SCADA System R Sewer Facilities Rehab. R FCWWTP Grit Collector & R Clarifier Drive Replacement Replace Bailey Bridge Pump St. E/R FCWWTP Digestion Equipment R FCWWTP Secondary Collectors R PCWWTP Secondary C!arffier R PCWWTP Primary Clarifier R PCWWTP SCADA System Rep R Upgrades to Pump Stations E/R IIToTAL WASTEWATER E = EXPANSION R = REPLACEMENT ON-GOING ON-GOING ON-GOING 2,100,000 7,7ocbooo 60(:),0O0 1,096,631 200,000 8,000,000 805,000 450,000 250,000 225,O00 600,000 3,000,000 $506,051 16,835,000 678,247 0 0 0 656,631 0 0 80,000 0 25,000 0 0 0 $100,000 3,700,000 100,000 0 300,000 0 250,000 0 1,000,000 725,000 0 225,000 0 0 2,000,000 $8Aoo, ooo $2,000,000 $6,400,000 28 UTILITY CIP SUMMARY WASTEVqATER SYSTEM FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $19,550,000 $5,500,000 $6,650,000 $4,325,000 $3,850,000 TOTAL FY2002-07 $48,275,000 $19,55o, ooo $5,500,000 $6,650,000 $4,325,000 $3,85O,000 $48,275,000 II $100,000 3,700,000 100,000 0 7,400,000 0 250,000 7,O00,O00 0 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 2,100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 600,000 0 0 0 250,000 250,000 250,000 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 450,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 225,000 0 600,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $400,000 22,200,O00 600,000 2,100,000 7,700,000 600,000 1,250,000 200,000 8,000,000 725,000 450,000 225,000 225,000 600,000 3,000,000 $19,550,000 $5,500,000 $6,65~000 $4,325,000 $3,850,000 $48,275,ooo II $12,200,000 $75,000 $2,175,000 $75,000 $75,000 $16,600,000 $7,350,000 $5,425,000 $4,475,000 $4,250,000 $3,775,000 $31,675,000 29 ' UTILITY CIP SUMMARY"-' WATER SYSTEM SOURCES Transfer from Water Operating/Bonds Estima~ted Cost Prior Appropriation $0 $0 $0 $0 FY2002 $10,110,000 ITOTAL SOURCES $10,110,000 PROJECTS TYPE Richmond Capacity E ON-GOING $6,340,500 Richmond Replacement R 500,000 0 Tank Rehabilitation R 2,725,000 1,275,000 Rate Stabilizaton Reserve R ON-GOING 8,955,341 Misc. Highway Projects E/R ON-GOING 445,832 Ext. for Economic Development E/R ON-GOING 1,004,610 Matoaca Pump Station E/R 700,000 0 Matoaca Tank E/R 2,500,000 0 Contingency Fund R ON-GOING 224,000 Route 1 - Phase IV W/L R 3,700,000 300,000 Jahnke Road - Buford to Southam R 400,000 0 Lee Street & De Lavial R 130,000 0 Wood Dale Road R 120,000 0 River Road - Phase III R 950,000 0 Peck Road R 145,000 0 Centralia Road R 230,000 0 Huguenot Road E/R 330,000 0 Gayland Avenue W/L R 160,000 0 Route 1 - 8" Water Line Repl R 3,200,000 0 Dwight Avenue W/L Rehab R 130,000 0 Chester W/L Rehab. R 58!7,000 0 Meadow Ridge W/L Rehab. R 470,000 0 Midlothian W/L Phase II E/R 4,500,000 0 SCWTP Motor Control Center R 250,000 0 Hopkins Road W/L Replacement R 1,75,0,000 0 ARWA Expansion to 24 MGD (19) E/R 35,638,000 0 New Graves Road Pumps R 100,000 0 Colonial Pines Estates W/L R R 1,010,000 0 SCWTP - Pipe Gallery R 100,000 0 Popular Grove W/L Rehab R 350,000 0 Northwich W/L Rehab R 225,000 0 Belleau W/L Rehab R 425,000 0 Buckingham Street W/L R 17'0,000 0 Walton Bluff Parkway R 53,000 0 Bailey Bridge Road R 108,000 0 $0 0 100,000 2,200,000 250,000 100,000 0 0 150,000 0 400,000 130,000 0 950,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500,000 0 0 5,330,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IITOTAL WATER $10,110,000 E = EXPANSION R = REPLACEMENT $5,093,800 $5,016,200 30 UTILITY CIP SUMMARY WATER SYSTEM TOTAL FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2002-2007 $20,980.000 $20,912,000 $12,253,000 $6.083,000 $7,993,000 $78,331,000 $20,980.000 $20,912,000 $12.253;000 $6,083.000 $7,993,000 $78,331,0001] .I.[ $0 $1,000,000 $800.000 $1,700,000 $1.600,000 $5.100,000 0 500000 0 0 0 500,000 0 300,000 400,000 650,000 0 1.450,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 13.200.000 250,000 200,000 100.000 100,000 50,000 950,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 0 0 0 60,000 640,000 700.000 0 0 0 200,000 2.300,000 2.500,000 50,000 50,000 50.000 50,000 50,000 400,000 400,000 3,000,000 0 0 0 3,400.000 0 0 0 0 0 400,000 0 0 0 0 0 130.000 120,000 0 0 0 0 120,000 0 0 0 0 0 950,000 0 145,000 0 0 0 145,000 0 230,000 0 0 0 230,000 0 0 330,000 0 0 330,000 0 0 0 160.000 0 160.000 0 0 0 200,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 0 0 0 130.000 0 130,000 0 587,000 0 0 0 587,000 0 0 470,000 0 0 470,000 4,000,000 0 0 0 0 4,500,000 250,000 0 0 0 0 250,000 0 0 1,750,000 0 0 1,750.000 12,500,000 12,500,000 5,308,000 0 0 35,638.000 0 100,000 0 0 0 100.000 1,010,000 0 0 0 0 1.010.000 100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 0 0 350,000 0 0 350.000 0 0 225,000 0 0 225.000 0 0 0 425,000 0 425.000 0 0 170,000 0 0 170.000 0 0 0 0 53.000 53.000 0 0 0 108,000 0 108.000 $20.980,000 $20,912,000 $12,253,000 $6.083.000 $7,993.000 $78,331.000 lJ $13,605,000 $11,900,000 $5,712,380 $1,930,000 $3,145,000 $41,386,180 $7,375,000 $9,012,000 $6,540,620 $4,153,000 $4,848,000 $36,944,820 31 32 COUNTY CIP PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS 33 JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT Functional Area: Administration of Justice Department: Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Project Description/Justification: Funding in FY 2002 is provided for the first phase in the installation of video arraignment technology in the newly constructed Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court building. This system will enable the courts to arraign inmates from their point of incarceration, and significantly reduce the cost and staff hours required to transport inmates to and from the courtroom. The video conferencing function within this system will provide connectivity to the courtroom as testimony is gathered from remote locations. This has become necessary as the Chesterfield community becomes increasingly transient. In addition, the courts decision-making process will be substantially expedited as a result of the implementation of the system. FY2005, funding is identified to add a sixth courtroom to the system. The original building construction included completion of five courtrooms and an unfinished shell space for the sixth courtroom. As workload increases, it is anticipated that an additional judgeship could be approved within the next four to five years. Facility Plan: N/A. Location/Site Status: 7000 Lucy Corr Boulevard Estimated Project Costs: The estimated project cost is $735,000 Operating Cost Detail: Ongoing system maintenance costs are estimated at $7,500 for the first year and are expected to increase annually by 3 %. .Impact If Not Completed: The Courts will be unable to take advantage of the savings resulting from reduced costs and time associated with transportation incurred during the presentation of evidence. Prior Year,, Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / OperatinK Budffet Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $250,000 $0 $0 $485,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 $250,000 $0 $0 $485,000 $0 0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o 7~500 7,725 7~957 8fl95 10~131 10~435 $7,500 $7,725 $7,957 $8,195 $10,131 $10,435 TOTAL FY02-07 $735,000 0 0 0 $735,000 35 CIRCUIT/GENER~'L DISTRICT COURTHOUS'~Z'EXPANSION Functional Area: Administration of Justice Department: General District and Circuit Courts Project Description~ustification: This expansion project involves approximately 15,000 square feet in additions and 9,200 square feet in renovations to the Circuit and General District Courthouse. The additional space will be used to expand and renovate the Circuit Court Clerk's Office and the General District Court Clerk's Office. Inadequate space within the courthouse facility constitutes a major challenge for the Circuit Court Clerk's Office. As criminal caseloads increase, so does the need for additional criminal support staff, additional space for customer inflow, and additional space for records management. The General District Court Clerk's Office faces similar challenges in terms of providing adequate space for personnel and equipment. Facili _ty Plan: N/A Location/Site Status: Circuit/General District Courthouse, 9500 Court- house F, oad. Estimated Project Costs: The esffmated project cost is $5,369,300 Operating Cost Detail: Beginning FY 2006 utilities and maintenance costs will increase in proportion to the total square footage of the courthouse building. Impact If Not Completed: The Circuit and General District Courts will have inadequate space for the increased administrative workload and storage needs as a result of the imminent increase in demand for judicial services. Financing General Fund Debt Funded Other Sources Cash Proffers TOTAL Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Prior Years Financin~/Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 SC 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $535,000 $734,300 0 0 0 4,100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $535,000 $4,834,300 $o $o $o $o 0 0 0 0 $o $o $o $o $0 0 0 0 $0 $0 51~500 $51,500 $0 0 0 0 $0 $0 53~000 $53,000 TOTAL FY02-07 $1,269,300 4,100,000 0 0 $5,369,300 36 JUVENILE DETENTION HOME Functional Area: Human Services Department: Juvenile Detention Home Project Description/lustification: This project funds renovation of the existing 14,810 square foot, 33-bed facility and the adjoining Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courthouse (pending vacancy), for reuse as detention program space. It also provides funding for construction of a new 31,509 square foot, 90-bed addition, which will bring the total square footage to approximately 71,310. FY2002 funding supplements prior year funding levels and is necessary as a result of the construction bid. While overcrowding remains the most critical issue, the detention home is finding it increasingly difficult to address the number of mentally ill juveniles who are charged with criminal offenses, given its current space limitations. The new facility will alleviate current overcrowding as well as allow for projected growth in population. Data shows that youth are committing more serious crimes at a younger age and the State Department of Juvenile Justice's philosophy is to increase the use of incarceration by the Courts in dealing with the offenders. Facility Plan: NfA Location/Site Status: Renovation and expansion of the existing facility and adjacent Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Facility located at 9700 Krause Road. Estimated Project Costs: The estimated project cost is $15,989,008. Operating Cost Detail: Total operating costs are shown in the chart below. The first full year of operating impact will be FY04. It is anticipated that the State will reimburse approximately half of this amount. FY03 will have operating expenses for approximately one quarter of the fiscal year. FY04 Personnel $2,797,800 Utilities and other 31,800 Total $ 2,829,600 Impact If Not Completed: Data supports that over population will continue and increase sharply over the next few years. This overcrowding could result in potentially dangerous conditions at the detention home. Prior Years Financing General Fund $2,029,008 Debt Funded 5,610,000 State/Local Revenue 5,550,000 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $13,189,008 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing/Operatin~ Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 $1,424,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 1,375,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 $2,800,000 $o $o $o $o TOTAL FY2007 FY02-07 $0 $1,424;600 0 1,375,400 0 0 0 0 $0 $2,800,000 $0 $679,100 $2,797,800 $2,881,700 $2,968,200 $3,057,200 ~ 7,700 31,800 32,800 33,800 34,800 $0 $686,800 $2,829,600 $2,914,500 $3,002,000 $3,092,000 37 AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS Functional Area: Management Services Department: Airport/General Services Project Descriptiontqustification: Construction, rehabilitation, and general improvement projects for the County Airport (see next page for detailed project information). Note that this project funds the County's matching portion of the applicable federal and state grants. Facili _ty Plan: FAA approved Airport Master Plan and associated Airport Layout Plan. Location/Site Status: Chesterfield County Airport, 7511 Airfield Drive. Estimated Project Costs: Total County grant match project cost estimate is $1,241,600. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: Local matching funds for federal and state AIP grants must be in place prior to making application for grant agreements. Projects identified would be ineligible without prior appropriation of local matching funds. Prior Years* Financing General Fund $1,365,750 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $1,376,500 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $566,800 $40,000 $37,200 $265,200 $315,000 $17,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,133,200 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0 $6,700,000 $40,000 $37,200 $265,200 $315,00~ $17,40~ $o $o $o $o $o $o ~ ~ ~ ~ o o $o $o $o $o $~ $~ * Including funds allocated from FY93 through FY2001 for grant matches. TOTAL FY02-07 $1,241,600 0 6,133,200 0 $7,374,800 39 SUMMAR i OF AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS Year Project FY02 Rehabilitation Runway (Construction) Rehabilitation Taxiway (Construction) T-Hangar Taxiway Connector (Construction) T-Hangar Taxiway Extension (Construction) Terminal Expansion/Renovation Widen Taxiway Fillets (Construction) FY02 ANNUAL TOTAL Total Federal State Local $1,900,ffD0 $1,710,000 $152,000 $38,000 660,00O 594,000 52,800 13,200 1,900,000 1,710,000 152,000 38,000 375,000 0 300,000 75,000 1,535,000 0 1,139,000 396,000 330,00O 297,000 26,400 6,600 $6,700,000 $4,311,000 $1,822,200 $566,800 FY03 Airport Service Road (Construction) FY03 ANNUAL TOTAL $200,000 $0 $200,000 $0 $160~000 $160,000 $40t000 $40,000 New Aircraft Apron (Construction) FY04 ANNUAL TOTAL $1,860,00~0 $1,674,000 $148,800 $37,200 $1,860,000 $1,674,000 $148,800 $37,200 FY05 Update Airport Master Plan New Fuel Farm (Design & Site Prep.) FY05 ANNUAL TOTAL $130,000 $117,000 325,0O0 0 $10,400 62,400 $2,600 262t600 $455,13(10 $117,000 $72,800 $265,200 FY06 Install New Fuel Farm (Tanks & Fuel System) Removal of Old Fuel Farm System Automobile Parking Lot (100 Spaces) FY06 ANNUAL TOTAL $25o, ooo $o $o $250,000 25,000 0 20,000 5,000 300,000 0 240,000 60,000 $575,000 $0 $260,000 $315,000 FY07 North Apron Reconstruction FY07 ANNUAL TOTAL Planning Cycle Total $870,000 $783,000 $69,600 $17,400 $870,000 $783,000 $69,600 $17,400 $10,660,000 $6,885,000 $2,533,400 $1,241,600 41 HOLLY'B"ERRY DRIVE DRAI[NAGE P~OJECT Functional Area: Community Development Department: Environmental Engineering Project Description/~ustification: This project is envisioned to be a consolidation of storm water drainage utilizing approximately 1600 feet of storm sewer and associated drop inlets. Over the past several years flooding has occurred during heavy rainfall events endangering homes. Facility Plan: N/A Location/Site Status: Located in the Bermuda District in the Hollyberry subdivision, this project is located along Hollyberry Drive from Green Finch Road to the dead-end. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $150,000. Operating Cost Detail: No :impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: Drainage conditions in this area will continue to deteriorate. Financing General Fund Debt Funded Other Sources Cash Proffers TOTAL Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Prior Years Financing / Operatin~ BudKet Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $0 0 0 $o $0 $0 $0 $150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $0 0 0 0 $o $0 0 0 0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o o 0 o o o o $o $o $o $o $o $o TOTAL FY02-07 $150,000 0 0 0 $150,000 42 WALNUT DRIVE DRAINAGE PROJECT Functional Area: Community Development Department: Environmental Engineering Project Descriptionf[ustification: This project will replace a rip-rap channel that was installed to retard erosion with a storm sewer. This rip-rap channel is approximately 450' in length and is extremely close to two homes. The storm sewer will replace the rip-rap and consists of approximately 400 feet of pipe and several drop inlets. The channel has been a continuous maintenance problem for the County. Facili _ty Plan: N/A Estimated Project Costs: Total cost for this phase of the project is estimated at $50,000. Operating Cost DetaiI: No impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: Drainage conditions in unchanged. this area will remain Location/Site Status: Located in the Bermuda District on Walnut Drive between two lots in Rivermont Ridge and to the rear of lots in Heather Hill at Rivermont Ridge. Prior Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL F $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 TOTAL FY2007 FY02-07 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $o $o $o $50,000 $o $o $50,000 $o $o $0 $o $o $o o o __o _o o o $o $o $o $o $o $~ 43 WREN~IEST ROAD DRAINAGE PROJECT Functional Area: Community Development Department: Environmental Engineering Project Description/Justification: Over the last 18 years, severe erosion has taken place in this particular area. Logistics have prevented ordinary maintenance from stabilizing the area. Therefore, the project is envisioned to be a combination of possibly paved ditch, pipe, and/or grouted rip-rap. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $115,000. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Facility Plan: N/A Impact If Not Completed: DraiX~age conditions in the deteriorate. area will continue to Location/Site Status: Located in the Midlothian Magisterial District between homes on Wrens Nest Road and Old Indian Road from its intersection with Powhite Creek, upstream approximately 1,800 feet. Prior Years Financing General Fund $15,000 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $15,000 Operating Expenses Personne! Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 TOTAL FY2007 FY02-07 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $o $o $o $o $o $o 0 0 0 0 o 0 $o $o $o $o $o $o 44 ROBINDALE ROAD DRAINAGE PROJECT Functional Area: Community Development Department: Environmental Engineering Project Description/lustification: This project will be a combination of storm system and paved ditch. This area has an existing drainage system in a 30-plus year old subdivision which is 2.5 feet too high causing water to stand on several lots. The pipe continually retains silt because of the flatness. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $213,350. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Facili _ty Plan: N/A Location/Site Status: Located in the Midlothian District in the Bon Air Terrace subdivision and will begin on Robindale Road, east under Fernbrook, and then south to Robious Road. Impact If Not Completed: Drainage conditions in this area will continue to deteriorate. Prior Years Financing General Fund $13,350 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers _0 TOTAL $13,350 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $~ $~ $o $o $o $o $o $o o o o o o o $o $o $o $o $9 Si TOTAL FY02-07 $200,000 0 0 0 $200,000 45 OAKLAND AVENUE DRAINAGE PROJECT Functional Area: Community Development Department: Environmental Engineering Project Description/}ustification: This project is located in an older developed area of Ettrick and would consist of combinations of storm sewer, paved ditch, and possibly rip-rap channels. The length of this project is estimated at approximately 4,000 feet. Facility Plan: N/A Location/Site Status: Located in the Matoaca Magisterial District in the older area of Ettrick beginning in the vicinity of Oakland and Roosevelt Avenues and Plumtree Street, and continuing towards Piedmont Avenue into the City of Colonial Heights. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $100,000. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: Drainage conditions in unchanged. the area will remain Prior Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 $~ $100,00~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o o o o o o _o $~ $~ $o $o $o $o TOTAL FY02-07 $100,000 0 0 0 $100,000 46 SCOTTINGHAM DRAINAGE PROJECT Functional Area: Community Development Department: Environmental Engineering Project Description/Justification: This project is located in the Scottingham subdivision, between Redbridge Road and Rt. 60. The project will consist of a 950 foot concrete paved ditch 'to alleviate drainage flow into yards and against home foundations. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $50,000. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Facili _ty Plan: N/A Location/Site Status: Located in the Clover Hill District, this project will run from Milbrae Road with the outfall located at the ditch line at Redbridge Road. Impact If Not Completed: Drainage conditions in unchanged. the area will remain Prior Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 TOTAL FY02-07 $o $o $50,000 $0 $0 $o $50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $0 47 LYNP~J'RT COURT DRAINAGE PROJECT Functional Area: Community Development Department: Environmental Engineering Project Description/Justification: This project is located in the William Gwyn Estates and will consist of removal of seventy feet of existing paved ditch, installation of three drop inlets, and an estimated three hundred feet of concrete pipe. Additionally, trees will need to be removed, ground cover reestablished, and three easements obtained. This project will minimize drainage across affected properties and eliminate water flow against the foundation of a home. Facility Plan: Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $50,000. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: Drainage conditions in unchanged. the area will N/A remain Location/Site Status: Located in the Clover Hill District, this project will run along Lynport Court. The original drainage installed in this area is twenty years old. Prior Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 TOTAL FY02-07 $o $o $50,000 $o $o $o $50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o _o o o o o o 50 $0 $50,o00 50 $0 50 550,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 o o o o _o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 48 RIVER OAKS DRAINAGE PROJECT Functional Area: Community Development Department: Environmental Engineering Project Description/Justification: This project is located between James River West and River Oaks subdivision and will consist of approximately 1,100 feet of channel constructed with rip-rap and possible installation of strategically located basins. This project will stabilize the erosion being experienced and eliminate severe siltation problems. Facility Plan: N/A Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $100,000. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: Drainage conditions in the deteriorate. area will continue to Location/Site Status: Located in the Midlothian District, this project will begin at Robious Road and continue north approximately 1,100 feet. The original drainage installed in this area is over thirty years old. Prior Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing/Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 TOTAL FY2007 FY02-07 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 49 BEECHWOOD DRAINAGE PROJECT Functional Area: Community Development Department: Environmental Engineering Project DescriPtion/Justification: The current drainage system in the Beechwood subdivision is an extensive earthen ditch. The flat grade of this ditch results in flooding of several back yards and garages, excessive water ponding, and constant maintenance. A paved outfall ditch, storm sewer system, or a combination of the two is needed to more adequately carry storm water runoff. Facility Plan: N/A Location/Site Status: Located in the Dale Magisterial District within the Beechwood subdivision. Estimated Project Costs: Total project is estimated at $100,000. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: With the current Chippenham widening construction project under way, if this project is not completed the maintenance costs will continue to recur and drainage conditions will continue to deteriorate. Financing General Fund Debt Funded Other Sources Cash Proffers TOTAL Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Prior Years Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 _0 0 0 0 0 $o $o $o $o $o $o TOTAL FY02-07 $100,000 0 0 0 $100,000 50 FREDERICK FARMS DRAINAGE PROJECT Functional Area: Community Development Department: Environmental Engineering Project Descriptiont~ustification: Due to increased runoff over the last several years, flooding has occurred during heavy rainfall events endangering homes and eroding downstream areas. This project will consist of either the construction of a detention facility upstream to slow runoff or an increase to the downstream capacity of the existing out fall channel. Facility Plan: N/A Location/Site Status: This project is located north of Leiden Lane in the Matoaca Magisterial District and will potentially end at the southern property corner of the Tomahawk Ruritan Club. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $100,000. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: As future commercial and residential development occurs, drainage conditions will continue to deteriorate and flooding conditions will escalate. Financing / Operating Budget Impact Financing General Fund Debt Funded Other Sources Cash Proffers TOTAL Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Prior Years $0 0 0 $0 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $o $o $o $o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $o $o $o $o $100,000 0 0 0 $100,000 $0 0 0 0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o 0 o o 0 0 o $o $o $o $o $o $o TOTAL FY02-07 $100,000 0 0 0 $100,000 51 COUN~DE DRAINAGE IMPROV'E'MENTS Functional Area: Community Development Department: Environmental Engineering Project Description/Justification: This project will include drainage improvements throughout the County. Over the next several years, staff will be monitoring existing drainage conditions and making recommendations to prioritize projects. Facility Plan: N/A. Location/Site Status: This project will positively impact all magisterial districts in the County. Estimated Project Costs: The project cost is estimated at $200,000. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: Drainage conditions may continue to deteriorate. Prior Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $o $o $o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $o $o $o TOTAL FY02-07 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $o $o $o $o $o $o o o o o o o $o $o $o $o $o $o 52 COUNTY WIDE STREAM RESTORATION Functional Area: Community Development Department: Environmental Engineering Project Description/~ustification: The County is responsible for stream monitoring and compliance with the federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements and implementation of watershed management strategies. Over the next several years, the Water Quality staff will be monitoring and categorizing streams within the County to prioritize stream restoration projects. Facili _ty Plan: Upper Swift Creek Watershed Plan. Estimated Project Costs: The project cost is estimated at $900,000 over the period FY2002-FY2007. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: Stream run off and water quality will continue to deteriorate. Location/Site Status: This project will positively impact all magisterial districts in the County. Prior Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0: Cash Proffers (3 TOTAL $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 TOTAL FY02-07 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $900,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $900,000 $o $o $o $o $o $o o o _o o o o $o $o $o $o $o $o 53 O cD cD c~ 54 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BUILDING Functional Area: Management Services Department: General Services Project Description/Justification: This project entails design and construction of a new approximately 80,000-100,000 square foot building to relocate Community Development depa~h~tents, and possibly other customer service intensive departments from existing buildings. This project will relieve space shortages and improve customer service by co-locating Community Development and other customer oriented departments. Facility Plan: County Government Center Master Plan, adopted March, 1989. Location/Site Status: Adjacent to the Utilities Building in the government center complex. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $21,802,300. Operating Cost Detail: Assumes completion in Winter, 2005 (FY05). Community Development: Personnel HVAC Mechanic (Grade 36) Maintenance Worker (Grade 32) 3 Custodians (Grade 32) Total Personnel Utilities and Other Total Operating $60,325 83,006 $143,331 Impact If Not Completed: Existing space shortages become more severe. around the County will Prior Years Financing General Fund $1,152,300 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $1,152,300 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 TOTAL FY2~7 FY02~7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4,000,000 14,650,000 2,000,000 0 0 0 20,650,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $4,000,000 $14,650,000 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $20,650,000 $0 $0 $0 $60,325 $124,270 ~ ~ ~ 83,006 170,993 $0 $0 $0 $143,331 $295,263 $127,998 176,123 $304,121 55 ~OUNTY COMPLEX ROADS-:' Functional Area: Management Services Department: General Services Project Description/Justification: This project funds the design and construction of Government Center Parkway from Lori Lane, south to Route 10, the associated crossing of West Krause Road, and the continuation of Lori Lane to the Eanes-Pittman Building to service the future development within the government center. Funding is also provided for additional parking within the government center. FY2002 funding is for the northern portion of Government Center Parkway and the associated crossing of West Krause Road. Funding planned for FY2004 would be for the balance of the project. Facility Plan: County Government Center Master Plan, adopted March, 1989. Location/Site Status: County Government Complex. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $3,000,000. Operating Cost Detail: No estimated impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: Traffic congestion and parking will continue to be a major problem for both staff and citizens. Financin~ / OperatinK Bridget Impact Financing General Fund Debt Funded Other Sources Cash Proffers TOTAL Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Prior Years $0 0 0 $0 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $0 $0 $675,800 $0 $0 $0 1,225,000 0 1,099,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $1,225,000 $0 $1,775,000 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o TOTAL FY02-07 $675,800 2,324,200 0 0 $3,000,000 56 POST CLOSURE MAINTENANCE AT LANDFILLS Functional Area: Management Services Department: General Services/Solid Waste Management Project Description/]ustification: Post closure maintenance funds are intended to provide for on going maintenance needs at the four closed County landfills. Without this funding, sites may not be in compliance with existing regulations and may ultimately require much more costly repairs. Estimated Project Costs: The estimated cost of the project is $1,650,000. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Facili _ty Plan: N/A Location/Site Status: County owned landfills at Chester, Bon Air, Fort Darling, and Northern Area Sites. Impact If Not Completed: Possible environmental impact as continues to decompose, as well regulatory violations. the waste as potential Prior Years Financing General Fund $614,872 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $614,872 Operating Expenses PersOnnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $250,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $300,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $250,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $300,000 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o TOTAL FY02~7 $1,650,000 0 0 0 $1,650,000 57 NON-~BLIC SAFETY RADIO PUR~'~-IASE Functional Area: Management Services Department: General Services/Administration Project Description~ustification: This project entails the purchase of new radios for non-public safety departments to be used with the new 800 MHz communication system. The current radios will be obsolete and will necessitate the replacement of all radios in the County. Evaluations are presently underway to determine the most suitable route for replacing these radios. Facility Plan: N/A Location/Site Status: N/A Estimated Project Costs: The estimated project cost is $500,000. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: Non-public safety departments will not be able to communicate effectively. Because of FCC regulatory changes and system obsolescence, the County will need to purchase radios. Financin~ / Operating Budget Impact Financing General Fund Debt Funded Other Sources Cash Proffers TOTAL Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Prior Years $0 0 0 $0 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $200,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $200,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o 0 0 0 0 0 0 $o $o $o $o $o $o TOTAL FY02-07 $500,000 0 0 0 $500,000 58 NORTHERN AREA TRANSFER STATION Functional Area: Management Services Department: General Services/Solid Waste Management Project Description/[ustification: In order to keep pace with the residential and commercial growth in this area of the County, it is necessary to upgrade the transfer station to increase capacity and provide better ingress and egress for this facility. This project will involve construction of major site improvements which include construction of turn lanes on Warbro Road, improved traffic patterns inside the site, increased through-put at the disposal area, enhancement of the recycling area, and construction of a new office facility. Facili _ty Plan: Northern Area Transfer Station Master Plan. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $1,872,200. Ol~eratinff Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: As the County population grows, ingress and egress from this site will continue to become more congested and administrative office space will continue to be a problem. Location/Site Status: Northern Area Transfer Station, 3200 Warbro Road. Prior Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing ! Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 $0 $300,000 $1,572,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $300,000 $1,572,200 $0 0 0 0 $0 TOTAL FY2007 FY02-07 $0 $0 $1,872,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $1,872,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 59 ELEVATOR MODERNIZATION Functional Area: Management Services Department: General Services/Buildings and Grounds Project Description/Justification: This project entails complete modernization of three existing administration building elevators and consists of replacing existing relay logic controls and motor generator sets with microprocessor controls with a digital SCR drive. Replacement should also include all new wiring from the main line disconnect throughout the elevator system. The existing door operator will be replaced with a new operator capable of performing a fast, smooth door operation. Elevators will meet all new ADA and Fire Code requirements. Facility_ Plan: N/A Location/Site Status: Main Administration Building Estimated Project Costs: The estimated project cost is $345,000. Operating Cost Detail: The annual maintenance costs will be $5,000. Impact If Not Completed: Down time will increase, service will decrease. Maintenance costs will increase and eventually elevators will become unserviceable due to lack of spare parts and aging technology. Financinff / Ol~erating Budget Impact Financing General Fund Debt Funded Other Sources Cash Proffers TOTAL Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL PriorI Years $0 0 0 $0 FY2002 FY2003 FY2£~4 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $0 $345,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $345,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ~ 9 ~00 5,000 5,000 5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 TOTAL FY02~7 $345,000 0 0 0 $345,000 60 FIVE STORY ADMINISTRTION BUILDING RENOVATION Functional Area: Management Services Department: General Services Project Description/Justification: This project will involve renovation of the second, third, fourth, and fifth floors of the five-story Administration Building. Work will include carpet replacement, ADA (Americans Disabilities Act) compliance, HVAC (heating/ventilation/ air- conditioning) upgrades, systems furniture relocations/replacements, roof repairs, painting, and other issues which are necessary to accommodate the moves by various departments. This project is necessary to accommodate the re-use of space being vacated by Community Development departments when they move to the new Community Development building. This is the ideal time to renovate this building which is over 20 years old. Facility Plan: Space Allocation Plan, Community Development building programming study, and the County Master Plan. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $2,770,000. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: Inadequate office facilities will continue to prohibit this site and the employees to be as efficient as they could be. Location/Site Status: 9901 Lori Road, Chesterfield, Virginia. Prior Years Financing General Fund $1 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $0 $216,200 $0 $2,553,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $216,200 $0 $2,553,800 $0 0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o 0 0 0 0 0 0 $o $o $o $o $o $o TOTAL FY02-07 $2,770,000 0 0 0 $2,770,000 61 BLiG-Fi~T ERADICATION/DEMOLITION Functional Area: Community Development Department: Building Inspections Project Description/Justification: This project provides funding for the demolition of dilapidated buildings throughout the County. The County may demolish buildings that it has declared unsafe and the owners have failed to make safe in accordance with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Upon completion of demolition, the owner will be billed, and if they fail to pay the cost of demolition then the County will place a lien on the property. Over the next several years, staff will be monitoring potentially dangerous structures and prioritizing projects for demolition based upon need and the availability of funds. Facili _ty Plan: N/A. Location/Site Status: This project will positively impact all magisterial districts in the County. Estimated Project Costs: The project cost is estimated at $425,000. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: Unsafe buildings will continue to deteriorate and pose a public safety hazard. Prior Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating BudKet Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 TOTAL FY02~7 $50,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $425,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $50,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $425,000 $o $o $o $o $o $o 0 0 0 0 0 ~ $o $o $o $o $o $o -j 62 MISCELLANEOUS FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS Functional Area: Management Services Department: General Services/Buildings and Grounds Project Description/~ustification: This project will involve replacement of aging mechanical systems, carpet, roofs, and other repairs as needed to the County's aging facilities. Individual projects will be identified each year based on the most immediate priorities to be funded in that respective fiscal year. Facili _ty Plan: N/A Location/Site Status: Facihties throughout the County Estimated Project Costs: The estimated annual project cost in FY2002 through FY2006 is $200,000 and $300,000 in FY2007. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: Facilities and mechanical systems will continue to age and deteriorate and need to be addressed to avoid future costly repairs of antiquated systems. Prior Year~. General Fund $200,000 Debt Funded Other Sources Cash Proffers (3 TOTAL $200,000 Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $300,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $300,000 $o $o $o $o $o $o 0 _0 0 0 0 0 $o $o $o $o $o $o TOTAL FY02-07 $1,300,000 0 0 0 $1,300,000 63 WAGNER BUILDING EXPANSION Functional Area: Health and Social Services Department: Social Services Project Description/~ustification: This project provides funding for an additional 45,000 square feet for the expansion of the Wagner Building, which houses the Departments of Health and Social Services. Funds identified for FY2004 will be used for a programming study that will define the needs of the expanding departments, explore alternatives, and recommend a solution for the space needs. Some environmental assessment and design work will also take place in FY2004. Funding for FY2006 will allow for site improvements, communications equipment and furnishings, and construction. This project will alleviate a shortage of workspace for staff, which has grown from 177 in 1987 to 276 as of July 2000. Customers will benefit from the consolidation of services into one location. Facility Plan: Government Center Master Plan. Location/Site Status: 9501 Lucy Corr Drive, Chesterfield Government Complex. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $12,300,000. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget within the planning period. Impact If Not Completed: There will be a continual need to lease costly additional space at offsite locations, additional telecommunication fees, connectivity charges and furnishings/equipment purchases. Prior Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing/Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 $0 $0 $700,000 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $700,000 $0 FY2006 TOTAL FY2007 FY02-07 $2,100,000 $0 $2,800,000 9,500,000 0 9,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 $11,600,000 $0 $12,300,000 $o $o $o $o $o $o 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 65 ° ° ° ° 66 MEADOWDALE LIBRARY EXPANSION Functional Area: Human Services Department: Libraries Project Description/Justification: The provided funding allows for the completion of the design work and the construction of an additional 4,600 square feet of library space and expansion of the parking lot at Meadowdale Library. The goal is to expand the existing general collection area, the study area, and the meeting room as well as increase the number of available parking spaces. The preliminary design phase, funded in prior years, will identify the issues associated with the expansion and develop the design options to meet this goal. Facili _ty Plan: The Chesterfield County Public Facilities Plan, 1995. Location/Site Status: 4301 Meadowdale Boulevard, within the existing facility, Dale Magisterial District. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $4,221,800. Operating Cost Detail: Estimated operating costs beginning in FY2007: Personnel Librarian (Grade 37) 2 Library Associates (Grade 35) PT Library Assistant & Page Total Personnel $42,300 66,000 32,800 $141,100 Operating Books & Electronic Materials Other Operating Expenses Total Operating $58,500 33,300 $91,800 Total $232,900 Impact If Not Completed: The Meadowdale Library will not be able to meet the increasing demand for Library services in this area. Prior Years Financing General Fund $125,000 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $125,000 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $o $o $o $o $o 0 0 275,000 1,828,000 1,993,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $275,000 $1,828,000 $1,993,800 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $0 0 0 0 $0 $141,100 91,800 $232,9OO TOTAL FY02-07 $0 4,O96,800 0 0 $4,096,800 67 ~'I'~EAMS-GORDON LIBRARY'~'' Functional Area: Human Services Department: Libraries Project Description/Justification: The provided funding allows for the land acquisition, design and construction of a new 20,000 square foot library, as well as books for 60% of capacity. This branch will be built on a site with potential for expansion, and is expected to ease the demand for additional library space at the Midlothian and Bon Air Libraries. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $10,313,600. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating FY2007. budget until after Facility Plan: The Chesterfield County Public Facilities Plan, 1995. Location/Site Status: In either Clover Hill or Matoaca Magisterial District. Impact If Not Completed: Existing facilities will not be able to meet the increasing demand for Library services in this area. Prior Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financinff / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 $o $o $o $o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $o $o $o $o TOTAL FY2007 FY02-07 $0 $0 $0 0 10,313,600 10,313,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $10,313,600 $10,313,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 68 BON AIR & ENON LIBRARIES IMPROVEMENTS Functional Area: Human Services Department: Libraries Project Description/]ustification: This project provides for carpet replacement and rehabilitation or renewal of interior finishes and furnishings for the Bon Air and Enon Libraries. Funds are included for needs assessment, plan development, moving and storage while the work is performed, and labor and materials. The Bon Air branch is the most heavily used library in the County, and both branches, about 14 years old by 2007, will require this periodic maintenance and rejuvenation. Facility Plan: N/A Location/Site Status: Bon Air: 9103 Rattlesnake Road, Midlothian Magisterial District. Enon: 1801 Enon Church Road, Bermuda Magisterial District. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $573,600. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: Both facilities will continue to deteriorate. Prior Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $o $o $o $o $o $573,600 0 0 0 $573,600 $o $o $o $o $o $o ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0 $o $o $o $o $o $~ TOTAL FY02-07 $573,600 0 0 0 $573,600 69 ~"~VESTERN AREA I, IBRARY Functional Area: Human Services Department: Libraries Project Description/[ustification: The provided funding allows for site evaluations and land acquisition for a new library branch in the southwestern area of the County. This branch will be built on a site with potential for expansion, and may help ease the demand for additional library space at other branches. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $230,000. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Facili _ty Plan: The Chesterfield County Public Facilities Plan, 1995. Location/Site Status: Southwestern area of the County, most likely in the Matoaca Magisterial District. Impact If Not Completed: Existing facilities will not be able to meet the increasing demand for Library services in this area. Prior Years Financing General Fund SC Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $0 $0 $230,000 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $230,000 $0 $0 0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 0 o o o o o $o $o 5o $o $o 5o TOTAL FY02-07 $230,000 0 0 0 $230,000 70 CENTRAL LIBRARY IMPROVEMENTS Functional Area: Human Services Department: Libraries Project Description/lustification: The provided funding allows for a planning study to develop a master plan for improvements at the Central Library, and some preliminary design work. This branch was last expanded in the Fall of 1992, with 6,000 square feet of space left unfinished. In future years, expected renovations include finishing of the shell space, interior improvements such as carpeting, wall coverings, new furnishings and paint, and possible expansion of the parking facilities. Location/Site Status: 9501 Lori Road, in the Dale Magisterial District. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $250,000. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Facility Plan: The Chesterfield County Public Facilities Plan, 1995. Impact If Not Completed: The existing facility will continue to deteriorate if improvements are not made. Prior Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0~ Cash Proffers 01 TOTAL $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 $0 0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 0 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o o o o _q _o o $o $o $o $o $o $o TOTAL FY02-07 $250,000 0 0 0 $250,000 71 LIBRARY FACILITIES PLANNING, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION Functional Area: Human Services Department: Library Project Description/~ustification: This project allows for specific site and facility planning, design, construction and land acquisition for future library facilities made necessary by development growth in the County. Cash proffer collections make up the funding source for these efforts. As revenues are accumulated over time, appropriations will be made for specific facility needs. Facili _ty Plan: Chesterfield County Public Facihties Plan. Location/Site Status: Countywide. Estimated Project Costs: Site and facility planning, design, construction and land acquisition: $520,700. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Proffers Collected* Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 52,401 TOTAL $52,401 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing ! Operating Budget Impact TOTAL FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY02-07** $o $o $o $o $o $o $o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 520,700 520,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $520,700 $520,700 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o * Represents funds collected as of June 30, 2000, but not appropriated. ** Represents projections for the period FY2002-2007. Funds may be spent once collected and appropriated. 72 Z < < OI OI OI OI OI ?3 PARK IMPROVEMENTS Functional Area: Human Services Department: Parks and Recreation Project Description/Justification: This project includes construction and renovation projects recommended for park and school sites throughout the County. These projects are necessary to maintain facilities in a safe and efficient manner for public use and are detailed on the following page. Facility Plan: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted April, 1994, and Park Facility Plan. Location/Site Status: Park and school sites throughout the County. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost between FY2002 and FY2007 is estimated at $5,286,300. Operating Cost Detail: Operating costs are determined on a per project basis, and are summarized in a cumulative manner below and in the chart on the following page by project. Impact If Not Completed: May result in hazardous areas in park systems around the County due to aged and worn out facilities. Prior Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers _0 TOTAL $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing/Operating BudKet Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 0 1,310,300 1,176,000 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ $300,000 $1,310,300 $1,176,000 $2,000,000 $o $o $o $o ~ 26,000 45~25.0 56,250 $0 $26,000 $45,250 $56,250 $0 0 0 0 $0 $0 103,250 $103,250 $0 500,000 0 0 $500,000 $0 106,348 $106,348 TOTAL FY02-07 $300,000 4,986,30O 0 0 $5,286,300 74 Sports Lighting Repl/Upgrades Rockwood #6 Lights Goyne Football Lights Matoaca Large Lights Ettrick Baseball Lights SUMMARY OF PARK IMPROVEMENTS Construction Costs $300,000 Annual Operating Costs N/A SUB-TOTAL FY2002 New Amenities Building Additions: Rockwood Shop Rockwood Nature Center Point of Rocks Shop Administration Expansion Renovations/Replacement Drainage/Landscape Manchester High School Fence Replacement Various sites Sports Lighting Repl/Upgrades Various Sites Carver Middle School $300,000 1,310,300 $4,000 8,000 4,000 8,000 N/A N/A N/A 2,000 SUB-TOTAL FY2003 New Amenities Picnic Shelters Rockwood Park Dutch Gap Irrigation and Turf Improvements Point of Rocks Park Skate Type Facilities Various Sites Natural Areas Cogbill Road Wilderness Area Dutch Gap Trails/Signage Falling Creek Boardwalk Renovations/Replacements Playgrounds-various sites Buildings Manchester Middle School Restroom/Concession Resurfacing Parking Lots Bird Complex Rebuild Various Tennis Courts Various Boardwalk Replacements Sportslighting Replacement/Upgrades - Various sites SUB-TOTAL FY2004 $1,31~300 $475,000 701,000 $1,176,000 $26,oooI 1,250 3,000 4,000 6,000 3,000 2,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A $1%250[ 75 SUMMARY O~ PARK IMPROVEMENTS CONTINUED Annual Construction Operating Costs Costs New Amenities Field House Renovations Manchester MS Field House Matoaca HS Field House Playgrounds Various Sites Renovations/Replacement Fencing Lighting/Re-lamping Roads and Parking Lots Playgrounds Various Sites Buildings/Structures Picnic Shelter roof replacement Restroom/concession Trails/Paths Various Sites Other Site Amenities Soccer Goals Football Goals Water Fountains Bleachers SUB-TOTAL FY2005 Park Improvements $300,000 1,495,000 3,000 3,000 5,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 205,000 N/A N/A $2,0O0,000 $11,000] 500,000 N/A ISUB-TOTAL FY2007 IlFY2002 - FY2007 GRAND TOTAL $500,000 $5,286,300 $oI $56,2501] 76 SCHOOL SITE IMPROVEMENTS Functional Area: Human Services Department: Parks & Recreation Project Description/Justification: Miscellaneous improvements to school athletic facilities to correct infrastructure and upgrade substandard field components. Facility Plan: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted April, 1994. Location/Site Status: Various school sites throughout the County. Estimated Proiect Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $750,000. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: Continued costly maintenance and substandard facilities. Facilities will not meet requirements of athletic associations. Prior Years Financing General Fund SC Debt Funded 384,400 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers _0 TOTAL $384,400 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing/Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $o $o $o $o $o 0 0 250,000 250,000 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $0 0 0 0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o o _o o o o o $o $o $o $o $o $o TOTAL FY02-07 $0 750,000 0 0 $750,000 77 IRV'~Iq J. HORNER PARK, PHASE I & II Functional Area: Human Services Department: Parks & Recreation Project Description/lustification: This project will fund two phases of park construction. The first phase will include the construction of a 25 acre lake, boating access, picnic areas, a trail system, and park office maintenance compound. The second phase will include the construction of expanded lake amenities, a bridge to the Clover Hill Athletic Complex, expanded picnic areas, court games, open play fields, and restrooms with associated utility systems. Facili _ty Plan: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted April, 1994 and the Horner Park Master Plan, adopted December, 1999. Location/Site Status: Northwest quadrant of the County off of Genito and Mount Hermon Roads. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $5,320,850. Operating Cost Detail: Estimated operating costs beginning in FY2003: Park Dist. Superintendent (Gr 38) $42,863 Prin. Maintenance Worker (Gr 33) 28,684 Total Personnel $71,546 Utilities, maintenance, and equipment 56,500 Total $128,046 The cost escalates in FY2004 due to the addition of three new positions for the operation of a park office maintenance compound from this facility. Impact If Not Completed: A complete complement of recreational and athletic facilities will not be available in the northwest quadrant of the County. Financing / Operating Budget Impact Financing General Fund Debt Funded Grant Funding Cash Proffers TOTAL Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Prior Years $511,850 2,249,000 350,000 60,000 $3,170,850 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $180,000 $0 $1,620,000 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 350,000 0 0 0 0 $180,000 $0 $1,970,000 $0 $0 0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $71,546 $142,501 $146,700 $151,100 $155,500 ~ 56,500 107,100 110,300 113,500 116,900 $0 $128,046 $249,601 $257,000 $264,600 $272,400 TOTAL FY02-07 $1,800,000 0 350,000 0 $2,150,000 78 ROBIOUS LANDING Functional Area: Human Services Department: Parks and Recreation Project Description/~ustification: This project involves the design and construction of a restroom facility and associated site work and utilities, and other amenities, which may include additional parking, picnic areas, open space, fishing stations, and trails. Robious Landing Park is currently only served by portable toilets. Facility Plan: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted April, 1994. Location/Site Status: Robious Landing Park, 3800 Midlothian Magisterial District. James River Road, Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $500,000. Operating Cost Detail: Estimated operating costs beginning in FY02: Personnel PT Maintenance Worker $ 2,500 Utilities and maintenance 4,100 Total $6,600 Impact If Not Completed: Substandard toilet facilities will remain at this park and expanded recreational offerings would not be available in the northern end of the County. Financing/Operating Budget Impact Prior Years Financing General Fund $117,000 Debt Funded 0 Grant Funding 25,000 Cash Proffers 25,000 TOTAL $167,000 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $200,000 $o $o $o $o 200,000 0 o $200,000 10o,oo0 o o $100,ooo $2,500 $2,600 $2,700 $2,800 $2,900 $3,000 4,10o 4,200 4,500 4,600 4,700 4,800 $6,600 $6,800 $7,200 $7,400 $7,600 $7,800 TOTAL FY02-O7 $200,000 300,000 0 0 $500,0oo 79 WINTERPOCK AREA PARK Functional Area: Human Services Department: Parks and Recreation Project Description/lustification: This project includes funding for a new regional park in the Winterpock area as recommended in the Public Facilities Plan. Phase I development of this park will include athletic facilities, picnic areas, and restrooms. Phase II development will include expansion of the park to include ballfields, playground, and court games. Staff will be pursuing VDOT Recreational Access Grant funds to assist with development of this project. The funding plan assumes a site would be dedicated to the County. If this does not materialize, the County would need to reprioritize the use of these funds. Facility_ Plan: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted April, 1994. Location/Site Status: Winterpock Area, Matoaca Magisterial District. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $1,350,00. Operating Cost Detail: Estimated operating costs beginning in FY2005 (for 3 months): Personnel Park District Supervisor $11,600 Maintenance, supplies & capital 14,300 Total $25,900 Impact If Not Completed: Available park facilities will be inadequate to meet the projected demand in this area of the County. Financing General Fund Debt Funded Grant Funding Cash Proffers TOTAL Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Prior Years Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $0 0 0~ $o $o $o $o $o 0 0 500,000 0 0 0 0 350,000 0 0 ~ ~ $0 $0 $500,000 $350,000 $0 $0 $0 $11,600 0 0 0 14,300 $0 $0 $0 $25,900 $0 0 0 0 $0 $47,700 '12,700 $60,4OO $0 500,000 0 0 $500,000 $49,100 13,100 $62,200 TOTAL FY02-07 $0 1,000,000 350,000 0 $1,350,000 80 IRON BRIDGE PARK, PHASE IV-A Functional Area: Human Services Department: Parks and Recreation Project Description~ustification: Phase IV-A will complete the expansion of the existing facilities by constructing one new soccer field, additional parking areas, and a picnic shelter. Improvements will be made on the turf and irrigation of four fields, on the drainage system, and leaking roofs, and the water system will be upgraded. These improvements will help reduce costly maintenance repairs. Facili _ty Plan: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted April, 1994. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost for this final phase is estimated at $400,000. Operating Cost Detail: Estimated operating costs beginning in FY2005 as follows: Personnel PT Maintenance Worker Maintenance, utilities, capital Total $ 5,600 34,000 $39,600 Location/Site Status: Iron Bridge Park, 6600 Whitepine Road, Dale Magisterial District. Impact If Not Completed: Additional facilities are needed in this area of the County to meet projected customer growth. Prior Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $0 Opexating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing/Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $o $o $o $o 0 0 400,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $o $o $400,000 $o $0 $0 $0 $5,600 ~ ~ ~ 34,000 $0 $0 $0 $39,600 $0 0 0 0 $0 $5,800 14,500 $2O,3OO $0 0 0 0 $0 $6,000 15,000 $21,000 TOTAL FY02-07 $0 400,000 0 0 $400,000 81 DUTCH GAPVCONSERVATION AREA DEVELOPMENT Functional Area: Human Services Department: Parks and Recreation Project Description/Justification: This 810 acre Dutch Gap Conservation area showcases a unique conservation area that has been partnered by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. This project provides for installation of signs and kiosks, road improvements, a trail bridge, a fishing pier and observation decks, and design and engineering of a boat landing. Staff will be pursuing state and federal grants and donations to assist in funding this project. Facility Plan: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted April, 1994. Location/Site Status: Dutch Gap Boat Launch, Coxendale Road, Bermuda Magisterial District. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $860,000. Operating Cost Detail: This phase of the project will have minimal impact on the operating budget. Beginning in FY2003 the operating impact will be: Maintenance $2,500 Impact If Not Completed: Access to the shoreline will remain limited especially for people with disabilities and the County will not be able to meet the growing demand for environmental education and recreation in the area. Financing General Fund Debt Funded Grant Funding Cash Proffers TOTAL Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Priori Years: $0 0 0 $0 Financing / OperatinK Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 200,000 0 60,000 250,000 350,000 0 0 0 0 0 $60,000 $250,000 $550,000 $0 $0 0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o ~ 2~500 2~600 2~700 2~800 2,900 $0 $2,500 $2,600 $2,700 $2,800 $2,900 TOTAL FY02-07 $0 200,000 660,000 0 $860,000 82 LAKE CHESDIN PARK, PHASES II AND III Functional Area: Human Services Department: Parks and Recreation Project Description/[ustification: This project includes funding to construct a rest-room, parking area, fishing piers, hiking trails, picnic and playground areas, and river overlooks. Staff will be pursuing Game and Inland Fisheries and VDOT Recreational Access grant funding to assist with this project. Facility Plan: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted April, 1994. Location/Site Status: Lake Chesdin Park, Ivey Mill Road south of River Road, Matoaca Magisterial District. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost for Phases II and III is estimated at $597,500. Operating Cost Detail: Estimated operating costs beginning in FY2003: Personnel PT Maintenance Worker Maintenance and supplies Total $2,900 5,800 $8,700 Impact If Not Completed: The County will not be able to provide restroom facilities and other amenities at this park facility. Prior Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Grant Funding 230,063 Cash Proffers 100t000 TOTAL $330,063 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing [ Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $o $o $o $o 0 0 0 0 0 29Z500 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $297,500 $0 $0 $0 200,000 0. 0 $200,000 $0 100,000 0 0 $100,000 $0 $2,900 $3,000 $3,100 $6,400 $6,600 ~ 5t800 6,000 6,200 6,400 8~000 $0 $8,700 $9,000 $9,300 $12,800 $14,600 TOTAL FY02~7 $0 300,000 297,500 0 $597,500 83 MATOACA PARK PHASE III EXPANSION Functional Area: Human Services Department: Parks and Recreation Project Description/Justification: The first year of this project funding involves the enlargement of the existing small baseball field at Matoaca Park to accommodate multiple age groups in both baseball and softball programs, and engineering design for park expansion property. In the second year, the existing park and recreation facilities will be expanded. Planned improvements include an unlighted soccer/football field and an unlighted baseball/softball field, related parking facilities, picnic shelters and trails. Facility Plan: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted April, 1994. Location/Site Status: Matoaca Park, 19900 Halloway Avenue, Matoaca Magisterial District Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $397,800. Operating Cost Detail: Estimated operating costs beginning in FY2004: Personnel PT Maintenance Worker Utilities, maintenance, and equipment Total $ 8,700 26,000 $34,700 Impact If Not Completed: The project will provide a much needed recreational and athletic facilities in the southern portion of the County. Prior Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget [ mpac[ FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 TOTAL FY02-07 $o $5o,ooo $o $o $o $o $5o,ooo 0 0 347,800 0 0 0 347,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $~ $50,000 $347,800 $0 $0 $0 $397,800 $0 $0 $8,700 $9,000 $9,300 $9,600 0 0 26,000 6,200 6,400 6,.60Q $~ $0 $34,700 $15,200 $1'5,700 $16,200 84 VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY TRAIL Functional Area: Human Services Department: Parks and Recreation Project Description/Justification: This project includes parking lot access and trail improvements along the Appomattox River. Staff will pursue ISTEA grant funds to assist with this project. Facili _ty Plan: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted April, 1994. Location/Site Status: Virginia State University State Farm Site, Matoaca Magisterial District. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $170,000. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: The County will not be able to meet the anticipated passive recreational demands. Financing / Operating Budget Impact Financing General Fund Debt Funded Grant Funding Cash Proffers TOTAL Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Prior Years $0 0 100,000 $100,000 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $o $50,000 $o $o $o $o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120,000 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 $0 $170,000 $0 $0 $0 $~ $o $o $o $o $o $o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o $o $o $o $o $o $~ TOTAL FY02~7 $50,000 0 120,000 0 $170,000 85 HENRICUS VISITOR CENTER Functional Area: Human Services Department: Parks and Recreation Project Description/Justification: This project will provide a modern multi-functional 20,000 square foot Visitors Center at the Henricus Historical Park. When completed, the five modules of the Center will provide for classrooms, exhibits, and other visitor services. It will allow for educational and recreational activities and programs that are both environmental and historical. These facilities will serve not only to provide County residents and school children an interactive and participatory historical setting, but will also provide recreational and environmental facilities and services throughout the year. Planned funding below only represents Chesterfield County's portion. Facility_ Plan: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted April, 1994. Location/Site Status: Dutch Gap Conservation Area, Henricus Historical Park Visitors Center, Bermuda Magisterial District. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $350,000. Operating Cost Detail: Personnel and operating impact to be funded by Henricus Foundation. No estimated impact on the County. Impact If Not Completed: Project is in progress. Prior Years Financing General Fund $100,000 Debt Funded Other Sources 0 Donations 0 TOTAL $100,000 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $100,0o0 $150,0o0 $0 $o $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 $100,000 $150,0o0 $0 $o $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o 0 0 o o o 0 $~ $o $o $o $o $o TOTAL FY02-07 $250,000 0 0 0 $250,000 86 GROVE SHAFT PARK Functional Area: Human Services Department: Parks and Recreation Project Description/~ustification: This project provides for the planning, design, and construction of a historical park and recreational area in three phases. Staff will be pursuing state grants and external foundation grants to fund this project. Phase I includes parking and entrance/turn lane construction. Phase II will include public access and interpretation of existing coal mines, construction of expanded parking, trails, signage, restroom, and picnic areas. Phase III will include Phase I funding of a visitor center and expanded interpretive exhibits and trail system. Facility Plan: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted April, 1994 and the Grove Shaft Master Plan, adopted June, 2000. Location/Site Status: Grove Shaft Park, Midlothian Magisterial District. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $1,555,000. Operating Cost Detail: Limited operating costs beginning in FY2003 as follows: Personnel PT Maintenance Worker Maintenance and equipment Total $1,000 2,700 $3,700 Impact If Not Completed: A different form of recreation and significant historical site would not be available to residents and visitors. Prior Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 70,000 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $70,000 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL FinancinK / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $o $o $o $o 0 0 0 0 225,000 0 0 600,000 9 ~ 0 0 $225,000 $0 $0 $600,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $12,200 ~ 2,700 2,800 2,900 $0 $3,700 $3,800 $15,100 $0 0 660,000 0 $660,000 $100,400 40,200 $140,600 $0 0 0 0 $0 $103,400 20,800 $124,200 TOTAL FY02-07 $0 0 1,485,000 0 $1,485,000 87 GOYNE PARK~COFF ELEMENTARY FunctionaI Area: Human Services Department: Parks and Recreation Project Description/Justification: This project continues the development of Goyne and Ecoff Parks with design and renovation of football fields (Goyne Park), lighting and fencing two new baseball fields (Ecoff Park), and development of walkways and 100 additional parking spaces (Ecoff Elementary) in FY2004. An additional 200 parking spaces are planned to be added (Goyne Park) in FY2006. In FY2007 roadway improvements, site work, construction of and lighting two baseball fields, construction of a restroom/concession building, and trail and path development are anticipated to be completed at Ecoff Elementary. Facili _ty Plan: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted April, 1994 and the Goyne/Ecoff Master Plan. Location/Site Status: Goyne Park, 5300 Ecoff Road, Bermuda Magisterial District. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost for these phases is estimated at $1,400,00'0. Operating Cost Detail: Limited operating costs beginning in FY2005 as follows: Personnel PT Maintenance Worker Maintenance and utilities Total $ 2,800 8,400 $11,200 Impact If Not Completed: Additional facilities are needed in this area of the County to meet projected customer growth. Prior Years Financing General Fund $400,000 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 30,000 TOTAL $430,000 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $o $o $o $o 0 0 350,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ $o $o $350,000 $o $0 $0 $0 $2,800 0 0 0 8,400 $0 $0 $0 $11,200 $0 250,000 0 0 $250,000 $2,900 8,700 $11,600 $800,000 0 0 0 $800,000 $3,000 9,000 $12,000 TOTAL FY02~7 $800,000 600,000 0 0 $1,400,000 88 CLOVER HILL ATHLETIC COMPLEX, PHASES III, IV & V Functional Area: Human Services Department: Parks and Recreation Project Description/Justification: This project involves the third, fourth, and fifth phases of the development of the Clover Hill Athletic Complex. Irrigation is planned for seven soccer fields in FY2004, park road extension is planned for FY2005, and a restroom/concession building and connecting water and sewer lines to the site, picnic area, and additional parking for the soccer area is planned for FY2006 and FY2007. Staff will be pursuing state grants to assist in funding this project. Facility Plan: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted April, 1994. Location/Site Status: Clover Hill Athletic Complex, 17701 Genito Road, Matoaca Magisterial District. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost for phases III, IV, estimated at $1,850,000. and V is Operating Cost Detail: Estimated operating costs beginning in FY2006: Part Time Maintenance Worker Utilities, maintenance, equipment Total $19,000 50,700 $69,7O0 Impact If Not Completed: Customer expectations will not be met if these improvements are not completed. Pri or Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Grant Funding 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing ! Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $0 $0 $0 $0 $425,000 $923,000 0 0 152,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 350,000 0 0 $0 $0 $152,000 $350,000 $425,000 $923,000 $o $o $o $o ~ ~ ~ 0 $o $o $o $o $19,000 50,700 $69,7OO $19,600 22,600 $42,200 TOTAL FY02-07 $1,348,000 152,000 350,000 0 $1,850,000 89 MIDLOTHIAN HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS COMPLEX Functional Area: Human Services Dep~rtment: Parks and Recreation Project Description/Justification: This project includes the construction of 100 additional parking spaces, construction of a restroom/concession with associated site work and utility connections, lighting of two ballfields, paving, fencing a new field, and drainage improvements. Facility Plan: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted April, 1994. Location/Site Status: Midlothian High School, 401 Charter Colony Drive, Midlothian Magisterial District. Estimated Project Costs: Total project costs for estimated at $680,000. these improvements is Operating Cost Detail: Limited operating costs will begin in FY2008. Impact If Not Completed: Facilities would not meet customer expectations or projected customer growth in this area of the County. Prior Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Grant Funding 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 $o $o $o $o $o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 ~ ~ ~ $o $o $o $o $o FY2007 $0 680,000 0 0 $680,000 $o $o $o $o $o $o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $~ $o $o $o $o $o TOTAL FY02~7 $0 680,000 0 0 $680,000 90 COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS - PH I & II Functional Area: Human Services Department: Parks and Recreation Proiect Description/]ustification: The completion of Phase ! renovations to the Fairgrounds in FY2002 will include the addition of one new horse show ring and enlargement of the current horse show ring as well as other site improvements in the equestrian area. Phase II includes construction of one restroom and associated utility systems and construction of Phase I of the livestock exhibit building. Facility Plan: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted April, 1994. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $450,000. Operating Cost Detail: Estimated operating costs beginning in FY2003 as follows: Personnel Prin. Maintenance Worker Maintenance, utilities, capital Total $23,200 56t700 $79,900 Location/Site Status: County Fairgrounds, 10300 Courthouse Road, Dale Magisterial District. Impact If Not Completed: Facility will continue to deteriorate and will not be managed in the most efficient manner. Growth of the Fair and equestrian events will be limited due to insufficient facilities. Prior Years Financing General Fund $200,000 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $200,000 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operatinff Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _0 o 0 0 $100,000 $o $o $0 $0 $0 350,000 0 0 $350,000 $0 $23,200 $23,900 $24,600 $25,300 $26,~00 ~ 56,700 31,800 32t700 33,700 34,700 $0 $79,900 $55,700 $57,300 $59,000 $60,800 TOTAL FY02-07 $100,000 350,000 0 0 $450,000 91 LOW~;S SOCCER COMPLEX, PHA~'~E II Functional Area: Human Services Department: Parks and Recreation Project Description/lustification: This park will be developed in phases and eventually will include five soccer fields. Phase II will include funding to upgrade the fields to include topsoil, irrigation and turf improvements. A playground and walkway/trail system will also be included in this phase. Facility Plan: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted April, 1994. Location/Site Status: Lowe's Soccer Complex, 2601 Weir Place, Bermuda Magisterial District. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost for $200,000. Phase I1 is estimated at Operating Cost Detail: Estimated operating costs beginning in FY2007 (for 2 months): Personnel Part Time Maintenance Worker $ 3,700 Maintenance, supplies & capital 26,600 Total $30,300 Impact If Not Completed: Available park facilities will be inadequate to meet the projected demand in this area of the County. Financing General Fund Debt Funded Grant Funding Cash Proffers TOTAL Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Prior Years Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $o $o $0 $0 0 0 $o $o TOTAL FY02-07 $o $o $o $o $o 0 0 0 200,000 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,700 0 ~ ~ 26,600 $0 $0 $0 $30,300 92 MANCHESTER MIDDLE SCHOOL ATHLETIC FACILITIES Functional Area: Human Services Department: Parks and Recreation Project Description/Justification: This project includes funding for field upgrades, athletic lighting, and new athletic fields. Facility Plan: Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted April, 1994. Location/Site Status: Manchester Middle School, Clover Hill Magisterial District. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $250,000. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: Available athletic facilities will be inadequate to meet the projected demand in this area of the County. Prior Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $0 $0 $o $o $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $o $o $o $o $o $0 250,000 0 0 $250,000 $o $o $o $o $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL FY02-07 $0 250,000 0 0 $250,000 93 PAR~ AND RECREATION FACILITIES PLANNING, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND LAND ACQUISITION Functional Area: Human Services Department: Parks and Recreation Project Description/~ustification: Planning, design, construction, and land acquisition for future parks and recreation facilities made necessary by development growth in the County. Cash proffer collections make up the funding source for these efforts. As revenues are accumulated over time, appropriations will be made for specific facility needs. Facility Plan: Chesterfield County Public Facilities Plan. Location/Site Status: County-wide. Estimated Project Costs: Planning, design, construction, and land acquisition: $1,288,600. Operating Cost Detail: No estimated impact on the operating budget. Financin~ / Operating BudKet Impact Financing General Fund Debt Funded Other Sources Cash Proffers TOTAL Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Prior Years* FY2002 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 310,291 ~ $310,291 $0 $0 0 $0 * Indicates cash proffers appropriated life-to-date. FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 $o $o $o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o _o $o $o $o TOTAL FY2006 FY2007 FY02-07 $o $o $o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 1,288,600 1,288,600 $0 $1,288,600 $1,288,600 $o $o $o $o $o 0 0 ~ ~ ~ $o $o $o $o $o 94 95 PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING CENTER AT ENON Functional Area: Public Safety Department: Police and Fire Project Description/lustification: This project is the fourth phase in the construction of an off-site Public Safety Training Center. The center provides an upgraded facility for Chesterfield's public safety service providers for necessary training and practical application of skills in a controlled environment. This phase will include construction of a burn and burn support building, fire training props, fire tower, police and fire support buildings and the emergency response vehicle course. Items Completed: off-site waterline and road construction, advanced site work including clearing, grading, drainage improvements, snail bullet trap, and a portion of the small arms range. Items Under Construction: completion of the range master's building, targeting, parking lot and remaining baffles in the small arms range. Items To Be Completed: fire burn building, fire flammable liquids basin, fire physical course, fire training tower, police pursuit driving course, police tactical/judgment course. Construction of the items remaining to be completed will be phased within planned funding. Location/Site Status: Enon, Route 10 and Allied Road; Magisterial District. Bermuda Estimated Project Costs: The estimated project cost is $16,321,437 Operating Cost Detail: Operating costs for the fourth phase of this project are undeterminable at this time. Utilities and maintenance~ costs associated with the facility expansion have been estimated and are shown below beginning in FY2005. Impact If Not Completed: Training facihties needs will not be met to ensure an exceptional level of tactical training in all areas of pubhc safety emergency services. The result will be an increased liability risk to County citizens. Facili~ Plan: N/A. Prior Years Financing General Fund $5,970,000 Debt Funded 1,743,355 Other 8,082 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $7,721,43~ Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $234,300 $2,965,700 $5,400,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $234,300 $2,965,700 $5,400,000 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o 0 0 11,100 11t400 11,700 $0 $0 $11,100 $11,400 $11,700 TOTAL FY02-07 $8,600,000 0 0 0 $8,600,000 96 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY CONT L SYSTEM Functional Area: Public Safety Department: Fire Project Description~ustification: The Traffic Signal Priority Control System permits an emergency vehicle to gain control of an equipped signalized intersectiOn by changing the traffic signal to green as it approaches the intersection. Chesterfield County and VDOT have a signal agreement that all future intersections will have this control system installed with the lights. Continuation of this project will equip additional key intersections and emergency vehicles, and control existing major intersections. Facility Plan: N/A Location/Site Status: The Traffic Signal Priority Control System equipment will be installed at targeted main arteries in all magisterial districts. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $1,300,000. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: It is essential that the County continue moving toward a traffic control system for emergency vehicles. The benefits of this program are long-term, and as the County continues to develop and txaffic congestion becomes acute, emergency vehicle response time will deteriorate substantially unless this project is continued. Prior Years Financing General Fund $1,100,000 Debt Funded 0 Other 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $1,100,000 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 0 o $200,000 $o $o $o $~ $~ $o $o $o $o $o $o 0 o 0 o 0 o $o $o $o $o $o $~ TOTAL FY02-07 $200,000 0 0 0 $200,000 97 ASHTON'~REEK/WALTHALL FIRE STATION Functional Area: Public Safety Department: Fire Project Description/Justification: This project entails construction of a three bay, drive-through fire station with potential for stationing four pieces of fire apparatus and an ambulance along with a complement of fifteen firefighters, two lieutenants and one captain. This station is necessary to meet the critical response times for fire and emergency medical services in the area. Facility Plan: N/A Location/Site Status: Woods Edge Road near Allied Technical Center on property donated by Allied, to service the Matoaca District. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $4,381,500. Operating Cost Detail: Estimated Operating costs beginning in FY2006: Personnel 15 Firefighters (Grade 37) 2 Fire Lieutenants (Grade 39) 1 Fire Captain (Grade 40) Training Total Personnel $781,700 162,300 90,700 60t800 $1,095,500 Operating Uniforms & Protective Equipment Logistics Vehicle Utilities, Maintenance, Supplies Total Operating $48,600 56,300 9~400 $202,300 Total $1,297,800 Impact If Not Completed: Increasing emergency responses in this service area will have to be answered by existing stations resulting in unacceptable response times. Prior; Years General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $0 Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $0 $0 $335,000 $0 0 0 0 4,046,500 0 0 0 0 o o ~ ~ $0 $0 $335,000 $4,046,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 o ~ ~ $o $o $o $o $0 0 0 0 $o $1,095,500 202~300 $1,297,800 $0 0 0 0 $o $1,065,800 100,300 $1,166,100 TOTAL FY02~7 $335,O0O 4,046,500 0 0 $4,381,500 98 REAMS ROAD FIRE STATION Functional Area: Public Safety Department: Fire Project Description/justification: This project entails construction of a three bay, drive-through fire station with potential for stationing four pieces of fire apparatus and an ambulance along with a complement of fifteen firefighters, two lieutenants and one captain. This station is necessary to meet the critical response times for fire and emergency medical services in the area. The station is currently expected to open in the Summer of 2003. Facility Plan: N/A Location~Site Status: Courthouse Road just south of Reams Road. The land was acquired by the County pursuant to the 1988 bond referendum. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $4,050,000. Operating Cost Detail: Below represents a full year of operating costs that will be incurred beginning in FY2004. Three months of personnel costs, along with some training and other operating costs will be incurred in FY2003. Personnel 24 Firefighters (Grade 37) 5 Fire Lieutenants (Grade 39) 1 Fire Captain (Grade 40) Total Personnel $1,179,000 382,500 85,500 $1,647,000 Operating Utilities, Maintenance, Supplies 101,500 Total $1,748,500 Impact If Not Completed: Increasing emergency responses in this service area will have to be answered by existing stations resulting in unacceptable response times. Prior Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing/Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,550,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $3,550,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $492,400 $1,647,000 $1,696,500 $1,747,300 $1,799,700 172,700 101,500 104,500 107,600 110,800 $0 $665,100 $1,748,500 $1,801,000 $1,854,900 $1,910,500 TOTAL FY02~7 $500,000 3,55O, OO0 0 0 $4,050,000 99 FIRE LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE & EQUIPMENT REPAIR FACILITY Functional Area: Public Safety Department: Fire Project Description/Justification: A 14,000 square foot, climate controlled logistics facility is needed to replace eight storage buildings and five equipment repair shops that are located within fire stations. The storage buildings are in two locations and all are at capacity, and the repair shops are inadequate and undersized. The need exists for a centralized location to facilitate "just in time" delivery of firefighting and EMS equipment and supplies, and the repair of equipment. None of the warehouse or repair shop spaces are capable of expansion. The construction of new fire stations will further accelerate the need for this facility. Estimated Project Costs: The estimated project cost is $1,445,200. Operating Cost Detail: Estimated Operating costs beginning in FY2005: Personnel SCBA Technician (Grade 37) Utilities & Maintenance Total $39,900 12t100 $52,00O Facili _ty Plan: County Government Complex Master Plan, adopted March 1989. Location/Site Status: County Government Warehouse Complex. Impact If Not Completed: Once the off-site Fire Training facility is completed, the current training facility cannot be utilized as planned in the County Government Complex Master Plan due to the existing logistics facility. All but 900 square feet of warehouse space is located at that current site. Additional construction at the current site will be required due to the lack of space for expansion. Warehousing of EMS.and firefighting equipment is already restricted to available space. Financing General Fund Debt Funded Other Cash Proffers TOTAL Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Prior Years Financing/Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 SC 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 0 0 0 1,345,200 0 0 0 0 0 o ~ ~ $0 $0 $100,000 $1,345,200 $0 $0 $0 $39,900 0 0 ~ 12t100 $0 $0 $0 $52,000 $0 0 0 0 $0 $41,100 12,500 $53,600 FY2007 $0 0 0 0 $o $42,300 12~900 $55,200 TOTAL FY02-07 $100,000 1,345,200 0 0 $1,445,200 100 Functional Area: Public Safety Department: Fire ROUTE 288/60 FIRE STATION Project Description/Justification: This project entails construction of a three bay, drive-through fire/rescue station to house four pieces of fire apparatus and an ambulance, along with a complement of fifteen firefighters, two lieutenants and one captain. This station is necessary to meet the critical response times for fire and emergency medical services in the area. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $5,585,000. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating FY2007. budget until after Facility Plan: N/A Location/Site Status: The exact location has not been determined. This station will serve the Midlothian District. Impact If Not Completed: Increasing emergency responses in this service area will have to be answered by existing stations resulting in unacceptable response times. Prior Years General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $0 Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing/Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 TOTAL FY2006 FY2007 FY02-07 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $688,000 $988,000 0 0 0 597,000 0 4,000,000 4,597,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $697,000 $200,000 $4,688,000 $5,585,000 $o $o $o $o $o $o 0 o 0 0 0 0 $o $o $o $o $o $o 101 SELF-CONTA~q~ BREATHING APPARATUS BOTTLES Functional Area: Public Safety Department: Fire Project Description/}ustification: This project entails the purchase of self-contained breathing apparatus bottles to replace existing bottles that no longer will be serviceable. All current bottles have a 15-year service life, after which they must be destroyed and replaced. Facility_ Plan: N/A Location/Site Status: Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $300,000. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: Ail current self-contained breathing apparatus bottles will be beyond their service life. Emergency Services will be impacted without this equipment. N/A Financing General Fund Debt Funded Other Sources Cash Proffers TOTAL Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Prior Years FinancinK / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY02-07 $0 0 0 $o $o $o $o $o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o $o $o $o $o $300,000 0 0 0 $300,000 $0 0 0 0 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o o o o o o o $o $o $o $o $o $o $300,000 0 0 0 $3OO,OOO 102 '" A~NiNG, FIRE STATION FACILITIES PL DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION & LAND ACQUISITION Functional Area: Public Safety Department: Fire Project Description[Iustification: This project allows for specific site and facility planning, design, construction and land acquisition for future fire station facilities made necessary by development growth in the County. Cash proffer collections make up the funding source for these efforts. As revenues are accumulated over time, appropriations will be made for specific facility needs. Facility Plan: N/A Location/Site Status: Countywide Estimated Project Costs: The estimated project cost is $539,600. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Financing/Operating Budget Impact Financing General Fund Debt Funded Other Sources Cash Proffers TOTAL Operating Expenses Personnel Operating Operating Proffers Collected* $0 0 0 102,128 $102,128 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 TOTAL FY2007 FY02-07** $0 $0 0 0 0 0 539,600 ~39,600 $539,600 $539,600 $o $o $o $o $o $o o o o o o o $o $o $o $o $o $o * Represents funds collected as of June 30, 2000, but not appropriated. ** Represents projections for the period FY2002-FY2007. Funds may be spent once collected and appropriated. 103 H~L STREET POLICE FACILITY Functional Area: Public Safety Department: Police Project Description/Iustification: This project provides the Police Department with an additional facility at the existing LaPrade Library building. Funding is provided to design the necessary improvements to the facility and complete the necessary renovations and furnishings. Additional police facilities are needed to permit the department to decentralize to meet the needs of the public and to provide meeting/office space for police officers. Facility Plan: N/A. Operatin~ Cost Detail: It is expected that the facility will begin operating in the second half of FY2002. Listed below are one-half of a year's planned operating costs. Personnel 1 Custodian (Grade 32) $ 7,260 Operating Staff xlniforms 500 Office Supplies 3,200 Utilities and maintenance 34,250 Equipment maintenance 5,750 Total $ 50,960 Location/Site Status: 2730 Hicks Road. Estimated Project Costs: The estimated project cost is $690,000. Impact If Not Completed: Police operations could be impacted due to the need for decentralized operations. Shifts in population centers, urbanization and changing demands for services are contributing factors to the need for decentraliization. Prior Years Financing General Fund $350,000 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $350,000 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $340,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S340,00~ S~ S~ So SO SO $7,260 $15,000 $15,500 $16,000 $16,500 $17,000 43,700 89t515 92,230 95,046 97,862 100,779 $50,960 $104,515 $107,730 $111,046 $114,362 $117,779 TOTAL FY02-07 $340,000 0 0 0 $340,000 104 POLICE PROPERTY/EVIDENCE STORAGE FACILITY Functional Area: Public Safety Department: Police Project Description//ustification: This project will provide a secured facility for storage of seized, found, and abandoned property, and police evidence. The 12,000 square foot storage facility will be outfitted with all necessary equipment to ensure the security and preservation of property and evidence and will include 500 square feet of office space for a customer service area. Existing facilities used for this purpose are inadequate. Evidence is currently stored in four different locations within the County complex. Centralizing the storage location will enhance both operational efficiencies and customer service. Estimated Project Costs: The estimated project cost is $1,422,700. Operating Cost Detail: Estimated operating costs beginning in FY 2004 include: Personnel Police Aide $25,200 Utilities, maintenance, startup equipment, uniform, office supplies Total 71,700 $96,900 Facility Plan: N/A. Location/Site Status: Courthouse Complex Impact If Not Completed: The county could not ensure the legal mandate regarding security of property and evidence. This would place the County under great risk for liability. Prior Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $0 $0 $140,700 $1,282,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $140,700 $1,282,000 $0 $0 $0 $12,600 ~ ~ ~ 71,700 $0 $0 $0 $84,300 $0 0 0 0 $0 $26,800 11,200 $38,OOO $0 0 0 0 $o $2Z600 11,800 $39,4OO TOTAL FY02~7 $1,42,700 0 0 0 $1,42,~0 105 EMER'~ENCY SYSTEMS INTEGRATION Functional Area: Public Safety Department: Fire & Police Project Description/Justification: This project will involve the design, implementation and integration of a computer-aided dispatch system, automatic vehicle locator system and mobile computer devices for all public safety agencies. Included in this project is the purchase of software for an EMS information data collection and evaluation system, which will assist the Fire Department with quality improvement, management, education and system design. Mobile computer devices will allow transmission of data between the communications center and field units. This may include detailed dispatch information, address data, hazard messages, and other crucial data that often is not readily available to field units with voice-only radio limitations. The computers will also allow Police Officers to obtain real-time information from the Police Department's records management system. The automatic vehicle locator system, in coordination with the County's Geographic Information System (GIS), will allow the communications center to efficiently dispatch the closest available resources to emergency incidents. Facility Plan: N/A Location/Site Status: Throughout the County. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $9,400,000. Operating Cost Detail: Estimated Operating costs beginning in FY2004: Equipment & Software Maintenance $109,300 Impact If Not Completed: If this project is not completed, full use of available technology and the new communications system will not occur. This will have a negative impact on the County's ability to appropriately dispatch resources to emergencies and to maintain effective communications with field units. Prior Years Financing General Fund $500,00G Debt Funded 0 Other 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $500,000 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $2,460,000 $5,000,000 $1,440,000 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 @ 0 0 0 _0. o $2,460,000 $5,000,000 $1,440,000 $0 $0 0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o 0 0 10%300 1~2~600 116~000 11%500 $~ $0 $109,300 $112,600 $116,000 $119,500 TOTAL FY02-07 $8,9OO,0OO 0 0 0 $8,900,000 106 COUNTY JAIL IMPROVEMeNTs Functional Area: Public Safety Department: Sheriff's Department Project Description/Justification: Prior year funding for this project has allowed for completion of a needs assessment and the development of the Community Based Corrections Plan. Both of these documents are required in order to receive funding reimbursement from the State. Prior year funding is also is being used to accomplish electrical and plumbing improvements at the local jail. This project plans funding for a replacement local jail facility. The existing local jail consists of multiple buildings completed over many years. The replacement project contemplates demolition of the older buildings combined with reconstruction of new space. The most recently completed jail building would remain. The project also provides funding to continue making improvements to existing facilities. Facility Plan: N/A. Location/Site Status: To be determined. Estimated Project Costs: Estimated project cost is $13,872,400. Operating Cost Detail: Operating impact will be determined at a later time. Impact If Not Completed: Critical deficiencies in the County Jail physical plant will remain uncorrected and the County will be unable to meet its space needs. Prior Year~, Financing General Fund $250,001 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 622,400 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $872,400 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL FinancinK ! Ol~erating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $460,000 $0 $0 $0 1,140,000 1,000,000 7,500,000 0 400,000 0 2,500,000 0 ~ ~ o o $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $10,000,000 $0 $0 0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o o o o _o o o $o $o $o $o $~ $~ TOTAL FY02-07 $460,000 9,640,000 2,900,000 0 $13,000,000 107 MAIN~OURTHOUSE SECURITY SYSTEM Functional Area: Public Safety Department: Sheriff Project Description/]ustification: This project will provide for an upgraded security system in the Circuit/General District Courts Building. The current system is failing and repairs are becoming extremely expensive and more difficult to perform. Facili _ty Plan: Not applicable. Location/Site Status: Circuit/General District Courts Building Estimated Project Costs: The estimated project cost is $600,000. Operating Cost Detail: Beginning in FY2003, there will be an annual cost of $15,000 for equipment and software maintenance. Impact If Not Completed: The current system will continue to fail, repair expenses will continue to rise and security for County citizens may be compromised. Prior Years Financing General Fund $0 Debt Funded 0 Other 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $0 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $0 $250,000 $350,000 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o $0 $250,000 $350,000 $0 $0 0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o ~ 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 $0 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 TOTAL FY02~7 $600,000 0 0 0 $600,000 108 RIVERSIDE REGIONAL JAIL Functional Area: Public Safety Departmei~t: Sheriff's Department Project D escription/[ustification: This project begins to set aside funds for the expansion of the Riverside Regional Jail. The agreement signed by the seven participating jurisdictions stipulates when the next phase of the jail expansion will need to begin. The County has the option of participating in this new phase. Facili _ty Plan: N/A Location/Site Status: To be determined. Estimated Project Costs: Estimated project cost over the planning period is $11,000,000. Operating Cost Detail: There is no operating impact within the planning period. Impact If Not Completed: Jail space needs will not be met and the County could be in violation of the terms of the multi- jurisdictional agreement if the projected population materializes at Riverside Regional Jail. Financing / Operating Budget Impact Financing General Fund Debt Funded Other Sources Cash Proffers TOTAL Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Prior Years $o $o 0 0 0 0 $o $o $o 0 $0 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 $o $o $o 0 3,500,000 2,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $3,500,000 $2,500,000 TOTAL FY2007 FY02-07 $0 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 2,500,000 0 8,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $11,000,000 $o $o $o $o $o ~ ~ o o o $o $o $o $o $o 109 Z © Ol Ol Ol 110 GOVERNOR'S SCHOOL Functional Area: County Administration Department: County Schools Project Description/]ustification: The Richmond Governor's School provides a unique opportunity for high achieving students from throughout the region to learn cooperatively in a challenging academic environment. Participating localities are being asked to contribute to the cost of renovating Maggie L. Walker High School based on the number of students that the locality has enrolled in this program. Chesterfield County, with 200 students attending, has the largest number of all localities. Participating localities will be asked to contribute up to $6.65 million with the remaining amount to come from private fund raising and tax credits. The renovation is estimated to cost $21,456,727 and will allow the Governor's School to move out of the over crowded space it currently shares with Thomas Jefferson High School and to increase enrollment from the current number of 576 students to as many as 800 students. Renovation of the Maggie Walker High School building would add 18,000 square feet for a new total of 154,000 square feet. The renovated school would include new student commons and media center, a renovated 600-seat auditorium, two gyms, a fitness center, parking for 275 cars, and off street bus parking. Location/Site Status: Richmond, Virginia. Estimated Project Costs: Chesterfield County's and Chesterfield County School Board portion, inclusive of prior and planned funding, is estimated to be $2,432,000. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Prior Year Financing General Fund $461,500 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $261,500 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o TOTAL FY02-07 $1,200,000 0 0 0 $1,200,000 111 THE DIAMOND Functional Area: Human Services Department: Parks and Recreation Project Description/~ustification: This project contributes funds to Metropolitan Authority to fund improvements at The Diamond. Location/Site Status: The Diamond, Richmond, Virginia. the Richmond repairs and Estimated Project Costs: Chesterfield County's portion is $1,456,200. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Prior Years Financing General Fund $858,800 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $858,800 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing ! Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 TOTAL FY02-07 $28L700 $155,000 $160,700 $0 $0 $0 $597,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 o $281,70~ $155,000 $160,700 $0 $0 $0 $597,400 $0 $o $o $o $o $0 0 0 0 o 0 0 $~ $o $o $o $o $o 112 113 FINANCIAL/HUMAN RESOURCES SYSTEM Functional Area: Management Services Department: Accounting/Human Resources ,I Project Description[Justification: The County's financial system software was licensed in 1984 and Human Resources/Payroll software was licensed in 1991. Tremendous advances in technology have influenced business processes and the design of systems. Major upgrading or replacement of these systems and redesign of business processes is essential to improve staff productivity and address current technology limitations. This project includes a complete detailed functional and technical requirements analysis to determine the specific needs of the County and Schools for managing the financial human resource and payroll mainframe based systems. The project allows for the procurement of software and implementation support services for the noted applications as well as for improved systems. Additionally, during the course of the project, the County will undertake the redesign of business processes, manage change, test the software and processes, train employees, and implement the new systems. The requirements for this project are presently being finalized, with vendor selection for software expected in late FY2001 or early FY2002. Facility Plan: N/A. Location/Site Status: County-wide. Estimated Project Costs: Total project cost is estimated at $7,550,000. Operating Cost Detail: Operating impact cannot be identified at the present time. A new database administrator will be required and is being funded within the project in the interim. Impact If Not Completed: The County's current financial/ human resource system is outdated and will become obsolete and increasingly more difficult to support. Less efficient use of staffing will continue. Prior Years Financing General Fund $150,000 Debt Funded 2,100,000 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $2,250,000 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL FinancinK / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $o $o $o $o $o $o 2,800,000 2,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~0 0 0 0 $2,800,000 $2,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o $o TOTAL FY02-07 $0 5,300,000 0 0 $5,3OO,OOO 114 COUNTY TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS Functional Area: Management Services Department: Various County Departments Project Description/Justification: Funds for the TIP are made available from both the County's operating budget and the Capital Improvement Program. A Technology Improvement Program (TIP) steering committee has been established to assess and prioritize countywide and departmental technology needs over a three-year period based on criticality, scope of project, and funds available. While funding levels are planned over a six-year period below, individual projects have only been selected for the first three years. A detailed listing of those projects is listed on the following page. The projects selected will enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of a variety of County operations and services to County citizens. A comprehensive listing of the TIP is included in the appendix. Facility Plan: N/A. Location/Site Status: County facilities. Estimated Project Costs: The estimated project cost is $5,813,300. Operating Cost Detail: No estimated impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: The County will risk falling behind in the use of current technologies critical to the advancement of operational processes and services to citizens. Prior Years Financing General Fund $925,000 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $925,000 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact TOTAL FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY02-06 $666,600 $600,000 $821,700 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $4,888,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o, o o $666,600 $600,000 $821,700 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $4,888,300 $o $o $o $o $o $o 0 0 0 0 0 0 $o $o $o $o $o $o 115 Technology Improvement Program Technology Funding FY 2002 - 2004 Project Name Countywide Internet/Intranet Enhancement Imaging System Pilot (4 Departments) Constitutional Officers Imaging System Real Time Docket FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 $400,000 $321,900 $260,000 100,000 0 0 Total FY2002 to FY2004 $981,900 100,000 0 75,000 50,000 125,000 0 3,100 0 3,100 Human Services Upgrades to LINC 0 160,000 400,000 560,000 Management Services Facilities Management System Computer to Plate 48,500 0 0 40,000 Public Safety Automated Staffing System Global Traffic Management System Handheld Digital Recorders 91,500 26,600 0 [Total $666,600 0 0 0 $600,000 0 0 111,700 $821,700 48,500 40,000 91,500 26,600 111,700 $2,088,3061 116 OC~ CD 0 c~ 117 ROAD FUND PROJECTS Functional Area: Community Development Department: Transportation Project Description/Justification: Road Fund projects are projects intended to improve the traffic operating and highway capacity on an as needed basis. Funds provided by the County are anticipated to be matched by the state. Typically the maximum state match is $500,000. The state may allocate less than $500,000 depending on other requests by participating localities. Facili _ty Plan: Adopted Chesterfield Road Fund Plan, 2000-2005. Estimated Project Costs: Construction per year $500,000. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: Without funding for these road projects, certain improvements County-wide would be delayed. Location/Site Status: County-wide. Prior Years Financing General Fund $500,000 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $500,000 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL FinancinK / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 TOTAL FY02-07 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $3,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o $500,00~ $500,00~ $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $3,000,000 $o $o $o $o $o $o o o o o o o $~ $~ $o $o $o $o 118 GENERAL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Functional Area: Community Development Department: Transportation Project Description/[ustification: These funds will provide for improvements on an as needed basis. general road Facility Plan: Chesterfield County Thoroughfare Plan adopted June, 1989, and last amended July, 1999. Location/Site Status: County-wide. Estimated Project Costs: Funding level is $600,000 annually. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: Without funding for general improvements, County roads will become more congested. Financing/Operating Budget Impact Financing General Fund Debt Funded Other Sources Cash Proffers TOTAL Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Prior Years* $154,457 0 0 $154,457 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $o $o $o $o $o $o o o o o o o $o $o $o $o $o $~ *Available balance as of June, 2000. TOTAL FY02-07 $3,600,000 0 0 0 $3,600,000 119 INDUSTRIAL ACCESS PROJECTS Functional Area: Community Development Department: Transportation Project Description/Justification: Funds provided for the construction of industrial access projects. Funds also provided for right-of- way acquisition and utility relocation costs. These funds are also used to supplement industrial access funds provided by the State. Facility Plan: Chesterfield County Thoroughfare Plan adopted June, 1989, amended July, 1999. Location/Site Status: County-wide. Estimated Project Costs: Engineering per year Right-of-way per year Construction per year Total $ 30,000 120,000 150,000 $3O0,0OO Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Impact If Not Completed: Without this funding, industrial access projects would not be constructed and, consequently, potential economic development projects may be located elsewhere. Prior Years* Financing General Fund $846,421 Debt Funded 0 Other Sources 0 Cash Proffers 0 TOTAL $846,421 Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Financing / Operating Budget Impact FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $o $o $o $o $o $o o o 0 o o o $~ $o $o $o $o $o * Available balance as of July, 2000. TOTAL FY02-07 $1,800,000 0 0 0 $1,800,000 120 WOOLRIDGE ROAD EXTENDED Functional Area: Community Development Department: Transportation Project Description/Justification: The yearly financial detail below only describes the transportation cash proffer component associated with funding of Woolridge Road Extended. A new roadway extending from Coalfield Road, heading northeasterly to Midlothian Turnpike, was completed in 1999 in part with a private developer's funds. In association with the development of The Grove, this same private developer has proffered cash for transportation improvements. In exchange for the accelerated construction of this road, the County has agreed to refund to the developer, the transportation cash proffers that the County receives over the course of development of The Grove. Facility Plan: N/A Location/Site Status: Midlothian Magisterial District, Chesterfield County. Estimated Project Costs: Funding below represents projections for the period FY2002-FY2007. Reimbursements to the developer are to be made in accordance with a previously approved agreement. Operating Cost Detail: This project will have no impact on the operating budget. Financing / Operating Budget Impact Financing General Fund Debt Funded Other Sources Cash Proffers TOTAL Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Prior Years* $0 0 261t100 $261,100 TOTAL FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY02-07** $o $o $o $o $o $o $o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 128,900 ~28,900 128t900 128~900 128,900 128,900 773,400 $128,900 $128,900 $128,900 $128,900 $128,900 $128,900 $773,400 $o $o $o $o $o $o ~ ~ ~ ~ o o $o $o $o $o $~ $~ Represents funds appropriated as of June 30, 2000. ** Represents projections for the period FY2002-2007. Funds may be spent once collected and appropriated. 121 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS PLANNING, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION Functional Area: Community Development Department: Transportation Project Description/Justification: Preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction for future transportation improvements made necessary by development growth in the County. Facility_ Plan: N/A Estimated Project Costs: Planning, design, construction, and land acquisition $5,166,100. Operating Cost Detail: No impact on the operating budget. Location/Site Status: County-wide. Financing / Operating Budget Impact Financing General Fund Debt Funded Other Sources Cash Proffers TOTAL Operating Expenses Personnel Operating TOTAL Proffers Collected* $0 0 0 L603~332 $1,6O3,332 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 TOTAL FY2007 FY02-07** $o $o $o $o $o $o $o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 5,166,100 5,166,100 $~ $~ $0 $0 $0 $5,166,100 $5,166,100 $o $o $o $o $o $o o o ~ ~ ~ ~ $~ $~ $o $o $o $o * Represents net funds collected as of June 30, 2000; but not appropriated for a project. ** Represents projections for the period FY2002-FY2007. Funds may be spent once collected and appropriated. 122 UNFUNDED COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEME PROIECTS Funding has not been identified in the 2002-2007 Capital Improvement Program for the projects listed below. Projects are generally listed by Department Priority from the highest to lowest priority. General Services Vehicle Maintenance Facility Renovation/Expansion Southern Area Transfer Station Circuit Court Parking Phase I and II Public Meeting Room Upgrades Total General Services 665,000 1,535,000 1,025,500 482,700 $3,708,200 Libraries Chester Library Community Arts Center Central Library Completion/Renovation Total Libraries 9,915,500 6,259,400 $16,174,900 Parks and Recreation Park Improvements School Improvements - Various Dutch Gap Conservation Area Development Fairgrounds Expansion Falling Creek Ironworks Eppington House and Grounds Henricus Outdoor Education Henricus Visitor Center Total Parks and Recreation 1,500,000 250,000 400,000 * 1,577,600 * 110,000 350,000 35,000 * 676,100 * $4,898,700 Public Safety Hull Street District Station Rockwood Fire & Rescue Station Highlands Fire & Rescue Station Main Courthouse Security System Total Public Safety 2,199,500 4,862,000 335,000 292,500 $7,689,000 ]Subtotal Unfunded Requests $32,470,8O0 Transportation - please refer to following pages Note: Project costs are shown in FY2001 dollars. * County unfunded amount only. 123 '~-4RANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ~'~ UNFUNDED CIP PROJECT REQUESTS FY2002-FY2006 PROJECT NAME Priority Requests Woolridge Road - 4-lanes across Swift Creek Reservoir Centralia Road Shoulder Improvements - Route 10 to Chester Road Miscellaneous Shoulder Improvements (Costs per year) Route 10 / 1-295 Industrial Access (southwest quadrant) Paving Dirt Roads - approximately one (1) mile per year Route 360 Streetscaping - within median, Turner Rd to Courthouse Rd Route 360 Streetscaping - within median, 288 to Woodlake Village Pkwy Halloway Avenue Sidewalk Millside Second Access (Public Access) Otterdale Road Extension - Route 360 to Beach Road (Paved Road) Development Funded Road Improvements (Construction per year) PE 0 150,000 300,000 1,000,000 100,000 300,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 370,000 300,000 0 250,000 0 0 Const. 4,850,000 2,500,000 600,000 2,500,000 1,000,000 150,000 120,000 900,000 3,030,000 1,700,000 100,000 Other Total 0 5,000,000 0 3,800,000 0 5,000,000 0 2,500,000 0 5,000,000 0 150,000 0 120,000 0 1,000,000 0 3,700,000 0 1,950,000 0 500,000 Other Requests - Listed Alphabetically Arch Rd. - Two lane reconstruction, Rt. 60 to Reams Rd. Bailey Bridge btwn Spring Run and Deer Run (safety improvements) Bailey Bridge btwn Turnerville and Battlecreek (safety improvements) Bailey Bridge vicinity of Holly Trace (safety improvements) Beach Road - overlay from Coalboro Road to the west Beach Road - reconstruct shoulder along north side west of Nash Road Beach Road/Spring Run Road Intersection Improvements Belchers Lane Paving Belcherwood Bus Turnaround Belmont Road reconstruction - Cogbill Road to Five Forks Lane Belmont Road Reconstruction - Whitepine to Newbys Bridge Belmont Road ~ Licking Creek - replace bridge/realign curve Beulah Road - pipe replacement / road reconstruction at Watch Run Creek Bradley Bridge Rd. - Two lane reconstruction, Lewis to Woodpecker Branders Bridge - reconstruct from Happy Hill to Whitehouse Buford Road / Rockaway Road - turn lanes and signal Centralia Road - replace box culvert at Crooked Branch Centralia Road / Lost Forest Drive Intersection Improvements Centre Street Streetlights Chalkley btwn Gravel Neck and Inge Wood (safety improvements) Chalkley Rd. - Two lane reconstruction, Rt. 10 to Centralia Chesterfield Economic Development (Construction per year) Chippenham Parkway - soundwalls at Church of the Nazarene Cogbill Road - reconstruct from Route 10 to Cyrus Street Cogbill Road Sidewalk - Meadowdale H.S. to Library Cogbill Road Sidewalks - Hopkins Road to School Administration Bldg Cogbill Road / Canasta Drive Intersection Improvements Countywide Gateway Projects Courthouse Road Extension to Salem Church Road Courthouse Road west of Yatesdale (safety improvements) Courthouse Road/Branchway Road connector (southern end) Dalebrook and Beulah Roads - construct additional box culvert Deer Run Drive Free Flow Right at Intersection of Rt. 360 Dundas Road - Pedestrian Walkway over railroad East River Road - sidewalk and Pedestrian Trail East/West Limited Access Design and Right of Way (R/W per year) Ecoff Avenue Reconstruction EIkhardt Road - reconstruction east of Turner Road Enon Church / Meadowville Industrial Access Road (Rt 10 to BMP) 300,000 1,500,000 2,200,000 0 4,000,000 50,000 7,000 443,000 0 500,000 100,000 105,000 295,000 0 500,000 100,000 100,000 300,000 0 500,000 0 0 70,000 0 70,000 0 0 30,000 0 30,000 0 0 50,000 0 50,000 30,000 50,000 130,000 0 210,000 0 0 40,000 0 40,000 300,000 1,500,000 2,200,000 0 4,000,000 175,000 700,000 900,000 0 1,775,000 250,000 300,000 1,000,000 0 1,550,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 0 700,000 500,000 2,000,000 5,000,000 0 7,500,000 700,000 2,000,000 6,300,000 0 9,000,000 250,000 250,000 1,000,000 0 1,500,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 0 700,000 100,000 250,000 350,000 0 700,000 0 0 40,000 0 40,000 100,000 125,000 215,000 0 440,000 500,000 2,000,000 6,000,000 0 8,500,000 0 0 1,000,000 0 5,000,000 0 0 150,000 0 150,000 300,000 1,000,000 3,000,000 0 4,300,000 100,000 300,000 1,000,000 0 1,400,000 50,000' 50,000 300,000 0 400,000 2,000 7,000 5,000 0 14,000 0 0 0 220,000 220,000 300,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 0 3,300,000 100,000 125,000 275,000 0 500,000 0 0 55,000 0 55,000 30,000 40,000 230,000 0 300,000 25,000 0 200,000 0 225,000 100,000 100,000 1,000,000 0 1,200,000 0 0 900,000 0 900,000 300,000 500,000 0 0 2,800,000 500,000 2,005,000 2,500,000 0 5,005,000 250,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 0 3,250,000 0 0 0 6,400,000 6,400,000 124 TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMEN3~ UNFUNDED CIP PROJECT REQUESTS FY2002-FY2006 PROJECT NAME PE R/W Const. Other Ettrick Sidewalk Repairs, Chesterfield Avenue - various locations 0 0 200,000 0 Fordham Rd. - Pedestrian Walkway - Gregory Drive to Jacobs Road 100,000 150,000 1,000,000 0 Fordham Road ~ Paulhill Road 0 5,000 10,000 0 Frameway Road Paving 30,000 60,000 150,000 0 Gateway Project - Route 360 ~ Amelia / Chesterfield County Line 0 0 50,000 0 Genito Area Streetlights - Genito/Coalfield/Old Hundred intersection area 0 0 100,000 0 Genito Road - shoulder improvements from Mt. Hermon to Otterdale 100,000 300,000 1,700,000 0 Genito Road / Otterdale Road Sight Distance Improvements 30,000 60,000 150,000 0 Govt. Ctr Roads - GovL Ctr Pkwy, 2 lanes from W. Krause to Public Safety Training 0 0 0 0 Happy Hill Rd. - Two lane reconstruction, Pheasant Run to Route I 380,000 1,114,000 2,280,000 0 Happy Hill Road Improvements - Harrowgate to South Happy Hill Road 100,000 400,000 800,000 0 Harrowgate Road / Treely Road Intersection Improvements 50,000 50,000 500,000 0 Hickory Road Sidewalk - Willow Oak Drive to River Road 100,000 200,000 700,000 0 Hickory Road / Matoaca Road Intersection Improvements 250,000 500,000 2,000,000 0 Hicks Road - improve curve north of Dowd Lane 50,000 100,000 350,000 0 HMK Road Improvements - Powhite Pkwy and Chippenham Pkwy 2,000,000 0 12,000,000 0 Hopkins Road Reconstruction - Beulah Road to Old Hopkins Road 150,000 700,000 1,500,000 0 Hopkins Road Sidewalks - Falstone Road to Cogbill Road 50,000 50,000 900,000 0 Hopkins Road ~ Old Lane - make Hopkins the through movement 300,000 800,000 500,000 0 Hopkins west of Old Lane (safety improvements) 100,000 48,000 262,000 0 1-295/Meadowville Interchange wetlands mitigation 0 0 0 200,000 Ivy Mill Road Paving 150,000 300,000 700,000 0 Jessup Road Reconstruction - Route 10 to Pineland Road 200,000 500,000 1,000,000 0 Kingsland Road - replace box culvert at Reedy Branch 100,000 200,000 700,000 0 Lacy Farm Road Reconstruction and Paving 155,000 300,000 1,045,000 0 Lake Ridge Drive - pave and take into State system 30,000 0 100,000 0 Little Creek Lane - improve creek crossing at Watch Run Creek 15,000 50,000 80,000 0 Newbys Bridge Road Reconstruction - Hagood Ln to Belmont Road 260,000 775,000 1,550,000 0 Newbys Bridge (~ Dortonway (safety improvements) 50,000 45,000 405,000 0 NorttffSouth Arterial (Railroad R/W) Centre Street to Route 10 400,000 1,100,000 2,400,000 0 North/South Arterial (Railroad R/W) Route 10 to Branders Bridge Road 300,000 900,000 1,800,000 0 North/South Arterial (Railroad R/W) Route 10 to Chester Rd. 400,000 1,100,000 2,600,000 0 North/South Limited Access Design and Right of Way (R/W per year) 300,000 500,000 0 0 Old Bermuda Hundred Road - reconstruction from Rt 1/301 to Rt 10 600,000 3,000,000 8,000,000 0 Old Bon Air Road Bike Path - Robious Road to Ironmill Road 50,000 240,000 5 t 6,000 0 Old Bon Air / Rockaway - curves 200,000 400,000 900,000 0 Omaha Street Paving 30,000 30,000 150,000 0 Osborne Road/Elokomin Ave - intersection improvements east of 1/301 50,000 50,000 250,000 0 Park-and-Ride Facility 45,000 400,000 1,100,000 0 Pave Dirt Road at 17101 Midlothian Turnpike 50,000 80,000 250,000 0 Pave Dirt Road at 19003 Church Road 20,000 30,000 150,000 0 Pave Dirt Road at 5893 Courthouse Road 20,000 30.000 200,000 0 Pocoshock Boulevard Extended 50,000 100,000 550,000 0 Point of Rocks Bike Lane - Point of Rocks Park to Route 10 0 0 1,300,000 0 Potts Street Paving 30,000 40,000 130,000 0 Powhite Extension Design and Right of Way (RJW per year) 300,000 500,000 0 0 Powhite Parkway Extension (TwoLanes) 3,500,000 3,500,000 35,300,000 0 Powhite/Chippenham/288 Sight and Sound Barriers 0 0 0 1,000,000 Powhite/Coalfield Road Diamond Interchange (Excluding R/W) 600,000 0 6,000,000 0 Powhite/Coalfield Road Diamond Interchange (Including R/W) 600,000 3,500,000 6,000,000 0 Providence Rd. - Two lane reconstruction, Rt. 60 to Hicks/Reams Rd. 500,000 3,000,000 6,000,000 0 Qualla Road Widening - Claypoint Road to Beach Road 500,000 3,000,000 6,000,000 0 Qualla Road Widening - Courthouse Road to Route 288 250,000 1,000,000 2,150,000 0 Qualla ~ Belcherwood (safety improvements) 100,000 60,000 340,000 0 Reams Rd / Wadsworth Dr Intersection Improvements and Signalization 50,000 200,000 500,000 0 Reams Road Reconstruction - Courthouse Road to Arch Road 280,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 0 ,Total 200,000 1,250,000 15,000 240,000 50,000 100,000 2,100,000 240,000 633,000 3,774,000 1,300,000 600,000 1,000,000 2,750,000 500,000 14,000,000 2,350,000 1,000,000 1,600,000 410,000 2O0,000 1,150,000 1,700,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 130,000 145,000 2,585,000 500,000 3,900,000 3,000,000 4,100,000 2,800,000 11,600,000 806,000 1,500,000 210,000 350,000 1,545,000 380,000 200,000 250,000 700,000 1,300,000 200,000 2,800,000 42,300,000 1,000,000 6,600,000 10,100,000 9,500,000 9,500,000 3,400,000 500,000 750,000 3,280,000 125 '~RANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT UNFUNDED CIP PROJECT REQUESTS FY2002-FY2006 PROJECT NAME PIE R/VV Const. Reams Road ~ Wadsworth Road (safety improvements) 100,000 250,000 400,000 River Road, Second Branch to Bundle - improve shoulders 150,000 450,000 2,000,000 Robious Road streetlights - Salisbury to Huguenot 0 0 50,000 Route 1 / Sand Hills Drive Intersection Improvements 100,000 200,000 700,000 Route I Sidewalks - various locations 50,000 0 500,000 Route I / Willis Road Intersection Improvements 100,000 400,000 600,000 Route 1 ~ Old Bermuda Hundred - turn lanes and signal 150,000 150,000 600,000 Route 10 - 6-lane widening, 1-95 to Warebottom Spring Road 0 3,300,000 8,000,000 Route 10 - 6-lane widening, Route I to 1-95 370,000 1,492,000 1,865,000 Route 10 - 6-lane widening, Warebottom Spring Road to Meadowville 0 3,300,000 8,000,000 Route 10 Landscaping - Centralia Road to Village of Chester 0 0 530,000 Route 10 Raised Median at Harrowgate Road 3,000 0 40,000 Route 10 / Centre Street Landscaping 0 0 40,000 Route 10 / 1-295 Interchange Landscaping 0 0 50,000 Route 10 / Lewis Road Intersection Improvements 10,000 0 40,000 Route 10 ~ Government Center - fill in 3-lane gap on eastbound lanes 0 0 40,000 Route 10 ~ Old Bermuda Hundred Road - right tum lane 20,000 30,000 50,000 Route 10, Courthouse Complex Streetscaping - PH II 0 0 670,000 Route 288 East ofl-95 (Construction per year) 600,000 0 1,000,000 Route 288 / Qualla Road Interchange (Design) 600,000 0 0 Route 360 Corridor (Parallel service Road) - Oxbridge to Paulett 66,000 198,000 396,000 Route 360 eastbound right turn lane at Chippenham Parkway 25,000 0 150.000 Route 360 Pedestrian Paths - Route 288 to Woodlake Village Parkway 0 0 1,175,000 Route 360 Pedestrian Paths - Walmsley Boulevard to Courthouse Road 35,000 550,000 265,000 Route 360 / Courthouse Road Intersection Improvements (add'l SB right) 46,000 250,000 250,000 Route 360 / Deer Run - dual lefts and signal modifications 0 0 314.000 Route 360 / Manchester M.S. Intersection Improvements (exiting RT) 0 0 50,000 Route 60 Mast Arm Signal Modifications (eight intersections) 0 0 1,000,000 Route 60 /Ruthers Road Intersection Improvements - turn lanes 50,000 300,000 650,000 Route 60 ~ Sturbridge - add southbound lane on Sturbridge 20,000 50,000 200,000 Salem Church Road Improvements - Adjacent to Elementary School 20,000 30,000 50.000 Salisbury Road Sidewalks - Robious Road to Winterfield Road 100,000 0 1,000,000 Second Branch Road Paving - south of River Road 300,000 200,000 1,400,000 Sound Barriers (Construction per year) 0 0 500,000 Spot Safety Improvements (instead of major rebuilds) 50,000' 100,000 350,000 Spring Run Road - reconstruct from Qualla Road to Bailey Bridge 500,000 2,000,000 5,500,000 Streetscaping (Construction per year) 13 0 50,000 Stroud Lane Paving 30,000 50,000 100,000 Tower Light Road Paving 30,000 50,000 150,000 Traffic Management Devices (Construction per year) 0 0 100,000 Turner Road Reconstruction o Walmsley Boulevard to Belmont Road 250,000 1,500,000 2,500,000 Tumerville Road Paving 15,000 20,000 100.000 VSU Gateway Project 0 0 300,000 Walton Park Sidewalk - link Park to Woolridge 50,000 150,000 600,000 Westfield Sidewalks - Sycamore Square to Winterfield 60,000 60,000 580,000 Whitepine Road Widening 540,000 1,622,000 3,245,000 Winterfield Road Realignment - from south of Westfield to south of Elmstead 200,000 400,000 1,500,000 Winterfield Road / Salisbury Road Intersection Improvements 50,000 50,000 450,000 Winterpock Road Reconstruction - Rt. 360 to Beach Rd. 800,000 2,500,000 6,000,000 Woodpecker ~ Matoaca (safety improvements) 100,000 105,000 295,000 Woodpecker ~ Sandy Ford - sight distance improvements 150,000 200,000 250,000 Woods Edge Road Widening (At Grade) 100,000 200,000 1,300,000 Yatesdale Drive Reconstruction - Courthouse Rd to Yatesdale Terminus 15,000 30,000 150,000 Chester Road / Kingsdale Road Intersection Improvements 90,000 125,000 635,000 Hickory Road Reconstruction (Southlawn Ave. to Old Town Creek) 80,000 200,000 510,000 Jury Drive (4 Lanes, align with Deerfield) 50,000 0 510,000 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 10,000 0 Total 750,000 2,600,000 50,000 1,000,000 550,000 1,100,000 900,000 11,300,000 3,727,000 11,300,000 530,000 43,000 40,000 50,000 50,00O 40,000 100,000 670,000 5,600,000 600,000 660,000 175,000 1,175,000 850,000 546,000 314,000 50,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 270,000 100,000 1,100,000 1,900,000 2,500,000 500,000 8,000,000 250,000 180,000 230,000 500,000 4,250,000 135,000 300,000 800,000 700,000 5,407,000 2,100,000 550,000 9,300,000 500,000 600,000 1,600,000 195,000 900,000 800,000 560,000 126 TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMEN1~'~ UNFUNDED CIP PROJECT REQUESTS FY2002-FY2006 PROJECT NAME Lafon Street Old Bon Air / Rockaway Reconstruction (Iron Mill Rd to Waters Mill Rd) Relocation of Lori Road to Route 10 Route 10 / Centre Street Intersection Improvements Route 60 / Charter Colony Parkway Improvements (Supplemental JTCC) Walton Park Road Sidewalk Womack Road Extension - RR R/W, Route l 0 to north of Ecoff PE ~ 100,000 100,000 215,000 210,000 0 0 200,000 200,000 0 0 40,000 40,000 214,000 642,000 Const. 400,000 1,565,000 200,000 3,000,000 600,000 320,000 1,283,000 Other 0 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 Total 600,000 2,000,000 200,000 3,400,000 600,000 400,000 2,139,000 127 APPENDIX A Selected Statistics Miscellaneous Year 2OOO 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 School Facilities 57 56 56 56 56 55 53 52 52 50 Parks 31 3O 26 26 23 23 19 19 19 19 Libraries 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 8 7 6 Fire Stations 17 16 16 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 Bond Ratings General Obligation Utilities Revenue Moody's Aaa Aa Fitch AAA N/A Standard & Poor's AAA 129 130 APPENDIX A Selected Statistics Year Population 2000 261,000 1999 256,500 1998 254,OO0 1997 250,000 1996 244,400 1995 239,000 1994 232,900 1993 22Z800 1992 222,300 1991 215,300 1990 208,100 1980 141,372 Population estimates are for January I of each respective year. Education The public school system consists of 35 elementary schools, 11 middle schools and 9 high schools. A technical center provides career development training. Selected comparative irrformation follows: Student Cost Student School School Avg, Daily Cost Per Teaching Teacher Year Facilities Membership ($000) Student Positions Ratio 2000 57 50,669 $337,961 $6,670 1999 56 50,436 316,875 0) 6,283 1998 56 50,049 294,705 (2) 5,888 1997 56 49,566 287,336 5,797 1996 56 48,972 266,408 5,440 1995 55 47,979 253,800 5,290 1994 52 4Z706 244,565 5,127 1993 52 46,909 227,050 (3) 4,840 1992 51 45,482 213,321 (4) 4,690 1991 50 44,295 212,243 4,792 Source: School Board Administration, Chesterfield County (1) Includes operating and debt service costs, net of refinanced debt. $33,988,003 3,662 3,557 3,440 3.437 3.291 3.174 3148 3028 2 925 2 904 13.8 14.2 14.6 14.4 14.9 15.1 15.2 15.5 15.5 15.3 recorded as payment to refunded bond escrow agent and $32,470,184 recorded as debt service expenditures. (2) Includes operating and debt service costs, net of refinanced debt. $9,493,530 recorded as payment to refunded bond escrow agent and $30,087,285 recorded as debt service expenditures. (3) Includes operating and debt service costs net of refinanced debt: $39,417,339 recorded as payment to refunded bond escrow agent and $15,000,000 recorded as debt service expenditures. (4) Includes operating and debt service costs net of refinanced debt: $18,416,824 recorded as payment to refunded bond escrow agent and $16,475,000 recorded as debt service expenditures. 131 u 132 UUoou u 133 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page I of 2 Meetin~l Date: Januar~ 24, 2001 Item Number: 8.A. 1. Subject: Nomination/Appointment/Reappointment to the Airport Advisory Board County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Nomination/Appointment/Reappointment to the Airport Advisory Board Summary of Information: The purpose of the Airport Advisory Board is to advise the Board of Supervisors on those matters pertaining to the airport, including long term conceptual planning, the Airport Master Plan and development plans, and flight and Airport safety. The Advisory Board perform other duties as may be directed by the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors appoint one member for each magisterial district and one Ex Officio member from County Administration. Ail members are appointed for three year terms. Terms are staggered so that no more than two members may rotate off the Board at one given time. In making appointments, the Board of Supervisors shall, to the extent feasible, give consideration to the unique interest and expertise in the field of aviation. The following list of individuals is recommended for reappointment to the Airport Advisory Board Committee from February 14, 2001 - February 14, 2004. The following individuals meet all eligibility requirements to fill the vacancies and have ind$$ated their willingness to serve. Preparer: ~.~;;;~~::'-;:~"~ Title: Director, Aviation Services Attachments: [--~ Yes No 146 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Dale District Steven R. O'Leary Bermuda District Charles H. Sims Midlothian District William B. Chandler Clover Hill District John Thayer Matoaca District John R. Lillard Ex Officio Francis M. Pitaro The Board of Supervisors are in agreement with the nominations. Under the existing Rules of Procedure, appointments to boards and committees are nominated at one meeting and appointed at the subsequent meeting unless the rules of procedure are suspended by a unanimous vote of the Board Members present. Nominees are voted on in the order in which they are nominated. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Item Number: 8.A. Meetin~l Date: j~,-~,_,ar/r 24, 2001 , Subject: Nomination/Appointment/Reappointment to the Keep Chesterfield Clean Advisory Board County Administrators Commen~: County Administrator:'~~ /~~v~~_...~ ~- ~ Board Action Requested: Nominate/Appoint/Reappoint members to serve on the Keep Chesterfield Clean Advisory Board Summary of Information: The Keep Chesterfield Clean Advisory Board is made of citizen representatives of the five magisterial districts and a representative of local government. This Board oversees the Litter and Recycling Grant received by the County from the Department of Environmental Quality. Its purpose is to ensure that educational programs and activities are conducted to inform Chesterfield residents of the problems with littering and the benefits of recycling. Persons being submitted for Nomination/Appointment/Reappointment: Joan Cole has served as a Bermuda District Representative on the Keep Chesterfield Clean Advisory Board and is eligible for reappointment to a term from February 1, 2001 - January 31, 2002. Mr. McHale concurs with this nomination. Preparer:~Suz~' an ' Title: E~ension Aflent Attachments: -~ Yes No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Lucy Merchan has served as a Midlothian Representative on the Keep Chesterfield Clean Advisory Board and her term expires on January 31, 2001. Louise Summey has expressed interest in serving as the new Midlothian District Representative for a term from February 1, 2001 - January 31, 2002. Staff recommends this reappointment. Mr. Barber concurs with this nomination. Charles Lewis has served as a Dale District Representative on the Keep Chesterfield Clean Advisory Board and is eligible for reappointment to a term from February 1, 2001 - January 31, 2002. Mr. Miller concurs with this nomination. Julie Stykemain has served as the Clover Hill District Representative on the Keep Chesterfield Clean Advisory Board and her term expires on January 31, 2001. Pat Roble has expressed interest to serve as the new Clover Hill Representative for a term from February 1, 2001 - January 31, 2002. Staff recommends this appointment. Mr. Warren concurs with this nomination. Caroline Bosh has served as a Matoaca District Representative on the Keep Chesterfield Clean Advisory Board and her term expired on January 31, 2001. Henrietta Yaworsky has expressed interest to serve as the new Matoaca Representative for a term from February 1, 2001 - January 31, 2002. Staff recommends this appointment. Mrs. Bush Humphrey concurs with this nomination. Under the existing Rules of Procedure, appointments to boards and committees are nominated at one meeting and appointed at the subsequent meeting unless the Rules of Procedure are suspended by an unanimous vote of the Board members present. Nominees are voted on into the order in which they are nominated. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 3 Meetin~l Date: Januar~ 24, 2001 Item Number: 8.B.l.a. Subject: Set a Public Hearing to Consider a Change to the County Vehicle License Ordinance to Move the Vehicle License Tax Year County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Set a public hearing for the first meeting in February to consider the attached ordinance. Summary of Information: Current Process: Currently, the vehicle license tax year commences on July 1 and ends on June 30. Citizens are allowed a 30 day grace period ending July 31 to renew vehicle licenses without penalty. Under the current ordinance, citizens must display current vehicle licenses prior to August 1. Proposed Process: Effective 2002, we are requesting a change to the Vehicle License Ordinance as set forth in Section 13-57 of the County Code to move the license tax year to commence on June 26 and end on June 25 of the following year and eliminate the 30 day grace period. Under the proposed ordinance, citizens must display current vehicle licenses prior to June 26. This change provides the following benefits: Accelerate collection of approximately $450,000 of vehicle license fees, resultinG stron~ Preparer: Ric[ Attachments: in better cash flow ~nd bash posi~i~ at fiscal fear ard A. cr~ Yes ~ No related investment earnings and a end. Title: Treasurer Meetin~ Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Januar~ 24, 2001 Page 2 of 3 - Delinquent collection efforts and enforcement would be able to commence more than a month earlier, improving the effectiveness of these critical processes. - The proposed change allows for ample time for taxpayers to mail payments on the June 5 due date and receive their vehicle licenses in the mail prior to June 25. - The proposed change compresses the timeframe for decal issuance which should not be a burden on the taxpayer (since Car Tax Relief is projected to be 100%) and is much less stressful for employees. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 3 of 3 Meeting Date: January 24. 2000 Number Bud.qet and Management Comments: Proposed change in vehicle license tax would result in a one-time adjustment in FY2002 revenues of approximately $450,000 due to the change in timing. No other fiscal year will be impacted, and other fiscal impacts will be minimal. Rebecca T. Dickson Title: Director, Budget & Manaqement AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 13-57 RELATING TO THE LICENSE TAX YEAR FOR MOTOR VEHICLES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: That Section 13-57of the Code of the Count~ of ChesterfieM, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Sec. 13-57. Vehicle license tax year. The vehicle license tax year shall commence on June 26 Jttt~ of each year. Valid vehicle licenses must be displayed_ on the vehicle by June 26. ~l~,~ ~: ........ ~,l,~' .... ~ul~' ......... a t~u,,~' ............. y~,~ -~,*y L_,~ used ---"" ........... "-- ~'--" .... ' ......... '- -"'~--'-- -~' " ............ '" ........... (2) That this ordinance shall become effective August 1, 2001. 0614:51916.1 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: January 24, 2001 Item Number: 8.B.l.b. Subject: Set Public Hearing for March 14, 2001 to consider the adoption of two ordinances relating to the implementation of Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed Master Plan County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Set Public Hearing date of March 14, 2001 to consider the following ordinances: 1) an ordinance for the establishment of a Pro-Rata Fee program for the construction of the regional BMPs in the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed; 2) an ordinance that would amend the Flood Plain Ordinance to incorporate measures to protect those floodplain areas designated as regional BMPs in the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed Master Plan. Summary of Information: At the October 25, 2000 meeting, the Board of approved the Watershed Master Plan and Maintenance Program for the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed to include the siting, construction and permitting of regional BMPs and the establishment of a pro-rata fee program for the construction of the regional BMP. Staff was directed to implement the Plan, including the development of applicable ordinances. Staff has identified two ordinances that are needed to implement the Swift Creek Reservoir Plan. The first ordinance would amend the County Code to establish a ProrRata fee for the construction of the regional BMPs. The second ordinan~would amend the existing floodplain ordinance to provide for measures t~otect floodplain areas within the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed t~t have been designated as BMPs in the Master Plan. Preparer: /~-~7~__ J. ~ ~ Title: Water Quality Ad ministrator Attachments: -] Yes No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page t of 1 Meeting Date: January 24, 2001 Item Number: 8.B. 2. Subject: State Road Acceptance County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: BERMUDA: Mount Blanco, Section 4 MATOACA: Regalia at The Highlands Preparer: Attachments: ----]No Title: Director of Environmental Engineering TO: Board of Supervisors FROI~ DepOt of En~ Engineering SUBJECT: State Road Accep~ce - MOUNT BLANCO, SEC. 04 DISTRICT: BERMUDA MEETING DATE: 24 January 2001 ROADS FOR CONSIDERATION: SLOAN DR Vicinity Map: MOUNT BLANCO, SEC. 04 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Depamm~t of Em4rommntal Engineering SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance - REGAl IA AT THE HI~S, SEC. 1 DISTRICT: MATOACA MEETING DATE: 24 January 2001 ROADS FOR CONSIDERATION: EASTFAIR DR REGAIiA CT REGALIA DR REGALIA PL Vicinity Map: REGAl IA AT THE HI(3KANDS, SEC. 1 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: January 24, 2001 Item Number: 8.B.3.a. Subject: Appropriation of $44,494 for a ~ll-time Chesterfield County Victim Services Advocate County Administrator's Comments: ~~ ~~ County Administrator: ~ ~ ~/~ Board Action Requested:L,/ v The Board of Supervisors is requested to appropriate $44,494.00 in grant funds from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) to provide services to victims of domestic violence. The Board of Supervisors is also requested to create one full-time position for a domestic violence victim services advocate in the Community Corrections Department to provide these services as described in a grant application approved by DCJS. Summary of Information: The position will provide specialized individual and group counseling, case management and community referrals to victims of domestic violence through the county Domestic Violence Resource Center. This grant would provide specialized outreach, crisis intervention and counseling services for women affected by domestic violence who are seeking services in any county related agency. This position will strive to provide seamless access to county criminal justice and human services by providing on-site counseling/advocacy services at the J&DR court services office, the Department of Social Services and Community Service Board, Community Corrections offices and other county agencies as requested. This position will enhance the county's ability to provide comprehensive and longer-term community based counseling services to victims of domestic violence particularly victims in Chesterfield not seeking shelter but needing assistance in utilizing county services to increase their options and safety. This is a one-year grant, which is renewable for up to four more years. The total amount of the DCJS grant is $44,494.00. This money includes salary, benefits, travel, supplies and other expenses. There is a 25% local match and no indirect costs allowed. Preparer'~~ ,'/~~~~-¢c~¢'~,e: Deputy County Administrator, Human Services Attachments: Yes ~-~ No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meetino Date: January 24. 200'1 Number Budget and Management Comments' This item requests permission from the Board to accept and appropriate the DCJS grant that provides funding for a full-time victim services advocate for domestic violence, and associated operating costs. The total amount to be appropriated includes $44,494 in Department of Criminal Justice Services funding. There is a 25% County match required. The County match has been identified and accepted by DCJS as the funding currently provided for the Domestic Violence Coordinator. Preparer: ~-~~.,< ~'~--~~'~v~ Title: Director, Budqet & Manaqement Rebecca T. Dickson Position Description Domestic Violence Victim Services Advocate Position Description: The Domestic Violence Victim Services Advocate is responsible for providing direct crisis intervention services for victims of domestic violence across Chesterfield County's criminal justice and human services agencies. The Victim Services position provides individual and group counseling, case management, and community referrals to victims of domestic violence. The position also serves as a resource to county staff and agencies for individual case consultation. Supervision: The Domestic Violence Victim Services Advocate reports to the county Domestic Violence Coordinator and the Director of Community Corrections Services as appropriate. This position falls under the personnel policies, and procedures of Chesterfield County. The position is a full time employee. Position Duties: 1. Provides individual and group counseling, case management support and advocacy to Chesterfield County's victims of domestic violence across county criminal justice and human service system points of entry. 2. Conducts intake interviews in person or by telephone, gathers information on history of abuse, and develops assessment of current needs, assists in development of safety plans 3. Coordinates direct service efforts with county criminal justice and human service systems. 4. Informs and educates victims about the county legal and human services system, civil/criminal options and community resources. 5. Provide accompaniment for victims of domestic violence to magistrates and J&DR Court services, and in court appearances related to civil and/or criminal process, as requested. 6. Conduct on-site visits to the YWCA shelter, J&DR Court Services, Mental Health Center, and Dept. of Social Services to facilitate linking victims to county's criminal justice & human services. 7. Locates and links supports and services for individual victims based on their needs and choice 8. Monitors the appropriateness and adequacy of services delivered 9. Develop mechanisms to evaluate impact and victim satisfaction with services 10. Facilitate communication and networking amongst county service providers to increase efficiency and effectiveness of direct services to victims and perpetrators of domestic violence. 11. Distribute county resource information designed to educate individuals and increase awareness 12. Provides county agency and community training on issues related to domestic violence with county domestic violence coordinator as appropriate 13. Serves as a point of contact and resource specialist for county staff and individuals regarding issues of domestic violence, as appropriate. 14. Serve as a part of county Domestic Violence Team and on the Chesterfield County Domestic Violence Task Force 15. Develop forms and reporting procedures to collect relevant client case information and data 16. Advocate for the needs of domestic violence victims at all levels of work, establishing a baseline of seamless service, which ensures safety for victims and emphasizes accountability for perpetrators. Qualifications: Graduation from an accredited college or university with a Master's Degree in Social Work or related Human Service or Criminal Justice field preferred. At least two years experience with the delivery of domestic violence services. Working skills in crisis intervention, individual counseling, group facilitation, training and community education. Demonstrated experience in establishing and maintaining effective working relationship; in providing a broad range of clinical services; in maintaining case records; in preparing regular and special reports and in communicating effectively both verbally and in writing. Must successfully pass a criminal background check and submit to random drug screens. 1/01 CHESTERFIELD COUNTX BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page i of 2 Meeting Date: January 24, 2001 Item Number: 8.B. 3.b. County Administrator: Subject: Appropriation and Authorization of Continued Grant Funds for Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Stalking Prosecutor County Administrator's Comments: Board Action Requested: The Board is requested to authorize the Commonwealth Attorney to enter into a grant agreement with the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS)to provide continued funding for a Domestic Violence Against Women Prosecutor position; and appropriate revenue and expenditures related to this grant when received, not to exceed $66,430. Summa~ of In~rmation: The Commonwealth's Attorney has made application to the DCJS for continuation of the domestic violence prosecutor to prosecute violent crimes against women. This prosecutor position will also assist in coordinated efforts with the Domestic Violence Task Force to train personnel, educate the community and collect statistical data of court cases involving violence against women. DCJS has approved federal funding in the amount of $66,430. The maximum local cost to Chesterfield will be $20,081. The local share will be provided in the form of in kind services and presents no new cost to Chesterfield. Preparer: Title: Commonwealth Attorney Attachments: Yes No 160 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meetin_~ Date: January 24. 2001 Number Bud.qet and Mana.qement Comments: This item requests acceptance and appropriation of grant funds awarded by the Department of Criminal Justice Services beginning January 1, 2001 in the amount of $66,430. This grant will provide for continued funding of the Domestic Violence Against Women Prosecutor with the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office. Chesterfield's local match portion for this grant will be $20,081 in the form of in-kind services. There will be no additional costs to the County. Preparer: ~ c l Title: Director, Bud.qet & Mana,qement Rebecca T. Dickson CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of t Meeting Date: January 24, 2001 Item Number: 8.B. 4.a. Subject: Authorization to Exercise Eminent Domain for the Acquisition of Easements for the Great Branch Sewer Assessment Districts A & B Project County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ~ -/"¥ ~-~'d---~~ ./~ ~ . BoardActionRequested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the County Attorney to proceed with eminent domain and exercise immediate right of entry pursuant to Sections 15.2-1904 and 1905 of the ~ode of Virginia, and that the County Administrator be instructed to notify the owner by certified mail on January 26, 2001, of the County's intention to take possession of the easement. Summary of Information: On January 9, 2001, an offer of $14,131.00 was made by the Right of Way Office to The Estate of Hazel Brinser Copley, PIN: 784654709800000 for the purchase of a 16' permanent sewer easement and temporary construction easements for the Great Branch Sewer Assessment Districts A & B Project. The Estate has not accepted the offer nor made any counteroffer. Since the contract for the installation of the sewer line has been awarded, it is necessary to proceed with eminent domain immediately for the health and safety of the public. Staff will continue to negotiate with the owner in an effort to reach a settlement. District: Bermuda John W. Harmon Title:Riqht of Way Manager Attachments: Yes No --- AUTUMN Chester AMI: NSEWOOr CHESTE STA N MATCH LINE - SHEET 2 I I ! I I I l L. I AUSTIN BROCKENBROUGH]°~w~ ~ ^ & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. I'o~,~. Consulting Engineers Isc~.E 4800 ~VEST HUNDRED ROAD L ~~ = 60' P.O. BOX 4-800 PH. 804'-74-8-874-6r~)ATE !(;4 ICUENT LB_ ~Ol~ I.D, 8m. z J BERMUDA DISTRICT, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA AUSTIN BROCKENBROUGH' & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. AB& A Consul[ing Engmeers SCAL~.60' 4800 WEST HUNDRED ROAD P.O. BOX 4800 PH. 804-748-874610ATE CHESTER, VIRGINIA 23831 FX. 804-748-7849 I OCT, 30, 1998 tCLIENT I.D. JOB I.D, JO8 NO.97_8~ 0 MATCH LINE - SHEET 2 %` j J ' co J PLAT SHOWING A 16' SANITARY 5EWER : :IEASEMENT AND VARIABLE W'DTH CONSTRUCTION' I J J EASEMENTS ACRosS THE PROPERTY OF ~ ~ J THE HAZEL B. COPLEY ESTATE J BERMUDA DISTRICT, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA AUSTIN BROCKENBROUGH [~)R~w'~e ~ ^ JCU~T ,.~. & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. Consulting Engineers II~-E ~ ~ ^ I I JOE) N°'97 4800 WEST HUNDRED ROAD I 1' = 60. I 84 P.O. BOX 4800 PH. 804-74-8-8746JDATE IiLAST REVlSED CHESTER, VIRGINIA 23831 FX. 804-74-8-784-9 1 OCT. 30. 1998 ,OCT. 24-. 20O0 ! I I ! 8 I I I1 I' I .--I I I I I /! ! oZ~m~ 0 Z 9 {2, 4}. I I " u~ , , MATCH LINE - SHEET ,:3 l"! I[~[~[.~~ND VA~IAgL[ WIDTH co.sT~uczlo. ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. Il? I EASEMENTS ACROSS THE PROPER~ OF Con I, ,~, ~ ~ulfing Engineers I1~ x ~ THE HAZEL B OOPLEY ESTATE I ~--~, ,~,~ · ~oo ~ .u.~ ~o~ ~' ' ................................................. P.O. BOX 48~ PH. ICI.lENT 1,0. JOB I.D. I~ .% CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: January 24, 2001 Item Number: 8.B. 4.b. Subject: Authorization to Exercise Eminent Domain for the Acquisition of Easements for the Great Branch Sewer Assessment Districts A & B Project County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: BoardActionReques~d: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the County Attorney to proceed with eminent domain and exercise immediate right of entry pursuant to Sections 15.2-1904 and 1905 of the Code of Virginia, and that the County Administrator be instructed to notify the owner by certified mail on January 26, 2001, of the County's intention to take possession of the easement. Summary of Information: On January 9, 2001, an offer of $573.31 was made by the Right of Way Office to Virginia Electric & Power Company, PIN: 785656036900000 for the purchase of a 16' permanent sewer easement and 5' and 15' temporary construction easements for the Great Branch Sewer Assessment Districts A & B Project. The offer has not been accepted nor any counteroffer made. Since the contract for the installation of the sewer line has been awarded, it is necessary to proceed with eminent domain immediately for the health and safety of the public. Staff will continue to negotiate with the owner in an effort to reach a settlement. District: Bermuda Preparer: ~--~) John W. Harmon Title:Right of Way Manager Attachments: Yes No AUTUMN NSEWO0[ LAKEWOOD ESTATES Chester AME STA lq ~..~,~,~r-.,-~"~ 30' UTILITY EASEMENT . -'~'~"~_~,~ ~' \ / DB 3131, PG 551 . ~ / ~'~ ~ CHESTE~B~OOK FARMS ~.~ ~ S44'35'33"E ~ ~ BLOCK D - LOT 12 ~'~71 ~ 2 ~5' = ~ ~, PB 19, PGS 47-49 ~ ~ ~, ' N ~ P/L IS ALONG ~ ~ ~ ~.' ~ ~C/L O~C~ZE~ ~ ~ ¥~ - 071 Acre ' ~ ~A ~ ~ ' TEMPO~RY ~SEMENT: t ~ ~ ~:~ ~ ~ ~ 3852 Sq Ft ~657~2~.72 ~ ~ N- - ~N' ~' / - 089 Acre 11785223.68 ~ / , ,' ~ '~ ~ ~ 'X ~ CONST. ESM'TI ~ / ~ ~ X'~ x ~ I ~' ,' N HESTERBRO K FARMS o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N~ ~ ~ BLOCK D ~ LOT 11 z 16' PERMANENT ~ ~ ~ ~ ' E S~ER ~SEMENT~ ~ ~ ~'~ X ~ k X ~657502.77 15' TE~PO~RY ~ ~ ' X ~ 11785289.~9 CONSTRUCTION ESM'T ~ kk X~ ~--- ~ ~ ,VIRGINIA ELECTRIC~ ]~ ~ COUN~ OF N X CHESTERFIELD [~T~..~ nT~ ~ POWER COMPANY ,/ ,,,N~,~oooooo ~_~~t DB 124, PG 455 ~J PIN 785~5503~g00000 Xt~~~ xx ~110 ECOFF AVENUE GRAPHZC SCALE ~"=30 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ COUN~ PROJECT o 3o 6o 9o No. 98-0041 PLAT SHOWING A 16' PERMANENT SEWER EASEMENT AND 15' &: 5' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC &: POWER COMPANY LOCATED IN THE BERMUDA DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1' - 30' AUSTIN BROCKENBROUGH & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. PO BOX 4800 CHESTER VA. REV: OCT. 2~,. 2000 REV: JULY 19. 1999 REV: APR 1, 1999 DATE: OCT. 30, 1998 CEE-4885 97--84 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: January 24, 2001 Item Number: 8.B.5. Subject: Acceptance of Parcels of Land Along Old Buckingham Road, Huguenot Road, and Alverser Drive from Retlaw 100, LLC, a South Carolina Limited Liability Company County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ~ Board Action Reques~d: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the conveyance of parcels of land; Parcel A containing 0.4675 acres and Parcel B containing 0.1331 acres, from Retlaw 100, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company, and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. Summary of Information: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors accept the conveyance of parcels of land[ Parcel A containing 0.4675 acres and Parcel B containing 0.1331 acres, along Old Buckingham Road, Huguenot Road, and Alverser Drive as shown on the attached plat. This dedication is for the development of Alverser Plaza. Approval is recommended. District: Midlothian John W. Harmon Title:Riqht of Way Manaqer Attachments: Yes No VICINITY SKETCH ACCEPTANCE OF PARCELS OF LAND ALONG OLD BUCKINGHAM ROAD, HUGUENOT ROAD, AND ALVERSER DRIVE FROM RETLAW 100, LLC, A SOUTH CAROLINA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY N '""-OLD BUCKINGHAM ROAD (STATE ROUTE #677) VAR. WIDTH ~ ~ / 173 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: January 24, 2001 Item Number: 8.B.6. Subject: Request to Quitclaim a Portion of a Sixteen Foot Sewer Easement Across the Property of Emerson I, LLC County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ~ Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate a portion of a 16' sewer easement across the property of Emerson I, LLC. Summary of Information: Emerson I, LLC has requested the quitclaim of a portion of a 16' sewer easement across its property as shown on the attached plat. Staff has reviewed the request and recommends approval. District: Bermuda John W. Harmon Title:Right of Way Manaqer Attachments: Yes No VICINITY SKETCH REQUEST TO QUITCLAIM A PORTION OF A SIXTEEN FOOT SEWER EASEMENT ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF EMERSON I, LLC N OLD STAGE STATE 95 14/ ~ (;PIN 803-658-2736 ~. [ F &: C LLC . X~,,~ ......... ~ ~' .-------IEL I~ I-3 ZONED I GPIN 803-658-841' · ............ ~o . ~ ~ J 1804 COYOTE DR ~1,803,921.591 ~ ~_~/ '~/Sf$ ~ / DAVIS BROTHERS ~ ~...~/~~ ~ '~' ~ ~~~0~ I-3 ZONED lo' T~Mp carls1 GP,. a02-658-89 S II !1 .2 oo OLD STAG ' .. .,.E S.^.ES .NC I-3 ZONED 20' PERU. PROP. I I I I I BOUNDARY CURVE DATA X~RV~ f I L~NGTHI DELTA I RADIUS I CH LENGTH PERM. ~ ~ ~MT DATA 520°22'57"E gO6°34'O4"W '45"W N20°22'57"W 16' ~ER~. ESI~T · ~o' TEl~:, C0NST £SA~T TO BE VAE~TED t NAD 83 N24*52'31"E I 52.23' S88' 27'40"E I 53.66T 10.3.69' ~ Ch Bearing N66°56'55"E . 641.08' Ch 7.29' , /%= 08°21'33'', 20.22' R=50', L=7.29', T=3.67' 648.06' ~ Ch Bearing N71°59'26"E , 91.05' Ch 8.73' , /%= 01043'45'', R=288.46', L=8.73', T=4.35' (;PIN 802-657-9750 12200 OLD STAGE RD TIDEWATER FIBER II I-1 COND ZONED GPIN 803-657-0311 1230O OLD STAGE RD TIDEWATER FIBER II I-I COND ZONED N3,657,869.778 Ell.803.921.391 56.59' I I I .~oo-oo~S COUNTY PROJ # 00-0325 100 80 60 40 20 0 t6.55' C, PIN 803-656-4879 12301 OLD STAGE RD H.G. PUGH D.B. 5632,PG'169 ZONING A 100 200 Scale : 1" = 100' PLAT OF'VARIABLE WIDTH SEWER, EASEMENT · AND OFA 16' SEWER.EASEMENT TO BE VACATED ALON~ OLD S'~..,E RD. (ST FT:rE 732) ACROSS ~ OF EMERSON i ,LLC Bermuda Dist. Chesterfield Co., Va. Dote · Dec. 22 , 2000 Scale · As Shown Walter M. Altmon, ~11, PE , CLS ~L~¢~: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: January 24, 2001 Item Number: 8.B.7. Subject: Request Permission for Underground Cable to Encroach Within a Fifty Foot County Right of Way Known as Hunters Hawk Drive in Beechwood Forest, Section 3 County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ~.=~ Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors grant Verizon Virginia, Inc., permission for underground cable to encroach within a 50' County right of way known as Hunters Hawk Drive in Beechwood Forest, Section 3; subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: Verizon Virginia Inc. has requested permission for underground cable to encroach within a 50' County right of way known as Hunters Hawk Drive in Beechwood Forest, Section 3. This request has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. District: Matoaca Preparer: John W. Harmon Title:Right of Way Manaqer Attachments: Yes No # 177 '" VICINITY SKETCt? REQUEST PERMISSION FOR UNDERGROUND CABLE TO ENCROACH WITHIN A COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY ~..,,, BRiDLEW OOD CT Chesterfield County Department of Utilities Right Of Way Office a6T "' ' ' - ~" ~.~.,r~;~ ~ ~ '..' .... ~ .... '.... ,: . ,...I. ~.,~. · ..,.... -: . ~ ..-...... :...., ~..:~'. ~. ~ ~ ~ _, ........... ~. ~ . ~ ' - ~ / _ ~,am~, _ fi~g, / ~'" l~ ' / /,~ ~. / ~ - D tel -- DESIG~D TELECOmCATIONS, INC. ~E~O~ ~OI~~ I~C. ~1 BE~LEHEM ROAD, ~CHMO~, ~qRGIN~ ~230 (804) 2134~1~ BUSED TELEPHONE ~BLE W~HIN ~ HUNTE~ HAWK D~VE ~GHT-OF-WAY, ~ ~=~=~d~o~ V~d=o~ V~, ~nc. MATOA~ DI~~ CHE~ERFIELD~ VA GEO./T~ DI~: 8302~/2~99 COUNt: CHE~ER~ELD ~ATE: ~RGINIA VE~ZON W.O. NO: BT-0-0203 WIRE CENTER: B~HIA D-TEL W.O, NO: 5939 DATE: DECEMBER ~3~ 2000 PREPARED BY: D-TEL/SHB S~LE: NOT TO ~LE B/A PE~ NO: ~-~02236-W ~COUN~ ~ND-USE ~CENSE~ SHE~ ~ OF ~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of I Meeting Date: January 24, 2001 Item Number: 8.B. 8. Subject: Approval of the Purchase of Right of Way for the Salem Church Road Sidewalk Project from Roger Lee Barlow and Pricilla F. Barlow County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: '-~~ Board Action Requested: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors approve the purchase of right of way for the Salem Church Road Sidewalk Project from Roger Lee Barlow and Pricilla F. Barlow and authorize the County Administrator to execute the deed. Summary of Information: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors approve the purchase of 0.017 acres of right of way along Salem Church Road, for $490.00 from Roger Lee Barlow and Pricilla F. Barlow. This parcel of land will be used for the construction of sidewalks along Salem Church Road to the Salem Church School Complex. District: Dale JohVn W. Harmon Title:Riqht of Way Manaqer Attachments: Yes No VICINITY SKETC APPROVAL OF THE PURCHASE OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE SALEM CHURCH ROAD SIDEWALK PROJECT 288 POX ~Y DR LN OST~R~/N~) ~ ~ LN z: DR Chesterfield County Department of Utilities Right Of Way Office NO. DIRECTION D/STANCE Z3 N 08'56'44" kY 3.51' L4 S 05'43'08" E 9.03' 15 iS ~4'~9'59" kY $.75' ~8 N 80'43~6" W 3.86' L9 N 23'13'58;' · Z2G' t~O ~ 07'55'i9' ~ 4Z32' ~1 ~ 05'JS'JS" f 78.05' ZZ2 S 00'3~" W 2570' Z IJ N 80'38'44" ~ J..~J' 174 JOHN PATRICK & TOld IOUOHRAN gPIN //77~-656-6987 (PT,) DB.2508 PG. 121 ..o301 SALEU CHURCH RD 25 0 25 5O 75 So:fie !" =- 50' PLA T OF YARIASL t'-. ?Y/O T/-/ R//~/ AND ,4 :MP CONS:~UCTION EISEA4ENT ALONG :2l_::J CHURCH POlO REV 4-23-99 DALE DISTNICT RE'K' 4-5-99 CHFSTE~FIELD COUN~ VIRGINIA SCAL~' 7%50' JO~ NO; 79476'6 PlJ~NER$ · ARCHITEC'I'S · ENGINEER8. SURVEY'OR8 208 Coq~2rate Oirele*Floanoke, Virginia 24018 * Phone (540) 772-9580 · Fax (54 O) 772-8050 Bmnchmtay Road * SLdte ll00, RIIohmot~d, V't~glnla 28236, Photo} (804) 794~S71, Fax (8D4) 7g~.2La35 0.~3,~8 Lal<ertdge Parkway. Suite I · Ashler'~d, Vlrglrlle 2S005 · Phone (~04) 550-2~8 · Fax (804) 560-2057 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meetin~l Date: January 24, 2001 Item Number: 8.B.9. Subject: Appropriation of $75,000 to the Industrial Development Authority for Purposes of an Economic Development Grant to Columbia/HCA County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board of Supervisors is requested to appropriate $75,000 to the Industrial Development Authority. Summary of Information: Columbia/HCA has recently chosen Chesterfield County over Beckley, West Virginia as the location for consolidating its regional service centers, which are currently located in Virginia, West Virginia and New Hampshire. Columbia/HCA will be leasing 80,000 square feet of office space in the Boulders. Approximately 385 full time jobs and 26 part time jobs will be relocated to Chesterfield. Columbia/HCA will be investing over $10 million in leasehold improvements and equipment and will be contributing significantly to the tax base in the County. Economic Development staff have been working with Columbia/HCA to bring them to the County and as an inducement to locating here are recommending that a $75,000 Economic Development Grant be awarded to the company by the Industrial Development Authority. Staff recommends appropriating $75,000 to the Industrial Development Authority to be awarded to Columbia/HCA contingent upon a performance agreement being entered into between the IDA and Columbia/HCA which obligates Columbia/HCA to invest at least $5 million in new equipment and cr~te at lea~,..385 full time jobs in the County. Preparer: ~ ~) L c~_.~,~,~,..-~1 Title: Dire~or of Economic Development // James G. Dunn 0614:51001.1 A~achments: ] I Yes No # CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meetina Date: Januarv 24. 2001 Number Budget and Management Comments: This request is to appropriate $75,000 to be paid to the Industrial Development Authority for an incentive for the Columbia/HCA for leasing office space in Chesterfield County. Funds are available to appropriate for this purpose. Preparer: Rebecca T. Dickson Title: Director, Budget & Manaqement 184 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page I of I Meetin~l Date: January24, 2001 Item Number: 8.B.[0. Subject: Consideration and Approval of Agreement With Virginia Biotechnology Research Park County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Approval of the attached Memorandum of Understanding between Chesterfield County and the Virginia Biotechnology Research Park Summary of Information: A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been developed between Chesterfield County and the Virginia Biotechnology Research Park to formally acknowledge the mutual interest, support, and commitment we share in increasing the bioscience industry in the Richmond area. In addition to identifying ways in which each party can mutually benefit from jointly promoting this growing and vibrant industry, the MOU will also establish the Virginia Biotechnology Research Park at Meadowville. // JamesG. Dunn AttacHments: [----~ No Title: Director, Economic Development MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE VIRGINIA BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH PARK AT MEADOWVILLE This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into this __day of ,200_ by and among the Virginia Biotechnology Research Park (the "Research Park"), the Virginia Biotechnology Research Park Authority (the "Authority"), the County of Chesterfield (the "County"), and the Industrial Development Authority for the County of Chesterfield (the "IDA") for the creation and marketing of an extension of the Research Park to be located in the Meadowville Technology Park located in Chesterfield County, Virginia. WHEREAS, the Research Park is a 501 (c) (3) non-profit, non-stock corporation that has been organized exclusively for the purpose of scientific and technological research and economic and industrial development; and, WHEREAS, the Authority is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia which has broad powers to own and develop properties and facilities for the purpose of enhancing Virginia's biotechnology and life sciences industry; and, WHEREAS, the Research Park and the Authority have established a technology business incubator on a 34 acre site located adjacent to the Medical College of Virginia campus of Virginia Commonwealth University which has facilitated the start-up of over 20 companies in greater Richmond and currently supports 34 companies, institutes and state agencies and employs nearly 650 people; and, WHEREAS, the development of the Research Park continues to mature to the point that it faces the challenge of providing land that can accommodate the future needs of not only new start-ups, but also the needs of the successful companies currently located in the Research Park which may soon outgrow their current location; and, WHEREAS, the Research Park and the Authority desire to provide continued support in the Richmond metropolitan region for the further development and commercialization of the bioscience and technology-driven products and services that have been created in the Research Park; and, WHEREAS, the IDA with the support of the County has established the Meadowville Technology Park in Chesterfield County which contains over 1500 acres of land that has been zoned for general industrial uses and has been master planned to attract and support high- technology industries; and, WHEREAS, past situations have demonstrated that the support and assistance of the Research Park is helpful in attracting large-scale biotechnology, pharmaceutical and life science companies looking to locate in the Richmond area at the Meadowville Technology Park, or elsewhere in the region; and, WHEREAS, the County has supported the Research Park in the past and wishes to take a more active role in the future in promoting life science companies in the Richmond metropolitan region; and, WHEREAS, all the parties agree that it would be in the best interest of the region to undertake a coordinated effort to affiliate the Meadowville Technology Park with the Research Park, in order to meet the future needs of "graduates" of the Research Park or large-scale users, and to help attract biotechnology, pharmaceutical and life science companies to the Richmond area. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and mutual benefits to be derived from further agreement of the parties, the parties enter into this Memorandum of Understanding to demonstrate their understanding of and concurrence to the following: 1. The IDA secured the property to create the Meadowville Technology Park through a "Development Agreement for Meadowville Technology Park" entered into between the IDA and Meadowville, L.L.C. dated December 12, 1997 ("Development Agreement"). Under the Development Agreement, the IDA and the County have been granted the exclusive right to market the property and an exclusive option to purchase the property. The Development Agreement provides the IDA with a favorable per acre purchase price for the property. The County has constructed substantial utilities to support the site. 2. Under the rights granted the IDA in the Development Agreement, the parties agree that a predetermined area within the Meadowville Technology Park will be designated as the "Virginia Biotechnology Research Park at Meadowville." The acreage will be within the (approximately) 325 acres available on the northern portion of the site, fronting 1-295, as depicted on the attached site location map and conceptual plan. 3. The Research Park will make reasonable commercial efforts to direct its "graduates" to the Research Park at Meadowville, as well as prospective companies whose land or space requirements cannot be accommodated within the confines of the Research Park's existing properties. 4. The parties will jointly create a marketing strategy for promoting the Research Park at Meadowville which will include, but not be limited to the following: coordinating a public announcement of this Memorandum of Understanding; including the Research Park at Meadowvitle in the marketing material for the Research Park; representing the Research Park at Meadowville at national and international conferences; and including the Research Park at Meadowville in joint marketing campaigns undertaken with the Greater Richmond Partnership, Virginia Economic Development Partnership, Virginia's Center for Innovative Technology, the Virginia Biotechnology Association and/or local economic development organizations. While any new campaigns or marketing materials that are developed by either party will reference the affiliation between the Research Park and Meadowville Technology Park, the cost will generally be borne by the party initiating the development of these materials, unless sharing of the cost is mutually agreed upon by both parties prior to the onset of the campaign or marketing project. The cost of marketing materials or new campaigns which may be developed for the Research Park shall be borne by the Authority and/or Research Park; for the Research Park at Meadowville, by the county and/or IDA. 5. The Virginia Biotechnology Research Park at Meadowville will be the primary satellite location in the Richmond metropolitan area that the Research Park recognizes as being officially affiliated with the Research Park, unless and until such time similar alliances are proposed and approved by all parties entering into this Memorandum of Understanding. 6. The IDA and County agree to coordinate any purchase of property within the area designated as the Virginia Biotechnology Park at Meadowville by a prospective company, the Research Park or the Authority, under the terms of the Development Agreement, in order to pass through the favorable purchase price provided to the IDA in the Development Agreement. 7. The County will fund the cost of any improvement or extension to the existing water and wastewater systems that may be required to support a prospective business. 8. The County would grant "fast-track" status for the permitting of all building plans for projects located in the Virginia Biotechnology Research Park at Meadowville. 9. Any commitments of the IDA or the County, under this Memorandum of Understanding, are contingent upon and subject to the Development Agreement remaining in effect, and upon the IDA and/or the County receiving an offer to acquire all or part of the site designated pursuant to this agreement. In the event that such an offer is received, the IDA and/or County would grant the Research Park a first right of refusal to acquire the subject property. 10. The parties agree to cooperate with each other in periodically evaluating or undertaking other efforts deemed reasonable and appropriate to further the affiliation of the parties created hereunder. 11. This Memorandum of Understanding is contingent upon the approval of the respective boards of the parties and may be terminated by any party with or without cause. COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: By: Title: Title: VIRGINIA BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH PARK VIRGINIA BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH PARK AUTHORITY By: By: Title: Title: 0623(00):51489.1 (rev'd 12/1/00) 3 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: January 24, 2001 Item Number: 8.B.ZZ. Su~ect: Approval of a Pipeline Crossing Agreement with CSX Transportation County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: BoardAction Requested: Authorize the County Administrator to execute a Pipeline crossing agreement with CSX Transportation for the installation of a sewer line for Merriewood Subdivision. Summary of Information: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the County Administrator to execute a pipeline crossing agreement with CSX Transportation for the installation of a sewer line to serve Merriewood Subdivision. Approval is recommended. District: Bermuda Jo~n W. Harmon Title:Riqht of Way Manager Attachments: Yes No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meetin~l Date: Januar~ 24, 2001 Item Number: Subject: Transfer of $4,500 in Midlothian District Improvement Funds to the Parks and Recreation Department for a Community Enhancement Program Project at Grove Shaft Park County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board is requested to transfer $4,500 in Midlothian District Improvement Funds to the Parks and Recreation Department for the completion of Grove Shaft Park Pedestrian Connections. Summary of Information: Supervisor Barber has requested the Board to approve the transfer of $4,500 in Midlothian District Improvement Funds to the Parks and Recreation Department to construct a pedestrian trail connector and associated site work linking the Queensmill Subdivision to Grove Shaft Park. The Grove Shaft Park is bordered by residential communities on three (3) sides and by the Grove and Walton Park. The Master Plan for the park calls for pedestrian trail connections from the park into these communities. The new Grove Subdivision has proffered connections to the Grove Shaft Park and to the adjacent Queensmill Subdivision. This work will be completed as the Grove Subdivision is constructed. To continue the connection into Queensmill, the construction of a connection into Queensmill is desired to complete formal pedestrian access all the way to the park. This connection will be constructed on a VDOT right of way. Preparer: Rebecca T. Di~-son Attachments: Yes ~ No Title: Director, Budget and Management 0423 :f ! 972. ] CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meetin~l Date: Jsnuar[ 24, 2001 Item Number: The Parks and Recreation Department will provide all labor to complete this project. The project will be completed in time for Summer 2001 use. It is legally appropriate to expend public funds for this project since the project will improve and serve an existing County recreational facility and will be constructed on public property. For information regarding available balances in the District Improvement Fund accounts, please reference the District Improvement Fund Report. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: January 24, 2001 Item Number: iO.A. Su~ect: Status of General Fund Balance, District Improvement Fund, and County Administrator's Comments: Reserve for Future Lease Purchases Capital Projects, County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information' Lane B. Ramsey Attachments: Yes [-~ No County Administrator BOARD MEETING DATE 07/01/00 11/08/00 11/08/00 11/08/00 12/20/00 12/20/00 12/20/00 12/20/00 12/20/00 12/20/00 12/20/00 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY GENERAL FUND BALANCE January 18, 2001 DESCRIPTION FY2001 Actual Beginning Fund Balance Designate excess revenue (County) for non- recurring items in FY2002 Designate excess expenditures (County) for non-recurring items in FY2002 Designate excess revenue (Schools) for non- recurring items in FY2002 FY00 Results of Operations - Fire FY00 Results of Operations - Parks and Recreation FY00 Results of Operations - Police FY00 Results of Operations - Libraries FY00 Results of Operations - School Match Study FY00 Results of Operations - Department Relocation in Administration Building FY00 Results of Operations - Schools unspent General Fund Transfer AMOUNT (4,017,649) (135,725) (3,822,401) (901,800) (171,600) (110,000) (327,200) (92,925) (210,000) (996,388) BALANCE $45,558,346 41,540,697 41,404,972 37,582,571 36,680,771 36,509,171 36,399,171 36,071,971 35,979,046 35,769,046 34,772,658 -"- CHESTERFIELD COUNTY "~ R..oERVE FOR FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS TRADITIONALLY FUNDED BY DEBT January 18, 2001 Board Meeting Date Description FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 BEGINNING JULY 1, 1999 4/28/99 FY2000 Budgeted Addition Amount $ 8,034,500 4/28/99 FY2000 Capital Projects (7,120,900) 8/25/99 Transfer to LaPrade Library Project for construction (150,000) 9/17/99 Partial Release of designation for Henricus Land Purchase based on final grant award 104,425 12/15/99 Transfer to Circuit Court Project for construction of courtrooms/chambers/parking lot (300,000) 2/23/00 Transfer to Coalboro Road Extended Project for construction in conjunction with Vulcan Materials Company (350,000) 4/12/00 Transfer for Ecoff Avenue Land Acquisition for recreational and athletic facilities (250,000) 5/22/00 Release designation for FY2000 road projects local match not approved by VDOT: Point of Rocks Road Bike Trail, Phase I Centre Street Streetlight Cogbill Road Sidewalk Salem Church Road Sidewalk 48,000 8,000 26,000 15,200 6/28/00 Transfer for construction of the range master's and training buildings located at Public Safety Training Facility in Enon. (300,000) 6/30/00 Return unused funds; closure of various completed projects 30,724 Balance 8,650,602 1,529,702 1,379,702 1,484,127 1,184,127 834,127 584,127 681,327 381,327 412,051 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 BEGINNING JULY 1, 2000 4/12/00 FY01 Budgeted Addition 4/12/00 FY01 Capital Projects 8,400,000 (6,939,600) 8,812,051 1,872,451 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 ~ Prepared by Accounting Department December 3 t, 2000 SCHEDULE OF CAPITALIZED LEASE PURCHASES Date Began APPROVED ANDEXECUTED Description Original Amount Date Ends Outstanding Batanee 12/31/00 '12/93 04/99 06/99 Real Property Lease/ Pumhase Public Facility Lease Juvenile Courts Project School Copier Lease $17,510,000 16,100,000 43,587 12/01 11/19 06/04 2,475,000 15,295,000 32,284 TOTAL APPROVED AND EXECUTED $33,653,587 $17,802,284 PENDING EXECUTION Description Telephone System Upgrade - Lease Purchase Approved September 13, 2000 Building Construction, Expansion and Renovation and Systems- Certificates of Participation Approved October 25, 2000 Approved Amotmt $1,222,370 19,885,000 TOTAL APPROVED AND PENDING EXECUTION $21.107______~.370 *Second Refunding of Certificates of Participation, Series 1985 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: January 24, 2001 Item Number: iO.B. Subject: Roads Accepted into the State County Administrator's Comments: Secondary System County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: Lisa H. Elko Attachments: Yes ~-~ No Clerk to the Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meetin~l Date: Januar~ 24, 2001 Item Number: 10.c. Subject: CT,OS~,D S~,SS~ON County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Discussion of the expansion of an existing business in the county Summary of Information: Closed session pursuant to § 2.1-344A.5, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, for discussion concerning the expansion of an existing business in the county where no previous announcement has been made of the business' interest in expanding its facilities in the county. Preparer: ~ , ~ Title: County Attorney Steven L. Micas 0800:51995.1 I I Yes No # Attachments: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page I of 1 Meetin~l Date: January24,2001 Item Number: 14.A. Subject: Recognizing Ryan Christopher Groseclose of Troop 815, Sponsored by Chester United Methodist Church, Upon Attaining Rank of Eagle Scout County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ~-~ Board Action Requested: Adoption of attached resolution Summary of Information: Staff has received a request for the Board to adopt a resolution recognizing Mr. Groseclose of Troop 815, upon attaining rank of Eagle Scout. He will be present at the meeting, accompanied by members of his family, to accept the resolution. Bermuda District Ryan Christopher Groseclose Parents: Steven & Delece Lisa H. Elko Attachments: Ycs Title: No Clerk to the Board RECOGNIZING MR. RYAN CHRISTOPHER GROSECLOSE UPON ATTAINING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was incorporated by Mr. William D. Boyce on February 8, 1910, and was chartered by Congress in 1916; and WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was founded to build character, provide citizenship training and promote physical fitness; and WHEREAS, after earning at least twenty-one merit badges in a wide variety of skills including leadership, service and outdoor life, 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. Ryan Christopher Groseclose, Troop 815, sponsored by Chester United Methodist Church, has accomplished those high standards of commitment and has reached the long-sought goal of Eagle Scout, which is earned by only four percent of those individuals entering the Scouting movement; and WHEREAS, growing through his experiences in Scouting, learning the lessons of responsible citizenship, and endeavoring to prepare himself for a role as a leader in society, Ryan has distinguished himself as a member of a new generation of prepared young citizens of whom we can all be very proud. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby extends its congratulations to Mr. Ryan Christopher Groseclose on his attainment of Eagle Scout, and acknowledges the good fortune of the County to have such an outstanding young man as one of its citizens. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page I of 1 Meetin~l Date: Janua~ 24, 200t Item Number: 14.B. Subject; Resolution Recognizing the Brandermill Community Association County_ Administrator's Comments; County Administrator: Board Action Requested; Adoption of the attached resolution Summary_ of Information; Mr. Warren requested that the following resolution be adopted. This resolution is in recognition of the Brandermill Community Association's dedication and vision by maintaining the quality of life enjoyed by all Brandermill residents. P reparer:~ ~'~~-~Title: / Donald I~pel )~"~ (/ Director, Public Affairs Attachments: Yes ~-] No RECOGNIZING THE BRANDERMILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION FOR CONTINUED EXCELLENCE WHEREAS, the Brandermill Community Association celebrated its 25th anniversary in 1999; and WHEREAS, the Brandermill Community Association works diligently to maintain the quality of life enjoyed by all Brandermill residents; and WHEREAS, the Central Virginia Chapter of the Community Association Institute named the Brandermill Community Association its "Community Association of the Year" for 1998; and WHEREAS, this prestigious award leadership and vision on behalf of residents; and is given in recognition of the community association's WHEREAS, this award also considers the advancement of sound business development and planning, noteworthy environmental stewardship and active participation with local government; and WHEREAS, Brandermill has again been honored by the Central Virginia Chapter of the Community Association Institute for having the best community association for the year 2000; and WHEREAS, such sustained appropriate recognition. commitment to excellence deserves NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors expresses its congratulations to the Brandermill Community Association and wishes it continued success. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of I ,Meetin~l Date: January 2 4,2 0 01 Item Number: 14. C. Subiect: Resolution Recognizing the Route 360 West Corridor Association County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: The ~oute 360 West Corridor Association was organized to implement the Route 360 West Corridor Design Study requirements and address other community issues. The resolution is to recognize the committee for their dedication and hard work for the betterment of their community. Preparer: Thomas E. Jaco o~ Title:, Director of Planning C :DATA/AGENDA/Z001/JAN240 l. 1 Attachments' Yes No 1,96 RECOGNIZING MEMBERS OF THE 360 WEST CORRIDOR ASSOCIATION WHEREAS, the Route completed; and 360 West Corridor Design Study has been WHEREAS, this study outlines design improvements that can enhance the function and appearance of Route 360 from Courthouse Road to the Amelia County line; and WHEREAS, Route 360 is the "Main Street" for many neighborhoods and business centers and its function and appearance is vital to the health and vitality of this community; and WHEREAS, business and residential leaders have formed an organization, the Route 360 West Corridor Association, Incorporated, in order to implement improvements to the Route 360 West Corridor and address other community-wide issues; and WHEREAS, citizens who volunteer time and effort in the active improvement of their community are to be commended for their civic participation; and WHEREAS, the Route 360 West Corridor Association has already adopted articles of incorporation, by-laws, and a mission statement, as well as conducted substantive discussions on landscaping, pedestrian paths, and other design improvements along the Route 360 West Corridor; and WHEREAS, the following members have contributed significantly to the success of this Association -- Laurie Newill, co-chair; Mike Divita, co- chair; Donna Campbell; Ed Campbell; Paul Bonner; Martha Garcia; Emily Hudson; Myrna McCaffery; Tom Cole; Gretchen Cole; John Hughes; Tim White; Tracy Williamson; Dorcas Yeager; Terry Sheets; Ann Duffer; Dave Taylor; Betty Hunter-Clapp; Tommy Baer; Jim Gresock; Belinda Ricketts; Raymond Overby, Jr.; Raymond May; and Jim Moyler. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes and acclaims the establishment of the Route 360 West Corridor Association, Incorporated and the hard work of its residential and business members. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page I of 1 Meetin~l Date: Januar~ 24, 2001 Subject: Item Number: Resolution Recognizing Mary Marguerite Yanovitch County_ Administrator's Comments: 14.D.1. County Administrator: Board Action Requested; Adoption of the attached resolution Summary_ of Information; It is requested that the following resolution be adopted. This resolution is in recognition of Mary Marguerite Yanovitch's academic accomplishments and in being named as Midlothian's Junior Miss 2001. '-;";-C-'--''-'¢-'~;:~ ~" ;/"%'-<'~k'~ .... Title: Director. Public Affairs Preparer: .~ D°nald ~I' KapI~I"~ ~ '/ Attachments: Yes [--~ No RECOGNIZING MS. MARY MARGUERITE YANOVITCH AS MIDLOTHIAN'S JUNIOR MISS 2001 WHEREAS, the Junior Miss Scholarship Program provides college scholarships to outstanding young women; and WHEREAS, while in high school, these young women must have excelled in academics; been active in extracurricular activities that serve the community; strived to be physically fit; and must have developed a performing talent; and WHEREAS, Midlothian/Chesterfield's Junior Miss Scholarship Program was held in September 2000, with 15 contestants representing the five area high schools in northern Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Ms. Mary Marguerite Yanovitch has been named Midlothian's Junior Miss 2001; and WHEREAS, Ms. Yanovitch attends Clover Hill High School; and WHEREAS, Ms. Yanovitch was also winner of the Fitness and Talent Awards and won $1,300 in scholarships; and WHEREAS, Ms. Yanovitch intends to pursue a career as an International Business Correspondent, beginning with studies at the University of Richmond; and WHEREAS, Ms. Yanovitch Chesterfield County youth. is an outstanding representative of NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes the achievements of Ms. Mary Marguerite Yanovitch, wishes her continued success in her academic pursuits, and is proud to have her represent Chesterfield County schools as she continues with her higher education. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to Ms. Yanovitch and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meetin~ Date: Januar~ 24, 2001 Subject: Resolution Recognizing Molly Beilhart County_ Administrator's Comments: Item Number: 14.D. 2. County Administrator: Board Action Requested; Adoption of the attached resolution Summary. of Information: It is requested that the following resolution be adopted. This resolution is in recognition of Molly Beilhart's academic accomplishments and in being named as Chesterfield's Junior Miss 2001. Donald J. Kap~e?" ~/,,,~,';: ~' (/ Director, Public Affairs Attachments: Yes [--] No RECOGNIZING MS. MOLLY BEILHART AS CHESTERFIELD'S JUNIOR MISS 2001 WHEREAS, the Junior Miss Scholarship Program provides college scholarships to outstanding young women; and WHEREAS, while in high school, these young women must have excelled in academics; been active in extracurricular activities that serve the community; strived to be physically fit; and must have developed a performing talent; and WHEREAS, Midlothian/Chesterfield's Junior Miss Scholarship Program was held in September 2000, with 15 contestants representing the five area high schools in northern Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Ms. Molly Beilhart was selected as Chesterfield's Junior Miss 2001; and WHEREAS, Ms. Beilhart attends James River High School; and WHEREAS, Ms. Beilhart was also winner of the Miss Poise award, and won $1,100 in scholarships; and WHEREAS, Ms. Beilhart plans to.enter a course of study at the University of Virginia, William and Mary, or Elon College leading to a profession in teaching or journalism; and WHEREAS, Ms. Beilhart Chesterfield County youth. is an outstanding representative of NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes the achievements of Ms. Molly Beilhart, wishes her continued success in her academic pursuits, and is proud to have her represent Chesterfield County schools as she continues with her higher education. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to Ms. Beilhart and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: January 24, 2001 Subject: Special Recognitions Item Number: County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: Presentation by Dr. Brenda Mayo, the Board of Supervisors. Principal of Clover Hill High School to Preparer: Lisa H. Elko Attachments: [~--] Yes No Title: Clerk to the Board CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page I of 1 Meetin~l Date: January 24, 2001 Item Number: 16. Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Amending Sections 9-143 and 9-174 of the County Code to Change the Due Dates for the Remittance of Consumer Utility Tax and E911 Tax County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ~..~ Board Action Requested: Adoption of an amendment to Sections 9-143 and 9-174 of the County Code to change due dates for remittance of consumer utility and E911 taxes. Summary of Information: The County Code currently requires that all utility service providers remitting consumer utility taxes to the County deliver those taxes no later than the 15th day of the month succeeding the collection of the taxes. The Code of Virginia was recently amended to permit service providers to remit the taxes up to the last day of the month succeeding the collection of the taxes. Therefore, the County Code must be amended in order to avoid a conflict with state law. The Commissioner of Revenue has also requested that the deadline for the remittance of E911 tax be changed from the 15th of the month to the last day of the month to be consistent with the new deadline for other utility taxes and for ease of administration. Staff recommends adoption of the attached amendments to Sections 9-143 and 9-174 of the County Code. Title: County Attorney 0623:51900.1(51705.1) Attach ments: Yes ~----] No AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 9-143 and 9-174 RELATING TO BILLING, COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE OF CONSUMER UTILITY TAX AND E911 TAX BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: That Sections 9-143 and 9-174 of the Code of the Coun_tp of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Sec. 9-143. Collection and remittance by seller. Every telephone service seller shall collect the tax imposed at the time of collecting its service purchase price and shall pay the taxes collected during each calendar month to the treasurer on or before the last 15th day of the second calendar month thereat~er, together with the name and address of any purchaser who has refused to pay the tax° The required report shall he in a form prescribed by the county administrator. Sec. 9-174. Billing, collection and remittance of tax. All service providers under this Article XII shall bill the applicable consumer tax to all users who are subject to the tax and shall remit the same to the commissioner of the revenue for the county on a monthly basis no later than the last 15th day of the succeeding month of collection. Such taxes shall be paid by the service provider to the commissioner of the revenue for the county in accordance with applicable state code ~ ,~ § Jo. ~-,,~ and remitted in a form approved by the commissioner of revenue. Any tax paid by the consumer to the service provider shall be deemed to be held in trust by such provider until remitted to the county. Failure of the service provider to remit consumer taxes on a timely basis shall subject the service provider to penalties and interest as provided in Section 9-6. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 0614:51705.1 An Affiliate of Media General Advertisi ng Affidav}t (This is not a bi{i. Please pay from invoice) P, O, Box 85333 Richmond, Virginia 23293~0001 (804) 649-6000 ATTN l [SA FJ.KO P O BOX 4(] CHF, STRRFIEI.D VA 23832-0040 LDate 01/17/2001 Code 121 -- on TAK-F, NOTICETAKE NOTICE THAT THE BOARD Ad Size Account Num. 220806 01/17/2001 2.00 x 24.00 463 02 ATTACH HERE Media General OperationS, Publisher of THE RICH{V{OND TiMES-DiSPATCH This is to certify that the attached TAKE NOTfCF, TAKE NOTf(2f was published by Richmond Newspapers, Inc. in the City of Richmond, state of Virginia, on the following dates: 01/10/2001 01/17/2001 The fi.rst insertion being given .... Ol/] o/2ool Sworn to and subscribed before N~ary Public State of Virginia Cby of Richmond By Commission expires SH TH--iS iS NOT A BILL. PL -~"SEPAY FR ~ IN-'~61C~. THANK CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: January 24, 2001 Item Number: 18. Su~ect: Adjournment and Notice of Next Scheduled Meeting of the Board of Supervisors County Administrator's Commen~: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: Motion of adjournment and notice of next scheduled meeting on February 21, 2001, at 3:30 p.m. ~ -~3 ~~0~7 %/ ~b~ o_+'q~i3~ Lisa H. Elko Attachments' ['~ Yes Title: No Clerk to the Board