07-23-1986 PacketCHESTERFIELD COUNTY
Office of
NEWS AND INFORMATION SERVICES
PAULINE A. MITCHE
Direclor .
{804) 748-1192
July 3, 1986
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEAS~
./ Richard L. Hedrick, administrator of Chesterfield County, announced today
the appointment of Richard Freeman Sale, o£ Rochester, N.Y., as assistant
county administrator for community development. Sale, 44, currently deputy
commissioner of the Department o£ Community Development for the City of Rochester,
will assum~ his new duties in Chesterfield CoUnty next week.
In his current position with Rochester, Sale manages a staff of approximately
200, and administers a federally-funded community development program, the departments
of economic development, planning, zoning, neighborhood development, municipal
parking and capital improvement projects.
With Chesterfield County, one of the fastest-growing counties in the U.S.
with a population exceeding 181,000, Sale will manage utilities, transportation,
building inspection, environmental engineering, planning and zoning. Sale was
named to the position,following a nationwide search which attracted 132 applicants.
He will fill the position left vacant by Jeffrey Muzzy, who resigned in the spring
to become assistant city manager of Garland, Texas.
Sale is a graduate of Case ffestern Reserve University, with a B.S. degree in
-more-
P. O. Box 40 Chesterfield. Virginia 23832
CHESTERFIELD APPOINTMENT OF RICHARD SALE AS ASSISTANT COUNTY ADbtlNISTRATOR . Page 2.
political science, and of Ohio State University, where he received a master's
degree in city planning.
From 1972 to 1974 he was director of planning and assistant manager for
the town of Blacksburg, Virginia. Prior to that, from 1968 to 1972, he was an
assistant professor of city planning at Iowa State University.
Sale and his wife have three children: twin sons - one at Clemson University
and one at State University of New York/Buffalo, and a 14-year old daughter.
He is a member of the American Planning Association, the American Society
of Public Administration, and Tau Sigma Delta, an honor society in Architecture
and Allied Arts.
Release on on Richard Freeman Sale sent to:
News Media
Ail Departments
Management Team
Board of Supervisors
Virginia Town & City
Post Office Box 12203
Richmond,~ Va. 23241
Virginia Review
1601 Ware Bottom Spring Road
Chester, Va. 23831
Mr. Stuart Dunham, Editor
Democrat & Chronicle
55 Exchange Stret
Rochester, New York 14614
American Society of Public Administration
P.O. BOx 28078
Washington, DC 20038
Virginia Chapter - American Society
of Public Administration
P.O. BOx 70
Richmond, Va. 23201
American Planning Association
1313 East 60th Street
Chicago, Illinois 60637
Mr. Ellis A. Hicks, Editor
The Iowa Stater
Iowa State University
South State Avenue
Ames, Iowa 50010
Editor
Ohio State University Monthly
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43210
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
July 23, 1986
MEETING DATE: ,,,
ITEM NUMBER;
SUBJECT:
Resolution Recognizing Reverend Frank H.
Kingsland Baptist Church, upon his Retirement
LaPierre,
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Mr. Dodd has requested that the following resolution be
adopted.
WHEREAS, Reverend Frank H. LaPierre of the Kingsland Baptist
Church will be retiring on August 10, 1986 after diligently and
faithfully pastoring his congregation for twenty-four years; and
WHEREAS, Reverend LaPierre has contributed significantly to
the moral and spiritual strength of the Chesterfield Community;
and
WHEREAS, Reverend LaPierre serves as a Trustee of the
Childrens' Home of Virginia Baptists displaying a genuine concern
for his fellowman.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Members of the Board
of Supervisors of Chesterfield County do hereby wish Reverend
LaPierre a healthy and happy retirement with his wife, Margaret,
and many years of contentment and joy.
PREPARED BY;
ATTACHMENTS: YES [3
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE
SUBJECT:
July 23, 1986
ITEM NUMBER: 9.A.
Authorization to proceed with Condemnation of a Sewer
Easement for the installation of the Falling Creek
Sewer Force Main
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Staff requests the Board to authorize the County Attorney to
proceed with condemnation of a sewer easement across the property
of Joseph B. Lohr and Jane D. Lohr at the end of Tucker Road.
On February 27, 1986, Mr. and Mrs. Lohr signed a sewer
easement for the Falling Creek sewage force main and were paid
$450.00 for the easement. However, on May 19, 1986, the Lohrs
contested the County's right to construct an air release stack on
the rear of their property within the easement.
The Lohrs appealed to the Circuit Court for an injunction to
halt the project. The judge ruled that there apparently had not
been a 'meeting of the minds concerning the location of the air
release stack. In view of the County's good faith efforts to
acquire the easement and the public importance of the project;
however, the Court denied the Lohrs' motion for an injunction and
directed the County to bring a condemnation action to determine
the full amount of compensation to which the Lohrs are entitled
including damages resulting from the location of the air release
stack on their property.
(Continued o~ Next Page)
ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO I-I
SIGNATURE:
"COUNTY ADMI NISTRATOR
Agenda Item
July 23, 1986
Page 2
Staff has responded to the Lohr's concerns about the air
release stack but to date has been unable to reach an agreement.
Although we will continue to work with the Lohrs to try to reach
an agreement, Staff recommends that the Board authorize the
County Attorney to proceed with condemnation of this easement to
bring us into compliance with the direction from the judge.
District: Dale
Recommend Approval
8O
'-I
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
L.
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
July 23, 1986
ITEM NUMBER;
9oBo
APPOINTMENTS - INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
At the July 9, 1986, meeting the Board of Supervisors
nominated Mr° Thomas Steger, representing the Dale District,
and,~tr. Knox Ramsey, representing the Midlothian District, to
serve on the Industrial Development Authority. Formal appoint-
ment should be made at this time. Terms will be effective
immediately and will expire June 30, 1990.
PREPARED BY;
ATTACHMENTS: YES ri NO I~
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADM I N!STRATOR
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
MEETING DATE:
July 23, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:, 10,A.
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing to Consider an Amendment to Section
14.1-1 of the County Code Adopting by Reference into
the County Code all State Motor Vehicle Offenses
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
State law permits the County to incorporate by reference
into the County Code all state motor vehicle offenses defined by
the Code of Virginia. The effect of this incorporation is to
allow County police officers to charge motorists under County
summonses for such violations as reckless driving and failure to
yield the right of way. By charging local motorists under the
County Code, all fines are received by the County treasury rather
than being sent to the State Literary Fund. In order to keep the
County Code current, the Board annually must revise ~14.1-1 to
incorporate all changes made under State law during the previous
year. An amendment to adopt state law as amended in the future
to avoid a yearly revision to the County Code is not effective to
incorporate subsequent amendments to the State Motor Vehicle Code
made by the General Assembly because a legislative body such as
the Board may not delegate its power to enact ordinances. By
adopting the proposed amendment, all existing motor vehicle laws
ATTACHMENTS: YES ,~
NO []
(Continued)
Steven L. Micas
County Attorney
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Agenda Item
July 23, 1986
Page 2
of the State of Virginia currently in effect will be made a part
of the County Code and local police officers can continue to
issue summonses citing local Code sections.
The Chief of Police and the Commonwealth's Attorney have
both requested this change and support its adoption.
/85C16
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ARTICLE I,
SECTION 14.1-1 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
CHESTERPIELD, VIRGINIA, 1978, AS AMENDED
RELATING TO ADOPTION OF STATE LAW DEALING
WITH MOTOR VEHICLE OFFENSES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Chesterfield, Virginia:
(1) That the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as
amended, is amended by amending the following section:
Sec. 14.1-1 Adoption of state law.
Pursuant to the authority of section 46.1-188 of the Code of
Virginia, as amended, all of the provisions and requirements of
the laws of the state contained in Title 46.1 and Article 2 of
Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia, as in force on
July 1, ~98~ 1986, except those provisions and requirements the
violation of which constitutes a felony, and except those pro-
visions and requirements which by their very nature can have no
application to or within the county, are hereby adopted and
incorporated in this chapter by reference and made applicable
within the county. References to "highways of the state" con-
tained in such provisions and requirements hereby adopted shall
be deemed to refer to the streets, highways and other public ways
within the county. Such provisions and requirements are hereby
adopted, mutatis mutandis, and made a part of this chapter as
fully as though set forth at length herein, and it shall be
unlawful for any person, within the county, to violate or fail,
neglect or refuse to comply with any provision of Title 46.1 or
Article 2 of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia
which is adopted by this section; provided, that in no event
shall the penalty imposed for the violation of any provision or
requirement hereby adopted exceed the penalty imposed for a
similar offense under Title 46.1 or Article 2 of Chapter 7 of
Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia.
cd1550:85C8
IR, OM:
DATIi:
COUNTY OF
CHF, STERFIELD
VIRGINIA
MEMO
Progress Index
Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
July 3, 1986
Meetings, Coming Events
One (1) time, Wednesday, July 9, 1986
One (1) time, Wednesday, July 16, 1986
Please confirm by calling the County Administrator's Office
at 748-1200.
jsd
Attachment
COUNTY OF
CHESTERFIELD
VIRGINIA
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Richmond News Leader
Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
July 3, 1986
Meetings, Coming Events
One (1) time, Wednesday, July 9, 1986
One (1) time, Wednesday, July 16, 1986
Please confirm by calling the County Administrator's Office
at 748-1200.
jsd
Attachment
TAKE NOTICE
That the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia,
at a regular meeting on July 23, 1986 at 9:00 a.m. in the County
Board Room at Chesterfield Courthouse, Chesterfield, Virginia,
will hold a public hearing to consider:
An Ordinance to Amend Article I, Section 14.1-1 of the Code
of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, 1978, as Amended,
Relating to Adoption of State Law Dealing with Motor Vehicle
Offenses.
An Ordinance to Amend the Code of the County of
Chesterfield, 1978, as Amended, by Amending Section 5-14
Relating to Penalties.
The conveyance of that tract of land containing 1.2~ acres,
located in Dale Magisterial District, at the Chesterfield
County Airport Industrial Park, which parcel fronts to the
north side of Whitepine Road for approximately 120 feet and
which adjoins the western property line of the parcel shown
on a plat (prepared by Stiles L. Bartley and Associates,
dated May 23, 1986) as belonging to Kavanaguh.
Copies of the ordinances and plat are on file in the County
Administrator's Office, Chesterfield, Virginia and may be
examined by all interested persons between the hours of 8:30 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF' SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
MEETING DATE' ., ,, July 23, 1986
ITEM NUMBER: 10.B.
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing to Consider Revisions to the Animal
Control Ordinances to Provide a Minimum Fine
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: ~"/~',&'~',.-.~, ~U;// ;'A~ ,.
On June 25, 1986, the Board of Supervisors requested that
the staff re-advertise the proposed changes in the fines for
animal control violations to increase the minimum fines from
$15.00 to $25.00 and $25.00 to $50.00.
Violation
Running at large
Current
Fines
$0 - $100
Recommended Recommended
Fines Fines
6/25/86 7/23/86
Public Public
Hearing Hearing
$15 - $100
$25 - $100
Failure to license
$0 - $100
$15 - $100
$25 - $100
Failure to inoculate
for rabies
$0 - $100
$25 - $100
$50 - $100
ATTACHMENTS: YES'~ NO []
(Continued)
PREPARED BY; -.- ·
Steven L. Micas
County Attorney
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMI N! STRATOR
Agenda Item
July 23, 1986
Page 2
At today's public hearing the Board of Supervisors may adopt
any minimum fine up to the advertised amount. Staff recommends
adoption of a reasonable minimum penalty to deter violations of
the animal control ordinance.
cd1643:85C16
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING
SECTION 5-14 RELATING TO PENALTIES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That Chapter 5 of the Code of the County of Chester-
field, Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:
Sec. 5-14. Unlawful acts; penalties.
(a) The following shall be unlawful acts and constitute
misdeameanors punishable by a fine of not more than $100.00:
o o o
(3) Running at large. For any dog owner to allow a
dog to run at large in violation of ~5-6, 5-7, and 5-187 i
provide however, that the minimum fine for violation of §§ 5-6,
5-7 and 5-18 shall not be less than $25.00.
Sec. 5-29. Penalties. Any person violating the provision of
this article shall be guilty of a misdeameanor punishable by a
fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50.00 nor more than one
hundred dollars ($100.00).
(2) This ordinance shall become effective upon passage.
cd1362:85C8
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEET lNG DATE'
July 23, 1986
ITEM NUMBER: 10.C.
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing to Consider Conveyance to Stiles L.
Bartley and Associates a Parcel in the Airport Industrial
Park
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OFINFORMATION:
Stiles L. Bartley and Associates has agreed to purchase a 1.23 acre
tract on the north side of Whitepine Road at $32,500 per acre.
On June 25, 1986, the Board granted the County Administrator the
authority to executive a purchase agreement and set July 23, 1986
as the date for public hearing.
Stiles L. Bartley and Associates will build an office building and
a hangar on the site. The construction will consist of approxi-
mately 8,000 square feet.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of sale.
Attachment
AGI6JN48/dem
ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO []
EsDtBY;
PREPAR S~n~ y R._~ders0n, Jr.
~rector o~/Economic Development
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
-\
'\
Ill '
Il ~
fy '
,03
l~l ~
Ill
0
x~ /,/
141W I ~-£ ?/,4/£
70 ',¢/w
SURVEY FOR
PLOTTED .r".,'~','~ ~ CALC
CHECKED ,~-.,,~'.~"'. N B
LANDMARK SURVEYORS, INC.
Engineers, Surveyors, Planners
P.O. Box 62 Midlothlan. Virginia 23113
SCALE I"
DATE O(~-tO.~d, D,, I1(~(~-I
CHECKS PAYABLE TO
u9956,5
":::THE PROGgESS INDEX
15 Franklin Str~. P.O. Box 71
Petersburg, Va. 238044)071
Phone '- 732.3456
P.o.
NO · (3Ai~dFIED ADVr~I'ISlNG
WORDS. I ,.iBttlES I ,. ,AMOUNT'.
YOUR CLASSIFIED INVOICE
NOW DUE. IF NOT PAID WITHIN 14
DAYS AMOUN1 DUE WILL BE
PHONE GLERK
INDEXING TERMS:
AD GIVEN BY J CLASSIFICATION
I
START DATE J STOP DATE J SKIP SCHEDULE
.-- --' ' ,'.,",/'::."J t." 7/ ! .'."
~ PAY
IDl O BIILL
FOIl
NOTlCF.~
V'i 'r,~--i n'i n.
p. O. Box 71
pwrERSBURG, VA ~a804,.0071
DATI~Cl ~F' pUBLICATICIN
July 9, 16
14 inches (~ 7.20,$ i~r inch [$ 1291 60'l
That
TAKE NOTICE
RICtlMOND NEWSPAPERS, IN(.;.
Publisher of
THE RICHMOND NEWS LEADER
Richmond, .....................................
* e attached L[r~JL NOTICF ...... L. ........
This is to certify tha_t, .th. ~ _",'~'~';:~']'~'~ ...... ~'~pap~ pu]~-
· ,. - ~ ._ ,rt,~ tlichtnond N~ws .... ,~.,~.., a \ [
was pubnsnea l~ k.~. -,-, ~ ~ ~,~f~ nfVirg~ma. ~
lished in the City o! r~camonu ....... _ ~e~t, ~
,~L ~ 'l~ ................... ~.u ...... ;:..: .......................
a lg~ ........
The first insertion ,
Notary Public
State of Virgima, City of Richmond:
.................... · ......... ¥'i~:i]~ ................
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE'
July 23, 1986
ITEM NUMBER;
SUBJECT:
Drought Assistance for Farmers
i!.A.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Extremely high temperatures and lack of rain have put agricultur-
al crops in disastrous conditions in Chesterfield and surrounding
counties. As a result, we're requesting the Board of Supervisors
to pass on a resolution to the Governor declaring Chesterfield
County a disaster area. This declaration by the Governor would
enable Chesterfield'producers to take advantage of state and
federal assistance.
Estimated dam. age to crops is as follows: $ 1,147,225
Corn - 2,500 acres planted, 60% damaged, Loss of $255,000
Soy Beans - 1,500 acres not planted due to dry soils, Loss of $144,200
Soy Beans - 1,000 acres planted, 25% damaged, Loss of $53,025
Hay - 3,000 acres planted, 75% damaged, Loss.of $675,000
Pasture -,3,000 acres, 75% damaged, Loss of $20,000
RESOLUTION WILL BE AVAILABLE AT MFETING ON WEDNESDAY.
ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO ~
SIGNATURE:,
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County received less than two inches
of rain during June and July; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County has some 8,000 acres in
agricultural and horticultural production which has been severely
damaged by these, drought conditions; and
WHEREAS, this damage is projected to exceed 1.2 million
dollars.
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
requests Governor Gerald Baliles to declare Chesterfield County a
drought disaster area; thereby qualifying Chesterfield County
producers for any assistance programs that may be available at
the state and federal level.
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County received less than two inches
of rain during June and July~ and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County has some 8,000 acres in
agricultural and horticultural production which has been severely
damaged by these, drought conditions~ and
WHEREAS, this damage is projected to exceed 1.2 million
dollars.
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
requests Governor Gerald Baliles to declare Chesterfield County a
drought disaster area; thereby qualifying Chesterfield County
producers for any assistance programs that may be available at
the state and federal level.
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETINGDATE: July 23, 1986
SUBJECT:
Destruction of bonds and coupons
ITEM NUMBER: 11. C.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION=
The Treasurer requests a resolution authorizing the destruction of bonds and
coupons which matured prior to 1970, were paid by former treasurers and were
examined by the auditors during the annual audit for the fiscal year they were
paid.
Sec. 58.1-3130 of the Code of Virginia requires the Treasurer to retain these
records until the Board of Supervisors authorizes their destruction. Also the
Board must designate a committee of three persons to supervise, witness and certify
the destruction of these bonds and coupons. Since Mary Lou Lyle, Internal Auditor,
is familiar with these requirements, she and Brad Hammer or Bill Howell could
be appointed to assist the Treasurer in the destruction of these worthless records.
A copy of Section 58.1-3130 of the Code of Virginia is attached, as well as a
listing of the paid bonds and coupons.
ATTACHMENTS; YES ~ NO I-!
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADM I N I STRATOR
Page 1
MARY ARLINE MC(~UIRE
DEPUTY TREASURERS
V. L, CIIments
H, K, Llonlrd
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Chesterfield County School 2~% Bonds Issued July 1, 1948
Bonds Numbered 1 - 100 @ $1000.00 each
Chesterfield County School 2~% Bonds Issued July 1, 1948
Bonds Numbered 101 - 200 @ $1000.00 each
Chesterfield County School 2~% Bonds Issued July 1, 1948
Bonds Numbered 201 - 300 at $1000.00 each
Chesterfield County School 2~% Bonds Issued July 1, 1948
Bonds Numbered 301 - 400 @ $1000.00 each
Chesterfield County School 2~% Bonds Issued July 1, 1948
Bonds Numbered 401 - 500 @ $1000,00 each
Chesterfield County School 2~% Bonds Issued July 1, 1948
Bonds Numbered 501 - 600 @ $1000.00 each
Chesterfield County School 2~% Bonds Issued July 1, 1948
Bonds Numbered 601 - 700 @ $1000.00 each
Chesterfield County School 2½% Bonds Issued July 1, 1948
Bonds Numbered 701 - 800 @ $1000.00 each
Chesterfield County School 2½% Bonds Issued July 1, 1948
Bonds Numbered 801 - 900 @ $1000.00 each
Page 2
MARY ARLINE MC(~UIRE:
Trl~urez
22,270
Coupons for Chesterfield School Bonds Issued July 1, 1948 @ $12.50 each
2000 Coupons No
2000 Coupons No
2000 Coupons No
2000 Coupons No
1915 Coupons No
1915 Coupons No
1830 Coupons No
1830 Coupons No
1740 Coupons No
1740 Coupons No
1650 Coupons No
1650 Coupons No
1 dated 1/1/49
2 dated 7/1/49
3 dated 1/1/50
4 dated 7/1/50
5 dated 1/1/51
6 dated 7/1/51
7 dated 1/1/52
8 dated 7/1/52
9 dated 1/1/53
10 dated 7/1/53
11 dated 1/1/54
12 dated 7/1/54
#1 - 2000
#1 - 2000
#1 - 2000
#1 - 2000
#86 - 2000
#86 - 2000
#171 - 2000
#171 - 2000
#261 - 2000
#261 - 2000
#351 - 2000
#351 - 2000
2i
Page 3
MARY ARLINE MCGUIRE
10
15
DEPUTY' TREASURERS
V. I.. Clements
H. K. LeonercI
Chesterfield County 3¼% Water Revenue Bonds zssued July 1, 1951
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 551 - 560. Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 13 - 28 @ $16.25 each due January 1, 1958 thru July 1, 1965
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds ~ssued July 1, 1951
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 561 - 575. Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 12 - 28 @ $16.25 each due January 1, 1957 thru July 1, 1965
2O
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds issued July 1, 1951
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 576 - 595. Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 13 - 28 @ $16.25 each due January 1, 1958 thru July 1, 1965
23
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds issued July 1, 1951
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 596 - 620 Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 15 - 28 @ $16.25 each due January 1, 1959 thru July 1, 1965
5
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds issued July 1, 1951
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 621 - 625. Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 12 - 30 @ $16.25 each due July 1, 1957 thru July 1, 1966
Chesterfield County 3¼% Water Revenue Bonds zssued July 1, 1951
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 626 - 630. Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 12 - 30 @ $16.25 each due July 1, 1957 thru July 1, 1966
10
Chesterfield County 3¼% Water Revenue bonds issued July 1, 1951
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 631 - 640. Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 15 30 @ $16.25 each due January 1, 1959 thru July 1, 1966
8O
Chesterfield County 3¼% Water Revenue Bonds ~ssued July 1, 1951
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 641 - 720. Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 12 - 30 @ $16.25 each due July 1, 1957 thru July 1, 1966
Chesterfield County 3¼% Water Revenue Bonds zssued July 1, 1951
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 721 - 725 Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 15 - 32 @ $16.25 each due January 1, 1959 thru July 1, 1967
Page 4
MARY ARLINE MCQUIRE
DI:'PUTY TREASURERS
V. L. Clements
H. K. Leon&rcI
4O
Chesterfield County 3¼% Water Revenue Bonds issued July 1, 1951
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 726 - 765 Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 15 - 32 @ $16.25 each due January 1, 1959 thru July 1, 1967
35
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds issued July 1, 1951
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 766 - 800 Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 12 - 34 @ $16.25 each due July 1, 1957 thru July 1, 1968
Chesterfield County 3¼% Water Revenue Bonds issued April 1, 1948
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 216 - 222
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds issued April 1, 1948
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 223 - 230 Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 19 - 21 @ $16.25 each due October 1, 1957 thru October 1, 1958
10
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds issued April 1, 1948
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 231 240
25
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds issued April 1, 1948
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 241 265 Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 22 - 23 @ $16.25 each due April 1, 1959 thru October 1, 1959
2O
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds issued April 1, 1948
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 266 - 285 Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 19 - 25 @ $16.25 each due October 1, 1957 thru October 1, 1960
Chesterfield County 3¼% Water Revenue Bonds issued April 1, 1948
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 286 - 290 Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 22 - 25 @ $16.25 each due April 1, 1959 thru October 1, 1960
2O
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds issued April 1, 1948
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 291 - 310. Coupons on above as follows
Coupons 19 - 27 @ $16.25 each due October 1, 1957 thru October 1, 1961
Page 5
MARY ARKINE MCGUIRE
Tmllurer
5
2O
15
10
25
2O
DEPUTY TREASURERS
V. t.. Clements
N, K, Leon&rd
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds issued April 1, 1948
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 311 - 315. Coupon on above as follows:
Coupons 22 - 27 @ $16.25 each due April 1, 1959 thru October 1, 1961
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds issued April 1, 1948
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 316 335 Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 19 - 29 @ $16.25 each due October 1, 1957 thru October 1, 1962
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds issued April 1, 1948
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 336 - 340 Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 22 - 29 @ $16.25 each due April 1, 1959 thru October 1, 1962
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds issued April 1, 1948
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 341 - 355
'Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 19 - 31 @ $16.25 each due October 1, 1957 thru October 1, 1963
Chesterfield County 3¼% Water Revenue Bonds issued April 1, 1948
@ $i000.00 each, Bond Nos. 356 - 365. Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 22 - 31 @ $16.25 each due April 1, 1959 thru October 1, 1963
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds issued April 1, 1948
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 366 - 390 Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 22 - 33 @ $16.25 each due April 1, 1959 thru October 1, 1964
Chesterfield County 3¼% Water Revenue Bonds issued April 1, 1948
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 391 - 395 Coupons on above as follows
Coupons 19 35 @ $16.25 each due October 1, 1957 thru October 1, 1965
Chesterfield County 3¼% Water Revenue Bonds issued April 1, 1948
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 396 415 Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 22 - 35 @ $16.25 each due April 1, 1959 thru October 1, 1965
Page 6
MARY ARL. INE MCGUIRE
DEPUTY TREASURERS
V. L. Clements
H. K. Leonlr~l
2O
35
25
97
100
15
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds issued April 1, 1948
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 416 420 Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 19 - 37 @ $16.25 each due October 1, 1957 thru October 1, 1966
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds issued April 1, 1948
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 421 440 Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 22 - 37 @ $16.25 each due April 1, 1959 thru October 1, 1966
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds issued April 1, 1948
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 441 - 475 Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 19 - 39 @ $16.25 each due October 1, 1957 thru October 1, 1967
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds issued April 1, 1948
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 476 - 500 Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 22 - 39 @ $16.25 each due April 1, 1959 thru October 1, 1967
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue bonds issued April 1, 1948
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 4 - 100
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue bonds issued April 1, 1948
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 101 - 200
Chesterfield County 3¼% Water Revenue Bonds issued April 1, 1948
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 201 - 215
"~ ~-~ Page 7
MARY ARL. INE MC(~UIRE
DEPUTY TREASURERS
V, L. Clements
H. K. LeOn&ra
8,174
Coupons for Water Revenue Bonds issued April 1, 1948 @ $16.25 each
1 dated October 1, 1948
2 dated April 1, 1949
3 dated October 1, 1949
4 dated April 1, 1950
5 dated October 1, 1950
6 dated April 1, 1951
7 dated October 1, 1951
8 dated April 1, 1952
9 dated October 1, 1952
500 Coupons No.
500 Coupons No.
500 Coupons No.
480 Coupons No.
480 Coupons No.
460 Coupons No.
460 Coupons No.
435 Coupons No.
435 Coupons No.
410 Coupons No. 10 dated April 1, 1953
410 Coupons No. 11 dated October 1, 1953
380 Coupons No. 12 dated April 1, 1954
380 Coupons No. 13 dated October 1, 1954
360 Coupons No. 14 dated April 1, 1955
360 Coupons No. 15 dated October 1, 1955
335 Coupons No. 16 dated April 1, 1956
335 Coupons No. 17 dated October 1, 1956
310 Coupons No. 18 dated April 1, 1957
290 Coupons No. 19 dated October 1, 1957
197 Coupons No. 20 dated April 1, 1958
157 Coupons No. 21 dated October 1, 1958
#1 - 500
#1 - 50O
#1 - 5O0
#21 - 500
#21 - 500
#41 - 500
#41 - 500
#66 - 500
#66 - 500
#91 - 500
#91 - 500
#116 - 500
#116 - 500
#141 - 500
#141 - 500
#166 - 500
#166 - 500
#191 - 500
#191 - 290
#311 - 500
#216 - 222
#231 - 265
#286 - 290
#311 - 315
#336 - 340
#356 - 390
#396 - 415
#421 - 440
#476 - 500
#216 - 222
#231 - 265
#286 - 290
#311 - 315
#336 - 340
#356 - 440
#476 - 500
~'~ ~'~ Page 8
MARY ARL. INE MC(~UIRE
Tfellurer
DE:PUT,,, TREASURERS
V. L. Clements
H. K. Leon&rd
97
Chesterfield County 3¼% Water Revenue Bonds Issued July 1, 1951
Bonds Numbered 4 - 100 @ $1000.00 each
100
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds Issued July 1, 1951
Bonds Numbered 101 - 200 @ $1000.00 each
100
Chesterfield County 3¼% Water Revenue Bonds Issued July 1, 1951
Bonds Numbered 201 - 300 @ $1000.00 each
100
Chesterfield County 3¼% Water Revenue Bonds Issued July 1, 1951
Bonds Numbered 301 - 400 @ $1000.00 each
100
Chesterfield County 3¼% Water Revenue Bonds Issued July 1, 1951
Bonds Numbered 401 - 500 @ $1000.00 each
5O
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds Issued July 1, 1951
Bonds Numbered 501 - 550 @ $1000.00 each
Page 9
MARY ARLINE MCGUIRE
DEPUTY TREASURERS
V. L. Clement~
H. K.
3,244
Coupons for Water Revenue Bonds Issued July 1, 1951 @ $16.25 each
990 Coupons No. 10 dated 7/1/56
950 Coupons No. 11 dated 1/1/57
544 Coupons No. 12 dated 1/1/57
380 Coupons No. 13 dated 1/1/58
380 Coupons No. 14 dated 7/1/58
#21-1000
#51-1000
#51 - 200
#216 - 310
#331 - 400
#406 - 415
#466 - 485
#521 - 640
#721 - 765
#801 - 810
#831 - 845
#891 - 900
# 91 - 200
#216 - 225
#251 - 255
#266 - 270
#296 - 300
#301 - 310
#346 - 400
#406 - 415
#466 - 485
#521 - 550
#596 - 640
#721 - 765
#801 - 810
#831 - 845
#891 - 900
# 91 - 160
#176 225
#251 270
#296 310
#346 400
#406 410
#466 - 475
#521 - 550
#596 - 620
#631 - 640
#721 - 765
#801 - 845
Page 10
MARY ARLINE MCGUIRE
OEPUTY TREASURERS
V. L.. Cl0mentt
H. K. ~.eonar~
11
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds issued July 1, 1951
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 801 - 810 Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 15 - 34 @ $16.25 each due January 1, 1959 thru January 1, 1968
20
Chesterfield County 3~7o Water Revenue Bonds issued July 1, 1951
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 811 - 830 Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 12 - 34 @ $16.25 each due July 1, 1957 thru July 1, 1968
15
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds issued July 1, 1951
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 831 - 845 Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 15 - 36 @ $16.25 each due January 1, 1959 thru July 1, 1969
30
Chesterfield County 3~% Water Revenue Bonds issued July 1, 1951
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 846 - 875 Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 12 - 36 @ $16.25 each due July 1, 1957 thru July 1, 1969
15
Chesterfield County 3¼% Water Revenue Bonds issued July 1, 1951
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 876 890 Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 12 - 36 @ $16.25 each due July 1, 1957 thru July 1, 1969
10
Chesterfield County 3¼% Water Revenue Bonds issued July 1, 1951
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 891 900 Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 14 - 36 @ $16.25 each due July 1, 1958 thru July 1, 1969
100
Chesterfield County 3¼% Water Revenue Bonds issued July 1, 1951
@ $1000.00 each, Bond Nos. 901 - 1000 Coupons on above as follows:
Coupons 12 - 38 @ $16.25 each due July 1, 1957 thru July 1, 1970
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE' July 23, 1986 ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT:
Historical Society Donations to the County
ll.D.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Occasionally the Chesterfield Historical Society wishes to purchase
items, remodeling or repairs for Magnolia Grange. In the future,
this need may extend to the museum or other facilities leased to
or used by the Society. The Society desires to purchase items through
the County Purchasing Department, but the State Code does not permit
such services by the County.
As an alternative to County purchases, the Society has expressed
a desire to donate funds to the County for specific purchases or
to purchase items and donate them to the County. In either event
the County would take title to the property and fixed assets would
be picked up on the County's property records. Board authorization
for the County Administrator to accept items or funds to be expended
to purchase specific items would preclude the necessity to bring
every purchase for Board action. This authority would be addressed
in the appropriation resolution for subsequent years.
Board Action Required:
Board authorization for the County Administrator to accept items
or funds from the Chesterfield Historical Society and the expenditure
of these funds for the specific purpose for which they are donated.
ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO E3
William H. Howell
Director of General Services
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
July 23, 1986
ITEM NUMBER: ll.E.
Interjurisdictional Agreement for Study of Lake Genito
Project
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Earlier this year, Powhatan, Amelia, Cumberland and
Chesterfield Counties formed the Lake Genito Study Committee to
study the possibility of developing a water impoundment on the
Appomattox River to serve as a future source of water for the
four counties. The impoundment is expected to be located in
Powhatan, Amelia and Cumberland counties. Chesterfield County is
interested in the project since projections of the County's water
needs indicate the County may need additional sources of water by
the year 2000 or 2010.
Each county has appointed three representatives to the Study
Committee. The Study Committee, after several meetings, has
recommended that the four counties with voting representatives on
the committee enter into the attached interjurisdictional
agreement to procure a study of the feasibility and desirability
of various Lake Genito project alternatives.
ATTACHMENTS: YES.,~ NO r-I
(Continued)
PREPARED BY;_
Steven L. Micas
County Attorney
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMI N! STRATOR
Agenda Item
July 23, 1986
Page 2
The interjurisdictional agreement authorizes the issuance of
a "Request for Proposal" with respect to the Lake Genito Study.
The study would be in two phases. In the First Phase, the
consultant would address matters such as the need for a Lake
Genito project and the best organizational approaches which could
be used to accomplish the project. In the Second Phase, the
consultant would study and evaluate the feasibility and
desirability of various alternatives for development of Lake
Genito, the possible methods of implementing these alternatives,
and related matters. The consultant would also interview the
members of the Board of Supervisors and staff members in each of
the four counties concerning the various project alternatives.
Execution of the interjurisdictional agreement authorizes
the issuance of a "Request for Proposal" for the study, and
authorizes the Lake Genito Study Committee to select a consultant
for the study through the competitive negotiation process
provided for under state statutes. The County would have no
obligation under the Agreement, however, to fund any part of the
study until the actual agreement with the consultant is executed
by the Board at a subsequent meeting. Similarly, the County
would have an obligation to fund the Second Phase of the study
only if the performance of the Second Phase is approved and funds
appropriated therefor by the Board. The cost of each phase of
the study must be paid by the four counties on a per capita basis
with the exception that each jurisdiction shall pay a minimum of
$1,000 of the total cost of the study.
The Utilities Department has no funds budgeted for the Lake
Genito Study but is currently considering possible sources of
funds. The study is expected to cost from $80,000 to $120,000,
although clear cost estimates will not become available until
competitive negotiation is underway. The cost of the First Phase
is expected to be about 1/3 of the total cost of the study.
Recommendation: The Lake Genito Study Committee recommends
the Board adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the County
Administrator to execute on its behalf the attached interjuris-
dictional agreement.
cd1638:85C16
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, this County and the Counties of Powhatan, Amelia, and
Cumberland (the "Cooperating Jurisdictions") have each appointed three voting
members to an interjurisdictional committee, the Lake Genito Study Committee,
and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Lake Genito Study Committee is to explore
the desirability and feasibility of the development of a water impoundment
("Lake Genito") in Powhatan, Amelia and Cumberland Counties to serve as a
future source of water for the Cooperati~ Jurisdictions and to serve other
purposes, and ~
WHEREAS, the Lake Genito Study Committee has determined that a consul-
tant should be employed to perform a study (the "Lake Genito Study-PACC") of
and prepare a report concerning various aspects of the proposed Lake Genito
project, and
WHEREAS, the Lake Genito Study Committee has recommended that the
Cooperating Jurisdictions enter into the interjurisdictional agreement dated July
2, 1986, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, with respect to
employment of a consultant to perform the Lake Genito Study-PACC, and
WHEREAS, the Board believes that there are certain benefits which may
result to the County from development of Lake Genito, which benefits may
include development of a future water source, economic development,
recreational opportunities, and other benefits to the County, and
WHEREAS, in view of the possible benefits to the County from a Lake
Genito project, the Board believes it is in the best interests of the County to
enter into the interjurisdictional agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A, and
WHEREAS, the Board recognizes that although execution of the attached
agreement authorizes issuance of a Request for Proposal with respect to the
Lake Genito Study-PACC and authorizes competitive negotiation with the
offerors by the Lake Genito Study Committee, the Board will not be bound to
fund any contract for the Lake Genito Study-PACC unless such contract is
approved by this Board.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the County Administrator is
hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the County the interjurisdictional
agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A.
/cd1595:85C10
33
EXHIBIT A
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the 2nd day of July, 1986, by and between
the COUNTY OF POWHATAN, the COUNTY OF AMELIA, the COUNTY OF
CUMBERLAND, and the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, which counties
shall hereinafter be referred to collectively as the "Cooperating Jurisdictions".
WITNES SET H :
WHEREAS, the Cooperating Jurisdictions have formed the Lake Genito
Study Committee (the "Study Committee") for the purpose of studying the
development of a water impoundment ("Lake Genito") in Powhatan, Amelia and
Cumberland Counties to serve as a future source of water for the Cooperating
Jurisdictions and to serve other purposes; and
WHEREAS, each Cooperating Jurisdiction has appointed three voting mem-
bers to the Study Committee; and
WHEREAS, the Study Committee, on April 2, 1986, voted to invite Prince
Edward County, Virginia and the Appomattox River Water Authority ("ARWA")
to participate in meetings of the committee as non-voting members; and
WHEREAS, the Study Committee, on April 30, 1986, on May 28, 1986, and
on July 2, 1986, discussed various issues which need to be addresssed in
considering the development of Lake Genito; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.1-21 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended,
specifically authorizes political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia to
enter into agreements providing for cooperative action; and
WHEREAS, the Study Committee at its meeting on July 2, 1986 recommend-
ed that the Cooperating Jurisdictions enter into this Agreement for the purpose
of employing a consulting engineer to perform a study ("the Lake Genito Study-
PACC") of the issues set forth in more detail below and to advise the Study
Committee and the Cooperating Jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the Study Committee on July 2, 1986, recommended that the
cost of the Lake Genito Study-PACC be shared by the Cooperating Jurisdictions
on a per capita basis (minimum contribution of $1,000 per jurisdiction).
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions
herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. The Cooperating Jurisdictions shall employ a consulting engineer (the
"consultant") to perform the Lake Genito Study-PACC. The cost of each phase
of the Lake Genito Study-PACC shall be paid on a per capita basis by the
Cooperating Jurisdictions which approve the performance of each phase, provid-
ed that each such jurisdiction shall pay a minimum of $1,000 of the total cost of
the study regardless of population. The population figures to be used in
arriving at the per capita shares of the Cooperating Jurisdictions are as fol-
lows: Powhatan - 13,400; Amelia - 8,400; Cumberland - 7,900; Chesterfield -
162,400.
2. The contract for the Lake Genito Study-PACC shall be awarded using
the method of contractor selection known as "competitive negotiation" as de-
scribed in the Virginia Public Procurement Act, Sections 11-35, et seq., Code
of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The Request for Proposal shall be prepared as
-2- 30
soon as reasonably possible by the Department of Purchasing of the County of
Chesterfield, Virginia, which, after approval of the Request for Proposal by the
Study Committee, shall issue and publish the Request for Proposal. The Study
Committee shall appoint a four-member subcommittee (the "Subcommittee"), with
one member of the Subcommittee being appointed by the members of the Study
Committee from each Cooperating Jurisdiction. A representative from the De-
partment of Purchasing of Chesterfield County shall advise the Subcommittee
and, if necessary, the Study Committee concerning procurement procedures. A
representative from the Department of Utilities of Chesterfield County shall
advise the Subcommittee and, if necessary the Study Committee, concerning
engineering matters. The Study Committee, with the Subcommittee acting as its
agent, shall select the consultant in accordance with the procedures for compet-
itive negotiation set forth in the Virginia Public Procurement Act and pursuant
to such additional procedures as may be established by the Study Committee
and the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee shall review the proposals, conduct
discussions with the offerors, and make non-binding recommendations to the
Study Committee. No contract for the Lake Genito Study-PACC shall be award-
ed, however, until after 1) the contract is approved by a majority of those
Study Committee members present and voting at a regularly scheduled meeting
held after reasonable notice, and 2) the contract is approved, executed and
funds appropriated therefor by a majority of the Boards of Supervisors of the
Cooperating Jurisdictions.
3
3. The Request for Proposal shall request each offeror to perform at a
minimum substantially the following functions:
(a) In the First Phase of the "Lake Genito Study-PACC",
the consultant shall:
(1) Study and advise the Study Committee concerning the
current and future water supply needs of the Cooperating Juris-
dictions and the current and future need of the Cooperating
Jurisdictions for Lake Genito as a source for meeting water de-
mands of domestic, commercial, industrial, and public uses. The
consultant shall quantify the current and projected future water
needs of the Cooperating Jurisdictions.
(2) Study and advise the Study Committee concerning other
possible benefits of a Lake Genito project, including economic
development, additional recreational opportunities, and local
control of area water resources.
(3) Study and evaluate various organizational approaches
which could be used to develop Lake Genito. These would in-
clude development of Lake Genito by the Cooperating Jurisdictions
(as members of a new water authority or pursuant to an inter-
jurisdictional agreement), development of Lake Genito by the
ARWA with or without Powhatan, Amelia, and Cumberland
Counties as additional members, development of Lake Genito by a
new water authority with the Cooperating Jurisdictions and the
ARWA as members, development of Lake Genito by any Cooperat-
ing Jurisdiction individually, and any other approaches deemed
worthy of consideration. Recommend, in order of preference, the
three approaches deemed best by the consultant.
(4) Contact the members of the Study Committee and the
administrative staff of each of the Cooperating Jurisdictions, of
Prince Edward and of the ARWA for information and comments
concerning i) the possible benefits of a Lake Genito project, ii)
the desired scope and purpose of the Lake Genito project, iii) the
various organizational approaches which could be used to develop
Lake Genito, and iv) whether the Second Phase of the Lake
Genito Study-PACC as currently proposed should be expanded,
narrowed, or otherwise revised.
(5) Within three months of award of the study contract,
prepare and present to the Study Committee the "Lake Genito
Study-PACC, Part One." The consultant shall make a recommen-
dation to the Study Committee concerning whether or not the
water supply needs of the Cooperating Jurisdictions and the
benefits of a Lake Genito project are sufficient to justify further
study of Lake Genito. The consultant, in his report, shall also
summarize the information and comments gathered by him concern-
ing all matters listed above. If a majority of those Study Commit-
tee members voting at a regularly scheduled meeting held after
reasonable notice votes, in its sole discretion, to proceed with the
Second Phase of the study, and if performance of the Second
Phase of the study is approved by a majority of the Boards of
Supervisors of the Cooperating Jurisdictions and funds appro-
priated therefor, the consultant selected by the Study Committee
shall perform the work set forth below. The Second Phase of the
Lake Genito Study-PACC shall not be authorized in any event
until after the completion of the First Phase of the study.
(b) In the Second Phase of the "Lake Genito Study-PACC",
the consultant, if authorized to perform the Second Phase, shall
perform the following work, or such work as may be mutually
agreed upon by the Study Committee and the consultant and
provided for in a contract with the consultant which is approved
and executed by a majority of the Boards of Supervisors of the
Cooperating Jurisdictions:
(1) Informally interview members of the governing body of
each Cooperating Jurisdiction and the members of the Study
Committee, and meet with administrative staff members from each
Cooperating Jurisdiction to discuss Lake Genito and to ascertain
their opinions and concerns with respect to Lake Genito and, to
the extent reasonably practicable, with respect to the matters
addressed in subparagraphs 3 (b) (2) through 3 (b) (10) below.
(2) Study and evaluate alternatives with respect to the
type, size, and estimated cost of the Lake Genito project. Alter-
natives to be addressed include various sizes of the water im-
poundments which could be created, location of treatment facilities
near the impoundment or elsewhere, various sizes of the treatment
facilities, whether water distribution lines should be included in
the project, whether facilities for hydro-electric power generation
should and could be included and whether the project could be
completed in stages.
(3) Study and evaluate the economic feasibility of each
alternative including identification and examination of funding
sources and alternatives to meet capital and operating and mainte-
nance costs.
(4) Study and evaluate the effect of each alternative for
development of Lake Genito on the Cooperating Jurisdictions, on
Prince Edward County and other upstream jurisdictions, on Lake
Chesdin, on the ARWA and the members thereof, and on other
downstream jurisdictions. Matters addressed should include
desirable and undesirable effects, including effects on the en-
vironments, roads, tax base, future growth and development of
affected jurisdictions and on recreational opportunities.
(5) Study and evaluate local, state and federal laws, regu-
lations, and other legal constraints which may have an effect on
or limit the nature, size, development, or any other aspect of the
Lake Genito project. The work required under this paragraph
would include consideration of the impact of designation of part of
the Appomattox River as a Scenic River under Virginia law, and
consideration of whether any archeological or historic sites may
prevent or limit the Lake Genito project.
(6) Advise the Study Committee of all statutes, ordinances,
common law doctrines, and other laws of which the consultant is
aware which may have an effect on the Lake Genito project.
(7) Study and advise the Study Committee concerning all
permits or approvals which would be required to develop Lake
Genito. Information provided shall include the approximate times
at which application for permits or approvals would be required
and estimated length of time required for granting of such permit
or approval.
(8) Determine the current use and projected development of
land located in the proposed impoundment area. Advise the
Study Committee concerning when acquisition of such property, or
any part thereof, or of any proposed dam site or sites should
begin. The consultant shall also advise the Study Committee
concerning land use measures which could be taken to protect the
feasibility of the Lake Genito project.
(9) Provide analysis of the Appomattox stream flows.
(10) Study and evaluate any additional matters which are
included in the Second Phase by mutual agreement with the
consultant.
(11) Recommend, in order of preference, three alternatives
with respect to the kind, size, and estimated cost of possible
Lake Genito facilities which the consultant deems to be the best.
Advise the Study Committee concerning the most desirable alter-
natives for implementing and financing each of these alternatives.
The consultant should include possible schedules for implementa-
tion of each alternative.
(12) Within nine (9) months after authorization, if any, to
proceed with the Second Phase of the Lake Genito Study-PACC,
the consultant shall prepare and present to the Study Committee a
report, "Lake Genito Study-PACC, Part 2", summarizing the
information gathered and developed with respect to the matters
set forth in subparagraphs 3(b)(2) through 3(b)(ll) above. In
addition, the consultant shall comment on the various alternatives
available to the Study Committee and shall make recommendations
concerning those alternatives. The consultant shall answer
questions of the Study Committee and advise it concerning issues
raised by the members of the Study Committee.
4. The Request for Proposal shall advise offerors that although the
consultant awarded the contract for the Lake Genito Study-PACC should provide
specific answers to the issues and questions raised in the Request for Proposal,
the consultant is not expected to provide any detailed engineering and design
information, in-depth environmental analysis, or detailed survey or field work.
Rather, the consultant should provide information which will enable the Study
Committee to evaluate the feasibility and desirability of the various Lake Genito
project alternatives.
5. The Study Committee may, in its sole discretion, revise, add to, or
delete, any of the terms and requirements of the Request for Proposal outlined
herein so long as the scope of the Lake Genito Study-PACC is not substantially
expanded as compared to the scope of the study as described herein. The
Study Committee's authority under this paragraph shall include the authority to
revise the time periods set for the completion of the First Phase and the Second
Phase of the Lake Genito Study-PACC, and to narrow the scope of the Lake
Genito Study-PACC.
6. The Second Phase of the Lake Genito Study shall be performed only
if, after the completion of the First Phase, a majority of those Study Committee
members voting at a regularly scheduled meeting held after reasonable notice
approve the performance of the Second Phase and only if the performance of
the Second Phase is approved and funds appropriated therefor by a majority of
the Boards of Supervisors of the Cooperating Jurisdictions. The Study Commit-
tee may, in its sole discretion, elect not to approve the performance of the
Second Phase of the Lake Genito Study-PACC. Additionally, the Study Commit-
tee may, in its sole discretion, elect to revise the Second Phase of the study.
In the event that a revised Second Phase of the Lake Genito Study-PACC is
approved by the Study Committee and by a majority of the Boards of Supervi-
sors of the Cooperating Jurisdictions as set forth at the beginning of this
paragraph, the revised Second Phase shall be performed by the consultant who
performed the First Phase of the study if the Cooperating Jurisdictions which
approve the Second Phase and the consultant mutually agree on revised terms
and conditions applicable to the performance and cost of the revised Second
Phase. In the absence of such agreement, the Study Committee may proceed
with a new competitive negotiation process with respect to the revised Second
Phase of the Lake Genito Study-PACC, and a contract for the revised Second
Phase may be awarded to the consultant selected by the Study Committee if the
-8-
contract is approved by the Study Committee and by a majority of the Boards
of Supervisors of the Cooperating Jurisdictions as set forth at the beginning of
this paragraph.
7. The Request for Proposal shall instruct each offeror that the offeror
to which the contract for the Lake Genito Study-PACC, or any phase thereof,
is awarded shall in the preparation of the Lake Genito Study-PACC use informa-
tion from existing reports and studies whenever such information, in the opin-
ion of the offeror, is competent and sufficient for use in the Lake Genito
Study-PACC and will not adversely affect the reliability or credibility of the
Lake Genito Study-PACC.
8. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to impose any
obligations upon or create any rights for any of the Cooperating Jurisdictions
beyond the rights and obligations expressly stated herein.
9. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding
among the parties and it shall not be modified, altered, or amended unless in
writing and signed by the parties hereto.
10. This Agreement shall remain in effect until the earlier of the com-
pletion of the Lake Genito Study-PACC or January 1, 1989.
11. The consultant contract for the Lake Genito Study-PACC shall be
executed by each of the Cooperating Jurisdictions which approves the contract.
Prior to or at the time of award of the consultant contract for the Lake Genito
Study-PACC, each Cooperating Jurisdiction which approves the contract shall
deposit with the Chesterfield County Department of Budget and Accounting that
jurisdiction's contribution required under Paragraph 1 hereof to the full cost of
the First Phase of the Lake Genito Study-PACC. Prior to or at the time of
authorization of performance of the Second Phase of the Lake Genito Study-
PACC, each Cooperating Jurisdiction which approves performance of the Second
Phase shall deposit with the Chesterfield County Department of Budget and
Accounting that jurisdiction's contribution required under Paragraph I hereof to
the full cost of the Second Phase of the Lake Genito Study-PACC. The
Chesterfield County Department of Budget and Accounting shall hold and dis-
burse such funds in accordance with this Agreement and the contract for the
Lake Genito Study-PACC. If any funds remain unused after the earlier of final
payment of the consultant or after January 1, 1989, each Cooperating Jurisdic-
tion shall receive a refund based on its funding participation. The Chesterfield
County Department of Budget and Accounting shall maintain all necessary
accounting records with respect to the Lake Genito Study-PACC.
12. Any Cooperating Jurisdiction may withdraw from this Agreement and
its funding obligation hereunder by vote of its governing body prior to the
award of the contract for the Lake Genito Study-PACC. In the event of such
withdrawal, the withdrawing Cooperating Jurisdiction shall be refunded any
sums previously deposited pursuant to this Agreement, and this Agreement shall
terminate unless the remaining parties mutually agree to revise this Agreement
as necessary. No Cooperating Jurisdiction shall withdraw from this Agreement
after award of the contract for the Lake Genito Study-PACC.
-10- 4,']
13. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as imposing
any liability pursuant to this Agreement on any Cooperating Jurisdiction in
excess of the larger of $1,000 or its per capita share of the total cost of the
contract for the Lake Genito Study-PACC.
14. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as creating
any personal liability on the part of any officer, agent, or employee of any of
the Cooperating Jurisdictions or on the part of any member or agent of the
Study Committee.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as
of the date first-above written.
COUNTY OF POWHATAN, VIRGINIA
ATTEST:
By:
COUNTY OF AMELIA, VIRGINIA
ATTEST:
By:
-11-
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND, VIRGINIA
By:
ATTEST:
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA
By:
ATTEST:
cd1488:85C7
2057 Condrey Ridge Drive
Richmond, Virginia 23236
July 9, 1986
Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors
Chesterfield Courthouse
P. O. Box 125
Chesterfield,' Virginia
23832
Gentlemen:
As a new resident to the County, I am, of course, concerned about
the future of the County. It is my understanding that the water rates
will be raised to offset the cost of the new developments. It is also
my understanding that Chesterfield County has imposed a ban on the use
of water, as is usually the case almost every summer.
My concern is this: has the County planned for the future water
situation? With all the new developments being built, and more people
using the already limited water supply, what is going to happen in five
years (maybe less, as the County is growing at a very rapid rate)?
There will not be any more water in the reservoir than there is when
we have a normal supply. A ban was imposed this year in the early
spring because there was not enough water to adequately cover the use
of the people already living in the County. Where is the water going
to come from when the County's population multiplies, as it is already
doing?
Thank you for your attention to my inquiry.
Sincerely,
Victoria W. Groat
:hs
Prince Edward,
Farmville map plan
against Lake Genito
By Overton MeGehee
Tlmes-Dtsimtek sta~ staff
FARMVlLLE --__..~ard
County and FarmviHe appear to l~-
united in Opl~sttion to the long-pro-
posed. Lake Genito, which would be
downstream of the IocaUties on the
Appomattox Privet.
The Board of Supervisors and the
Town Council met together yesterday
and a~reed to draft resolutions in op-
position to the project. The resolu-
tions will be presented and'voted on
at the next mee_t_i~g of each body.
AmeBa, Chesterfield, Cumberland
and Powhatan counties have agreed
to hire a consulting engineer to study
the femsibility Of buiidin~ the lake as a
water ~m~e.
Prince Edward and Farmville,
which gets its water fr~)m the &ppo-
mattox, fear that any feasible plan to
build the lake probably would have to
involve an urban locality, which
would then establish a claim to much
tbe river's flow.
Powhatan, Cumberland and Ame-
lia, where the lake would be located,
hope that they might eventually use
the lake for water if it is ever built.
One method of gaining some control
over the water, officials in those
counties reason, is by working with
to those meetings" on the Gantto pro-
posal, he said. "rhey don't want to
hear anybody who doesn*t completely
agree with them. I think we mind to ~o
on record with a pesition."
If the Farmville emmcil passes the
proposed resotutien at its next meet-
ing, it will be the second time in
recent years that it has gpne mi re-
"! oppeae the ~ke ~am~to dam
completely," Mayor & Da~M C~te
· akL "! thine some o! the other emm-
ational value to it."
level of the reservoir might ~hctuete
,~such as Bu~s Island. '
"When water is in short, supply, yom
might have 5,000 acres of mad fiats
out of a 9,0~0-acre lake/' Alabltt said.
F, xplorin~ the.pmmhitity of r~cre-
ational use is one of the lmrpesm of
the study to be done soun. The stMy
goals also include eurreat and htm'e
water needs of each county ~s well as
varin-, methods ~ dev,lop~. ~
lake.
ceived in the 1920s and revived in tim
1950s, would dam the Appomattox. in
Amelia and Powhatan countl~ to'
ereate a lake of 8,0~0 to il,M0 ~cres,
Chesterfield County, which has more
money and mere J_m_medlate water-~ according to different planf~'
Prince Edward and Farmville offi-\
eials are skeptical of the plan, eayinf~
that it will be difficult for the counties[
along the lake or those upstream to]
benefit If the lake is built primarily to[
supply Chesterfie~ or localities fut~
Del. Watkins M. Abbitt ,Ir., D-Appo-
mattox, who represents Prince Ed-
ward and Farmville, met with the
two panels yesterday. "I don't think
we emi do anything about it until the
has been in the lonf.ranfe plan of the
Appomattox l~iver Water Authority,
which supplies parts of C~mtarlbld,
Dinwiddie and Prince G~rgm conn-
ties and Petersburg and Coi. mflal
Heights. Of those, Chesterfield la ex-
need.
The recent studies, hgwever, were
prompted by the projected needs of
commtmifies much farther mint thaa
Chesterfield or other authority
study comes out," he said, "but I think members.
we can guess what that eot~ultant's ~ In 1981, Virginia Beach reqnastod
report is going to say. We could sit
-~._ ~ and write that report ourselves.
",4"With one loeaUty [Chesterfield]
fundtn~ half of the study, ! think you
know where the water is going to go.
Chesterfield is one of the 10 fastemt-
growing eonnties in the nation. Nam*
an a~ement by the authority
build the dam eventually and mapply
water to tile city. The foltowJl~ year,
Virginia Beach looked suuth to an
existing reservoir, Lako 6uton,
which straddles tim
I m not anti-~rowth; I just want to'~
soe some of the ~owth here. If we can
hold on to our water rights, maybe
---%1 i d like to soeAmeUa and Powha.~
tan go altead and build a anutU reser-
voir to muet their own needs," Abbittfl
~ In 1984, the Army Corps of Enfi-
nears issued a study that examined
the proposed lake as one of five pmmi-
ble sources for Hampton Roads.
The plans have called ~m. It to servm
as storage fer ,Lake Cbmtin dmvn-
stream, which supplies the APlmm~
tox authority's treatmont plant. WiMm
-the river flow becomes low, watee
said. would be released from l,ako.(baito
SupervJ~rMaurJceH, Maxwell Jr. into the river to repbmb La!m
s
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE:
July 23, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT: Street Light Installation Cost Approval
11. :F. 1o
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OFINFORMATION:
* DALE DISTRICT: Location approved 5-11-83
Shoremeade Court and Shoremeade Road
Cost to Install Light - $1,020.00
Location approved 10-9-85
Monza Drive and Monza Court
Cost to Install Light - $1,252.00
Location approved 10-9-85
Stornoway Drive and Marquette Road
Cost to Install Light - $1,449.00
Location approved 5-14-86
Falstone Road and Stornoway Drive
Cost to Install Light - $1,143.00
(Continued)
ATTACHMENTS: YES l~l NO []
? ~ ~,~ .A/'~
Richard M.~McElfish, P.E.
Director
Environmental Engineering
SIGNATURE
C OUN ~";~TRATOR'
July 23, 1986
Street Light Installation Cost Approval
Page 2
Location approved 3-12-86
Saldale Drive and Deanwood Road
Cost to Install Light - $237.00
Change of Service from 3300 Mercury Vapor to 5000 High
Pressure Sodium Vapor. This request was made by Mr. Henry
Gunn who resides at 4533 Haymarket Lane
Cost to Change Service - $214.00
MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT: Location approved 12'11-85
Coalfield Road and Prince William Drive
Cost to Install Light - $1,848.00
Location approved 12-11-85
Coalfield Road and Queensgate Road
Cost to Install Light - $1,069.00
* NOTE:
If all costs are approved for Dale District, only
$685.00 will be remaining for FY 86-87.
11200 Ironbridge Road
Chester, Virginia 23831
Mr. Calvin Viar
Enviornmental Engineering
Chesterfield County
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
May 13, 1986
VII'~GINIA POWEI7
Dear Mr. Viar:
Thank you for your letter of Anril 1, 1986
regarding estimate number 07-14592-00' . We have comoleted our estimate
to install (1) 8000r..' ~~gT.~ressure Sodium luminair at Shoremeade
Court ~l.~ ~: ~.,~.~,~ /~..~i/~
The cost to the County for the installation of this light with 200' of
wiring is $1020.00 , described as follows:
Total cost of job
Less revenue credit
at 4:1 ratio
Cost to County
~ ~21.00
$1020,00
This cost will be effective for ninety days from the dateof this letter.
If we do not receive your authorization to proceed with this work within the
ninety day period we will cancel this project. Should you require this work
to be performed at a later date, please make a new request'and a new cost will
be submitted to you.
The necessary engineering and construction work is being scheduled to
provide for connection of your service by July 18, 1986. (This connection
date may vary slightly in the event of bad weather.) In order for us to be
able to provide service by the above connection date, the items checked be-
low must be completed by June 20, 1986
X Letter of authorization returned to Virginia Power
~- Aquisition of right-of-way and/or State Highway Permits
Should there be any questions, or if I can be of any assistance, please
do not hesitate to call me at 748-5901, ext ~2036
Sincer~lyl
¢~vid Ta~enner t t'
>ervice ~eoresen a lve
VIRGINIA POWER
Hay 5, 1986
11200 Ironbridge Road
Chester, Virginia 23831
Mr. Calvin Viar
Enviornmental Engineering
Chesterfield County
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear Mr. Viar:
Thank you for your letter of
regardina estimate number
to install ~000
and Monza Ct,
October 10, 1985
07-16314,00 ~ . We have comoleted our estimate
Lumen High Pressure Sodium luminair at Monza Dr.
The cost to the County for the installation of this light with 250' of
wiring is 1,252 ., described as follows:
Total cost of job %1,650.00
Less revenue credit
at 4:1 ratio 398.00
Cost to County $1,252.Q0'
This cost will be effective for ninety days from the dateof this letter.
If we do not receive your authorization to proceed with this work within the
ninety day period we will cancel this project. Should you require this work
to be performed at a later date, please make a new request and a new cost will
be submitted to you.
The necessary engineering and construction work is being scheduled to
provide for connection of your service by Au~. 5, 1986. (This connection
date may vapy slightly in the event of bad weather.) In order for us to be
able to provide service by the above connection date, the items checked be-
low must be completed by July 14, 1986 .
Letter of authorization returned to Virginia Power
Aquisition of right-of-way and/or State Highway Permits
Should there be any questions, or if I can be of any assistance, please
do not hesitate to call me at 748-5901, ext. 2036.
Sincerely,
David Tavenner
Service Representative
11200 Ironbridge Road
Chester, Virginia 23831
June 5, !9~6
VIRGINIA POW£1~
Mr. Calvin Viar
Enviornmental Engineering
Chesterfield County
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear Mr. Viar:
Thank you for your letter of ~ctober !0, !925 ,
regardin~ estimate number 07-16316.00 . We have completed our estimate
to install (1) ~000 Lumen Nigh Pressure Sodium lum~nair at Stornowav
and Marquette Rd.
The cost to the County for the installation of this light with~ 3m5' of
wiring is ..$1449~.00 , described as follows:
Total cost of job
Less revenue credit
at 4:1 ratio
Cost to County
$1870~00
421.00
$1449.00
This cost will be effective for ninety days from the date of this letter.
If we do not receive your authorization to proceed with this work within the
ninety day period we will cancel this project. Should you require this work
to be performed at a later date, please make a new request and a new cost will
be submitted to you.
The necessary engineering and construction work is being scheduled to
provide for connection of your service by Se~t. ~, 19~ (This connection
date may vaFy slightly in the event of bad weather.) In order for us to be
able to provide service by the above connection date, the items checked be-
low must be completed by Auq. 4, 19~6
Letter of authorization returned to Virginia Power
Aquisition of right-of-way and/or State Highway Permits
Should there be anv questions, or if I can be of any assistance, please
do not hesitate to call'me at 748-5901, ext, 20~6 .
Sincerely,
Bavid ~avenner
Service Representative
11200 Ironbridge Road
Chester, Virginia 23831
June 5, 1986
VII~GINIA POWEI~
Mr. Calvin Viar
Enviornmental Engineering
Chesterfield County
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear Mr. Viar:
Thank you for your letter of May.15 1986 ,
regarding estimate number 07-17417,00- ~ We have completed our estimate
to install (1) 8000 Lumen High Pressure Sodium luminair at Falstone Rd.
and Stornoway Dr.
The cost to the County for the installation of this light with' 2m7' of
wiring is $1143.00 , described as follows:
Total cost of job
Less revenue credit
at 4:1 ratio
Cost to County
~!564.00
42!..00
$!!43~00
This cost will be effective for ninety days from the date of this letter.
If we do not receive your authorization to proceed with this work within the
ninety day period we will cancel this project. Should you require this work
to be performed at a later date, please make a new request and a new cost will
be submitted to you.
The necessary engineering and construction work i~ being scheduled to
provide for connection of your service by .Sept. 8, 19R6. (This connection
date may vary slightly in the event of bad weather.) In order for us to be
able to provide service by the above connection date, the items checked be-
low must be completed by Au~. 4~ 19~6 .
Letter of authorization returned to Virginia Power
Aquisition of right-of-way and/or State Highway Permits
Should there be anv questions, or if I can be of any assistance, please
do not hesitate to callVme at 748-5901, ext,' 2036.
Sincerely,
Pavid Tavenner
Service Representative
11200 Ironbridge Road
Chester, Virginia 23831
June 5, 1986
VIRGINIA POWER
Mr. Calvin Viar
Enviornmental Engineering
Chesterfield County
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear Mr. Viar:
Thank you for your letter of March 19, 1986
regarding estimate number 07-14225,00 . . We have completed our estimate
to install (1) 8000 Lumen Nigh Pressure Sodium luminair at Saldale
Drive and Deanwood Ro.a~.
The cost to the County for the installation of this light with'.%6~,..of
wiring is $237.00 , described as follows:
Total cost of job
Less revenue credit
at 4:1 ratio
Cost to County
q65~.00
421.00
~237~00
This cost will be effective for ninety days from the date'of this letter.
If we do not receive your authorization to proceed with this work within the
ninety day period we will cancel this project. Should you require this work
to be performed at a later date, please make a new request and a new cost will
be submitted to you.
The necessary engineering and construction work is being scheduled to
provide for connection of your service by Se~t. 8, 1986. (This connection
date may vary slightly in the event of bad weather.) In order for us to be
able to provide service by the above connection date, the items checked be-
low must be completed by Aug. 4~ 1986 .
Letter of authorization returned to Virginia Power
Aquisition of right-of-way and/or State Highway Permits
Should there be anv questions, or if I can be of any assistance, please
do not hesitate to call'me at 748-5901, ext ~2036 .
Sincerely,
David Tavenner
Service Representative
Mr. Douglas W.'Salyers
Environmental Engineering
Chesterfield County
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Virginia Powe~
11200 Iron Brf.~T~e
Chester, Vi rg'~
June 9, 1986
Dear Mr. Salyers:
Thank you for your letter of April 16, 1986 ,
regarding estimate number 07-].4691.00 We have completed our
estimate to install (1) 5000 Lumen Nigh Pressure Sodium Luminair
at 4533 Haymarket Lane
The cost to the County for the installation of this light~i~
~§ is $214.00 , described as follows:
Total .COSt of job
Less revenue credit
at 4:1 ratio
Cost to County
2216.00
2,00
2214,00
This cost will be efective for ninety days from the date of this
letter. If we do not receive your authorization to proceed with this
work within the ninety day period we will cancel this project. Should
you require this work to be performed at a later date, please make a new
request and a new cost will be Submitted to you..
The necessary engineering and construction work is being scheduled
to provide for connection of your service byAuQust 26, 1986 (This
connection date may vary slightly in the event ~f bad weather.i In order
for us to be able to provide service by the above connection date, the
items checked below must be completed by Auqust 11~ 19~6
x Letter of authorization returned to Virqinia Power
Aquisition of right-of-way and/or State Highway Permits
Should there be any questions, or if I can be of any assistance,
please do not hesitate to call me at 748-5901, ext.2036
Sincerely,
David T. Tavenner
Service Representative
9121Midlothian Tpk.
Richmond, VA 23235
July 2, 1986
VIRGINIA POWER
County of Chesterfield
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia
23832
Attention: Calvin Viar
Re: Street light at Coalfield Road and Prince William Drive
Dear Mr. Viar:
The cost for installing an 8,000 lumen light at the above mentioned location
will be $1,848.00. This project will require a highway permit.
Please send another letter of authorization if this is acceptable. If you
have any questions, call me at 320-7811, Ext. 2028.
Sincerely,
C. B. Urquhart
Supervisor
Customer Service
Va. Power Est. No. 05-82150-00
9121 Midlothian Tpk.
Richmond, VA 23235
July 2, 1986
VIR~;II¥1A POWER
County of Chesterfield
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia
23832
~bU~b IOil: bolvin Viar
Re: Street light at Coalfield Road and Queensgate Road
Dear Mr. Viar:
The cost for installing an 8,000 lumen light at the above mentioned location
will be $1,069.00. This project will require a highway permit.
Please send another letter of authorization if this is acceptable. If you
have any questions, call me at 320-7811, Ext. 2028.
Sincerely,
C. B. Urquhart
Supervisor
Customer Service
Va. Power Est. No. 05-82151-00
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
L.
MEETING DATE: July 23, 1986
SUBdECT: Street Light Requests
ITEM NUMBER:
ll.F.2.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
CLOVER HILL DISTRICT:
Intersection of Tevis Lane and Dumaine Drive
ATTACHMENTS: YES E] NO []
PREPARED BY:
Richard M. McElf~sh, P.E.
Director
Environmental Engineering
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADM I NI STRATOR
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Clover Hill District
DATE OF REQUEST June 20, 1986
NAME OF REQUESTOR Helene Davis
ADDRESS 3012 Tevis Lane
TAX MAP 49-6
PHONE NUMBER - HOME 744-5942
WORK
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
AND Dumaine Drive .
Tevis Lane
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION.
PLACED
IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE
COMMENTS Meets Criteria
OR SET POLE
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
Del fin
49-5
)umolne
o ~
~1231
$
,/~ II I
i7,
16
Dr.
I0
t
8 / /
19
17
21
$001
~ 27
~o 23
2~
~ 25
CHESTiE
35
~ 27
29
Lyn p0~
Ct. :_
'\ /
43
,~,'~; E N I T 0 FOREST
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE: July 23, 1986 ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT: Request for reduced speed limit on Route 1
ll.F. 3.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
The Board is requested to adopt the attached resolution asking
VDH&T to reduce the speed limit on Route 1 near Greenleigh. Mr.
Dodd has received requests from citizens to reduce the speed
limit on Route 1 from the end of the current 45 MPH speed zone
near Bermuda Hundred Road to south of Greenleigh. The Board is
requested to adopt the attached resolution asking VDH&T to reduce
the speed limit.
ATTACHMENTS: YES I'~ NO []
PREPARED BY:.I~/ );/'} /. //,,c,/ /i / (~
~u J McCrackrf. . en
Director
SIGNATURE:
CO~JNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY: At the
regular meeting of the Board
of Supervisors held at the
Courthouse on July 23, 1986
at 9:00 a.m.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County
has received requests from citizens to reduce the speed limit on
Route 1 from Bermuda Hundred Road to south of Greenleigh.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board requests the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to reduce the
speed limit on this section of Route 1.
Vote:
Certified By:
Joan S. Dolezal, Clerk
to the Board of Supervisors
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE' July 23, 1986 ITEM NUMBER; ll.F.4.
SUBJECT: Feasibility Study - New bridge over the Appomattox River
and railroad track from Chesterfield Avenue into Petersburg
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Board is requested to adopt the attached resolution
requesting the Tri-Cities MPO to support a feasibility study for
a new bridge connecting southern Chesterfield to 1-95/I-85.
On March 12, 1986, the Board adopted a resolution expressing
support for a feasibility study for a new bridge over the
Appomattox River and railroad track connecting southern
Chesterfield with 1-95/I-85. Petersburg's City Council had
previously adopted a similar resolution. Staff was directed to
consult with Petersburg's Staff to determine funding options and
methodologies for accomplishing the study.
After consultation with Petersburg's Staff, it has been
determined that a study could be accomplished by having the
Tri-Cities MPO ask the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation to conduct a study. VDH&T should be requested to
accomplish the study in such a manner so as not to delay projects
currently considered priorities by both jurisdictions. If VDH&T
agrees to perform the study, local funds should not be required.
(Continued on Page Two)
ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO []
PREPARED BY; '~. J cCrack
- .
Director
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMI N1STRATOR
Board Agenda Item
July 23, 1986
Page Two
RECOMMENDATION:
If the Board is interested in pursuing this project, Staff
recommends that the attached resolution be adopted requesting the
Tri-Cities Area MPO to ask VDH&T to perform a feasibility study.
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY: At the
regular meeting of the Board
of Supervisors on July 23,
1986 at 9:00 a.m.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Petersburg adopted
a resolution on February 18, 1986 expressing interest in
determining the feasibility of a highway project that would
include the construction of a bridge from Ettrick to Petersburg,
and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County
adopted a resolution on March 12, 1986 expressing interest in
determining the feasibility of a new bridge over the Appomattox
River and railroad tracks from Ettrick to Petersburg which would
connect southern Chesterfield to Route 1-95/I-85, and
WHEREAS, such a project is expected to promote economic
development in northern Petersburg and southern Chesterfield
County, and
WHEREAS, a feasibility study for the project is to be
accomplished in such a manner so as not to delay projects
currently considered priorities by both jurisdictions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors petitions the Tri-Cities Area MPO to include
the feasibility study for the project in the Tri-Cities
Transportation Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board
of Supervisors petitions the Tri-Cities Area MPO to request the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to study the
feasibility of the project.
Vote:
Certified By:
Joan S. Dolezal, Clerk
to the Board of Supervisors
~I,.~. 86-08
Adopt. 2/18/~6
RESOLUTION
_~{}{EREAS:. . · , Mr. Jesse J. Mayes, Supervisor,_ Matoaca
District, Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors 'has
expressed an interest in a highway project: that would include
the construction of a bridge from Ettrick to Petersbure; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Mayes feels that such a project would
open up the southern portion of Chest~.;rfieid County and the
n.~.i'th~:r~% ~.~'~Jon of Petersburg for economic deve!cpment and
would faci!itate better cooperation and mutual support
between the governments of those co~.nmunities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council 6f the City of Petersburg
finds merit in such a project and is interested in pursuing
its feasibility.
NOW, THEREFORE~ BE %T RESOLVED by the ~ity Council of
the City of Petersburg tkah it hereby acknowledges with
~ppreciation the suggestions from Supervisor Mayes-that the
aforementioned project be studied and this Council joins with
interest in the efforts ;:f Mr. Mayes to determine the feasi-
bility of such a project.
BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER that a trne and certain copy of
this resolution' be forwarded to Mr. Jesse J. ~ayes, Chester-
field County Board of Supervisors.
I, Barbwire '~'. ~foore. Clerk of the Council of the' City of
Petersburg, Virginia, do certify ~bat ~he foregoing
resolution i.~ ~a true asd exact copy of a resolution
"~dop~ed by ~he said Council'~t' a meeting held F,~5,~uary"Ig,,. 19.86.
. · ·Olerk of Counci]~ · '. ' ~
Ele
MARVIN
COHANTAS
Road Station
Rail Road
ELW~RTI-
I!
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
July 23, 1986
MEETING DATE:
ITEM NUMBER:
ll.F.5.
SUBJECT: Resolution to Set Public Hearing Date to Consider Convey-
ance of a Parcel in the Airport Industrial Park to Sealeze
Corporation and Authorize the County Administrator to
Execute a Contingent Sales Contract
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Sealeze Corporation desires to purchase a one acre tract on the
southwest side of White Bark Terrace at $25,000 per acre (see at-
tached map). A purchase agreement has been prepared and the County
Administrator should be granted execution authority.
RECOMMENDATION
Board set August 27, 1986, as the public hearing date to consider
this conveyance.
Attachment
AGI6JL12/dem
ATTACHMENTS: YES El NO r-!
SIGNATURE:
Stan~e~ ~. B~e~s0n, Jr.
Dir/ctor of ~conomic
Development
COUNTY ADM I NI STRATOR
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE' . July 23, 1986
SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance
ITEM NUMBER;
ll.F. 6.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OFINFORMATION;
BERMUDA DISTRICT:
Craddock Point 1 & 2
CLOVER HILL:
Nuttree, Section 2
Woodlake Village Parkway
MIDLOTHIAN:
A portion of Spirea Road
Portions of Salisbury, Section C, and Salisbury
Lakeview, Section Two
Portions of Salisbury Sections C, D and Salisbury
Lakeview One
ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO []
PREPARED
R. M. McElfish''~.E~
Director '
Environmental Engineering
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADM I NISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Board of Supervisors
Environmental Engineering
State Road Acceptance - Craddock Point 1 & 2
July 23, 1986
SAND HILLS DRIVE: Beginning at the intersection with
Jefferson Davis Highway and running westerly to the inter-
section with Pine Meadows Circle, then continuing westerly
to tie into proposed Craddock Point, Section 4.
PINE MEADOWS CIRCLE: Beginning at the intersection with
Sand Hills Drive and running northwesterly to tie into
proposed Craddock Point, Section 4.
CRADDOCK
SECTIONS
POI NT
1&2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Board of Supervisors
Environmental Engineering
State Road Acceptance - Nuttree, Section 2
July 23, 1986
RED CHESTNUT DRIVE: Beginning at the intersection with
Tall Hickory Drive, State Route #2995, and going easterly
to the intersection with Red Chestnut Court then continuing
northeasterly to a temporary turnaround.
RED CHESTNUT COURT: Beginning at the intersection with
Red Chestnut Drive and going southeasterly to a cul-de-sac.
NUTTREE
SECTION TWO
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Board of Supervisors
Environmental Engineering
State Road Acceptance - Woodlake Village Parkway
July 23, 1986
WOODLAKE VILLAGE PARKWAY: beginning of the intersection
with Hull Street Road, State Route #360, and going north-
easterly to tie into proposed Woodlake Village Parkway.
WOODLAKE
VILLAGE
PARKWAY
~ ,, ,~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Board of Supervisors
Environmental Engineering
State Road Acceptance -
A portion of Spirea Road
July 23, 1986
SPIREA ROAD: Beginning where State Maintainance ends, Spirea
Road, State Route #2780, and going westerly to tie into
proposed Spirea Road.
A PORTION OF
SPI REA ROAD
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Board of Supervisors
Environmental Engineering
State Road Acceptance -
Portions of Salisbury, Section C,
and Salisbury Lakeview, Section Two
July 23, 1986
CHALKWELL DRIVE: Beginning at the intersection with
Kingsmill Road, State Route #1019 and going southeast-
erly to a cul-de-sac.
PORTIONS OF
SALISBURY
SECTION ¢
SALISBURY LAKEVl EW
SECTION TWO
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Board of Supervisors
Environmental Engineering
State Road Acceptance - Portions of
Salisbury Sections C, D and Salisbury
Lakeview One
July 23, 1986
CRANBORNE ROAD: Beginning at the intersection with
Kingsmill Road, State Route ~1019, and going southerly
to a cul-de-sac.
PORTIONS OF
SALISBURY
SECTIONS C ,D,
SALISBURY LAKEVIEW
SECTION ONE
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
MEETING DATE.
July 23, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
ll.G.1.
,~;UBJECT.
Set date for public hearing to consider the conveyance
of leases of real property at various park sites to
operate food concessions.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMAR'Y OF INFORMATION
Each year, the Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation
Department enters into a lease agreement with a variety of youth
organizations to operate food concessions at our parks. These
arrangements are either long term or seasonal and are usually
conveyed to the athletic associations within the county.
Under the seasonal contract, the county allows an approved
association or organization to operate a concession for a
specific period of time, usually a recreation activity season.
Under the seasonal contract, the association must return 5% of
their gross receipts to the county to assist in covering part of
our maintenance costs for these facilities. The remaining
revenues generated by the associations operating these facilities
are retained to cover part of their operation costs. Those park
sites under consideration include: Huguenot Park, Iron Bridge
Park, Courthouse Athletic Complex, and Goyne Park. Operation of
the concessions would take place from September 1, 1986 to
December 1, 1986.
ATTACHM.~'NT.S~ YI-S [] NO [~
C(i)I~tql Y AF)MINI.%~[ f~AfOf'-~
Board of Supervisors Agenda
Conveyance of Leases
July 23, 1986
Page 2
Two new concession buildings will be ready for use during the
Fall 1986 Football Season. Under long term lease agreements the
County normally allows use of these County-owned concession
buildings for a period of three years. A rental charge of 10% of
the gross receipts is charged to defray maintenance expenses.
Those park sites under consideration include Ettrick Park and
Matoaca Park.
A public hearing and Board authorization are required to convey
these leases and/or contracts at the various park sites.
Recommendation
The Parks and Recreation Department recommends that the Board of
Supervisors set a public hearing date of August 27, 1986 to
consider the conveyance of leases of real property at various
park sites to operate food concessions.
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
July 23, 1986
ITEM NUMBER'
ll.G.2.
Approval of Bids for construction of soccer complex
at Robious Middle School
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Bids were received for construction of the Robious Soccer Complex
on June 11, 1986. The lowest bid among four contractors was over
available budget funds. The project was rebid with a reduced
scope of work. A single bid of $231,848.00 was received from T
and L Construction. This price is consistent with our
consultant's revised cost estimates and with the bid prices
originally received on June 11, 1986.
The rebid proposal is within Project budget.
from the 1985 Parks Bond.
Funds are available
Recommendation
The Parks and Recreation Department recommends that the Board of
Supervisors approve the bid of $231,848.00 from T and L
Construction.
ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO ~
SIGNATURE: ,~'
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Board of Supervisors Agenda
July 23, 1986
Page 2
Subject:
Approval of bids for construction of soccer complex
at Robious Middle School
Budget and Accounting Comments:
The balance in the Robious Middle School soccer complex Bond
project is $251,480; therefore, approval of this item would leave
$19,632 in this bond project.
Lane B. Ramsey, Director
Budget and Accounting Department
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE',,,
July 23, 1986
ITEM NUMBER;
ll.H.l.a.
SUBJECT:
Approval of James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers,
Inc., to perform work on the "Management Information
System-Sewer Utility Evaluation (MIS-SUE)" project.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Staff requests the Board approve the firm of James M.
Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., to perform work on the
"Management Information System-Sewer Utility Evaluation
(MIS-SUE)" project. A total of seven (7) consulting firms
submitted proposals for this project. Final selection followed
procedures established by the Virginia Procurement Act.
The project consists of the development and implementation
of a database and hydraulic model of the County's sanitary sewer
system, and will be accomplished in two phases: Phase I-System
Requirements Analysis, and Phase II-Development and
Implementation.- Staff is requesting approval to proceed with
Phase i only at this time. This will include an evaluation of
various hardware and software components, review of existing
documents and procedures, recommendations, and preparation of a
work plan and schedule for Phase II.
ATTACHMENTS: YES []
(Continued on Next Page)
SIGNATURE: ~'*
COUNTY ADM I NISTRATOR
Agenda Item
July 23, 1986
Page 2
The fee for Phase I will be $58,313.00. Funds in the amount
of $115,000.00 have previously been encumbered in account
5N-5847-C2A. Staff requests that the entire amount be transferred
to account 5P-5217-678E. This will be used for Phase I and the
remainder will be expended in Phase II.
Staff recommends the Board approve the firm of James M.
Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., to perform work on the
"Management Information System-Sewer Utility Evaluation
(MIS-SUE)" project and authorize the County Administrator to
execute the contract.
Recommend Approval
MEETING DATE;
SUBJECT:
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF' SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
July 23, 1986
ITEM NUMBER;
ll.H.l.b.
Award of Contract for Cogbill Road to Fairpines Water
Line
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Staff requests the Board to award contract number W86-02B
for construction of a water line from Cogbill Road to Fairpines
Subdivision through Kingsforest Subdivision to the low bidder,
F.C. Showalter, Inc., in the amount of $162,423.00.
We received four (4) bids on this project ranging from
$162,423.00 to $225,835.00.
Funds for this project were appropriated under the 1985-86
Capital Improvement Budget; however, we are requesting a transfer
of $16,000.00 from 5H-5835-4D6E to 5H-5835-602R to cover
contingencies.
This is a portion of a 16 inch water line that will connect
existing water lines that have been constructed through
development to transmit water from the Airport Pumping Station to
Route 360.
Staff recommends that the Board award the contract, transfer
the necessary funds, and authorize the County Administrator to
execute the necessary documents.
District: Dale P~EPARED BY;-/~_~'~ ~~
Recommend Approval
ATTACHMENTS: YES~) NO
SIGNATURE:
CO0'NTY ADMI NISTRATOR
\
!
,PARK
L$
' FAIRPtNE$ RD
BP
Cos b
Lok
~'\CHE S3-E RFI EL D
% AIRPORT
\
\
RD
DR
41
o
o
00
MEETING DATE:
July 23, 1986
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
ADVERTISING SIGNAGE ON PAMS AVENUE WATER TANK
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
Recommend Approval
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Recommendation:
Recognizing that appropriate and tasteful signage could be
beneficial to the County in its public relations and economic
development effort, staff recommends that the above project be
approved by the Board of Supervisors.
Introduction:
Mr. Dodd has requested that as a part of our ongoing economic
development program, particularly as it relates to advertising
our County, that both the north and south sides of the water tank
on Pams Avenue be painted with appropriate signage advertising
Chesteifield County. This signage would be visible from both the
north and south lanes of Interstate 95.
ATTACNMENTS: YES [3
NO ri
SIGNATURE:
M. D. Stith
Executive Assistant to
the County Administrator
COUNTY ADM I NI STRATOR
Agenda Item
July 23, 1986
Page 2
Responsibility for Development, Implementation and
of Signage:
Maintenance
After reviewing all of the pertinent data concerning this
advertising venture, the decision for responsibility of the above
project was narrowed to two County departments - Utilities and
Economic Development.
In the case of utilities, that department owns the tank and
regular maintenance on the facility is within their purview.
However, after discussing the proposed project with David
Welchons, he indicated that he would prefer not to have his
department responsible for painting, repainting and scheduled and
unscheduled maintenance on the sign. He feels that there are
other appropriate County agencies to which the responsibility of
advertising should be delegated.
In that connection, the next most logical choice was Economic
Development. Signage depicting and implying positive points
about the benefits of locating in Chesterfield rightfully fall
under the Department of Economic Development. Funds are
presently available in that department to provide promotionally
oriented programs. Therefore, should this idea be a viable one
for the Board, Economic Development should be responsible for the
implementation of this project.
Strategy for Implementation:
Should the Board desire to move ahead with this project, the
following is offered for your consideration as a strategy for
implementation:
Secure the service of an advertising firm
to assist in determining:
The wording for the sign - below are
listed some possible
~t Choice Virginia
A First Choice
Virginia County
Agenda Item
July 23, 1986
Page 3
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA
A First Choice County
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
A Leader in Virginia
Welcome to
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
Virginia
b. The size, type and color of the letters
c. The recommended lighting, if any. (We do
not feel that artificial lighting would
be necessary and may, in fact, add
substantially to the cost.)
2. Advertise for bids on the above and award the
contract to the lowest responsible bidder.
It is recommended that $25,000 be appropriated from the Board
Contingency Fund to cover this cost. ~
MDS:rcs
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
July 23, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
ll.H.2.a.
Approval of Water Contract No. W86-131CD, Installation
of Water Lines for Monacan Hills-Section 3
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Staff requests that the Board approve the
contract:
following
Water Contract No. W86-131CD, Monacan Hills, Section 3
Developer: The Ashmont Company
Contractor: Bookman Construction Company
Total Contract Cost: $58,958.50
Total Estimated County Cost:
(Refund Through Connection Fees)
$14,213.14
Estimated· 'Developer Cost:
No. of Connections: 69
Code: 5B-2511-997
$44,745.36
This project is for the installation of a 12 inch water line
which will serve future sections of Monacan Hills and eventually
tie-in to and help serve Smoketree Subdivision. The refund is for
oversizing of the 12" water line and will be made through
connections.
(Continued on/~ext ~age) ~
PREPARED BY:-/~~ ~~~
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~) NO I-I
SIGNATURE: _
C OUI~'I:Y' ADMI N! STRATOR
Agenda Item
July 23, 1986
Page 2
Staff recommends that the Board approve the contract and
authorize the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents.
District: Midlothian
Recommend Approval
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
July 23, 1986
ITEM NUMBER;
ll.H.2.b.
Approval of Water Contract No. W86-129CD, Installation
of Water Lines for Pinney Property
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Staff requests that the Board approve
contract:
the
following
Water Contract No. W86-129CD, Pinney Property
Developer: W. Coleman Pinney
Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Inc.
Total Contract Cost:
$5,895.00
Total Estimated County Cost:
Refund Through Connection Fees
Cash Refund
$1,050.00
$ 158.65
$1,208.65
$1,208.65
Estimated Developer Cost:
No. of Connections: 2
Code: 5B-2511-997 (Through Connections)
$4,686.35
Transfer $158.65 from 5H-5724-2009 to 5H-5724-6C99.
(Continued on Next Page)
PREi~,-,RED BY;
ATTACHMENTS: YES
NO []
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
$7
Agenda Item
July 23, 1986
Page 2
This project is for the installation of a water line along
Lucks Lane to serve the Pinney Property. The water line is being
oversized to 16 inches and will eventually tie-in to a 16-inch
line farther down Lucks Lane. The refund is for the oversizing
and will be through connection fees for two connections and cash
for the remaining amount.
District: Clover Hill
Recommend Approval
8~
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
July 23, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:,
ll.H.2.c.
Approval of Sewer Contract
Extension.
for Grove Road Sewer
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Staff requests that the Board approve the following
contract:
Sewer Contract Number S86-7CD/7(8)607M, Grove Road Sewer
Extension to serve parcel 14 as described on county tax map
16-12.
Developer: Archie K. McLellan, Jr.
Contractor: Piedmont Construction Co., Inc.
Total Contract Cost: $8,703.00
Total. Estimated County Cost: $ 180.00
(Refund through Connection Fees)
Estimated Developer Cost:
Number of Connections: 3
Code: 5N-2511-997
$8,523.00
(Continued on Next Page)
ATTACHMENTS:
YES p NO D
SIGNATURE: ....
COUNTY ADM I NISTRATOR
Agenda Item
July 23, 1986
Page 2
This project includes the construction of two (2) 6" sewer
laterals which will provide public sewer to lots not owned by the
developer. Staff recommends that the Board approve this contract
and authorize the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents.
District: Midlothian
Recommend Approval
118,00
2
$77.'9C0
m. ~o ~
tO
we
8~ AC
2O
sSL ?~
®
t4
24
5-660
27
Ame¢. EleCt.
Shop
.ItT ~.~ CROSSROADS
BUSINE~
(~ AVON ESTATE
COURTHOUSE COURT CONDO. [,~U~
26
Z5
AssOC.
i6-16
,- ,M IDLQT~/4N DIST
I SH!)PPI N~
ttS~$ B K.,ai
85
CHN 8- 16 - 8-15
K dH $'5- 86
KJH S- 18"~6 i
KJH 6~19-86 ~.,~
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE
SUBJECT:
July 23, 1986
ITEM NUMBER;
ll.H.2.d.
Approval of a Sewer Agreement for Developer
Participation for Reymet Road and Friend Avenue
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Staff requests the Board to approve Sewer Contract Number
S85-127CD/7(8)5B7M, for developer participation between Reynolds
Metal Company and the County.
The County is extending the public sewer system in the
Reymet Road and Friend Avenue area to provide sewer to the
residents in this area. This agreement provides for Reynolds
Metals Company to pay the County their Sewer Connection Fee in
the amount of $58,350.00 prior to June 30, 1986.
Staff recommends that the Board approve this agreement and
authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary
documents on behalf of the County.
District: Bermuda
Recommend Approval
PREPARED BY: ~ ~~
ATTACHMENTS: YES I-I
SIGNATURE:
/~cOuNTY ADMI NISTRATOR
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEET lNG DATE:
SUBJECT:
July 23, 1986
ITEM NUMBER;
ll.H.2.e.
Conveyance of an Easement to VEPCO for Service to the
County Nursing Home and Human Services Building
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION'
Staff requests the Board to authorize the Chairman of the
Board and County Administrator to execute an easement agreement
with VEPCO for a new service to the Nursing Home and a service to
the new Human Services Building.
Since the electrical service to the Nursing Home is
inadequate and needs replacing and since an electrical service
needs to be run to the new Human Services Building, VEPCO has
requested that these be combined in one easement.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman of
the Board and County Administrator to execute an easement
agreement with VEPCO for these services.
District: Dale
Recommend Approval
ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO []
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMI N ISTRATOR
/
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
July 23, 1986
ITEM NUMBER;
ll.H.3
Report of Water and Sewer Contracts by Developers
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
The following water and sewer contracts were executed by the
County Administrator:
1. W86-125D Reed's Landing-Stoneleigh Section Midlothian
Developer: Reed's Landing Corporation
Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Inc.
Number of Connections: 30
$60,761.45
2. S86-99D Meadow Oaks, Section A Dale
Developer: Meadow Oaks Development Corp.
Contractor: Castle Equipment Corp.
Number of'Connections: 44
$77,651.36
3. S86-100D/7(8)6AOD Meadow Oaks, Section B Dale
Developer: Meadow Oaks Development Corp.
Contractor: Castle Equipment Corp.
Number of Connections: 31
$45,461.08
ATTACHMENTS: YES []
(Continued on~ext Pa~e)
SIGNATURE: ~i~-
COUNTY ADMI NI STRATOR
Agenda Item
July 23, 1986
Page 2
10.
11.
12.
13.
S86-95D/7(8)695D Southwest Properties Midlothian
Developer: Southwest Properties
Contractor: J. Kennon Perrin Construction Co.
Sub-Contractor: Richard L. Crowder Construction Co., Inc.
Number of Connections: 4 $62,443.00
W86-130D House of Carpet
Developer: Robert Shiro
Contractor: Century Building Systems, Inc.
Sub-Contractor: Hanover Mechanical, Inc.
Number of Connections: 1
Midlothian
$8,100.00
W86-128D Richmond Honda
Developer: Richmond Honda
Contractor: Alpine Construction Company
Number of Connections: 2
Midlothian
$12,395.00
S86-94D/7(8)694D 360 Retail Center
Developer: Porter Properties
Contractor: John Marshall, Inc.
Number of Connections: 1
Clover Hill
$2,245.00
S86-90D Monacan Hills Section 3
Developer: The Ashmont Company
Contractor: Bookman Construction Co.
Number of Connections: 71
Midlothian
$79,405.50
S86-98D/7(8)98D Walton Bluff
Developer: George B. Sowers, Jr. and Assoc.
Contractor: J. Steven Chafin, Inc.
Number of Connections: 52
Clover Hill
$53,168.17
S86-96D/7(8) 696D Walton Park Section 0
Developer: Walton Park Development Corp.
Contractor: RMC Contractors, Inc.
Number of Connections: 25
Midlothian
$28,607.00
S86-54D/7(8)654D Tire Town Bermuda
Developer: Margaret T. Wright and Tire Town Inc.
Contractor: Piedmont Construction Co. Inc.
Number of Connections: 2 $25,139.00
W86-120D Lucky Convenience Store @ Salisbury Midlothian
Developer: Salisbury Corporation
Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Inc.
Number of Connections: 1 $8,896.25
S86-92D/7(8)692D Steeplestone @ Salisbury
Developer: Salisbury Corp.
Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Inc.
Number of Connections: 4
Midlothian
$8,567.50
Agenda Item
July 23, 1986
Page 3
14.
15.
16.
17.
S86-93D/7(8)693D Lucky Convenience Store @ Salisbury
Developer: Salisbury Corp. Midlothian
Contractor: Lyttle Utilities Inc.
Number of Connections: 1 $17,197.10
S86-91D/7(8)691D Meadow Park Clover Hill
Developer: George B. Sowers, Jr. & Assoc., Inc.
Contractor: J. Steven Chafin, Inc.
Number of Connections: 43 $70,492.13
W86-117D Courthouse Woods Section 3
Developer: A.M. Associates
Contractor: Rhyne Contractors, Inc.
Number of Connections: 21
Dale
$19,911.50
S86-97D/7(8)697D Woodfield Subdivision Clover Hill
Developer: Woodfield Corp. and Lola M. Whitt
Contractor: Bookman Construction Co. Inc.
Number of Connections: 35 $38,691.25
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
R E PORTS
MEETING DATE:
REPORT ON:
July 23, 1986 ll.I.1.
GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT, GENERAL FUND BALANCE,
ROAD RESERVE FUNDS, DISTRICT ROAD AND STREET LIGHT FUNDS
ATTACHMENTS: YES i~
SI(; NATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
STATUS OF GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT
July 17, 1986
Date
07/01/86
07/09/86
Department/Description
Original FY87 Budget
Appropriation
Chamber of Commerce proposal for
Richmond SBA 503 Certified
Development Company
Amount
16,000.00
Balance
$100,000.00
84,000.00
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
GENERAL FUND BALANCE
July 17, 1986
Board
Meeting
Date
07/01/86
07/01/86
07/01/86
07/09/86
07/09/86
Description
FY87 Budgeted Beginning Fund Balance
Add to Fund Balance in FY87 Budget
Reserve for Payment of Future Debt
Interest
Debt Service - reduction of FY87
interest expense due to refunding a
portion of the 1981 bonds
MH/MR - to fund critical needs
Amount
+790,300
3,765,500
+ 78,400
85,900
Balance
$10,317,700
11,108,000
7,342,500
7,420,900
7,335,000
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
ROAD RESERVE FUNDS
July 17, 1986
Board
Meeting Rt. 36 Rt. 10
Date Description Ettrick Chester
05/09/84
10/10/84
10/10/84
08/28/85
08/28/85
03/12/86
03/12/86
05/28/86
05/28/86
Route 36 Ettrick - Appropriated
for design contract with VDH&T $
Route 10 - Design work for widening
through Chester
Route 36 Ettrick - Additional funds
for design contract with VDH&T
Route 36 Ettrick - Transferred General
Funds to Ruffin Mill Road project
Route 36 Ettrick - Use of Revenue
Sharing Funds
Route 36 Ettrick - Reduce Revenue
Sharing funds but add back General Funds.
Route 10 - Reduce General Funds but add
back Revenue Sharing funds.
Route 36 Ettrick - Appropriate Reserve
Funds.
Route 10 - Appropriate Reserve Funds.
Total Project Appropriation
150,000 $
165,000
(133,000)
+133,000
2,500,000**
$2,815,000
350,000
0
1,485,000'*
$1,835,000
* Funds were reserved in the amount of $4,500,000, 7/1/84 for these projects.
** Chester Project loaned the Ettrict Project $165,000 on May 28, 1986.
0
U
I I I I I I
CD 0 0 0 0 0
I I I I I
C~ 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
CD (:D 0 0
0
4J
0
· ,-I rO
· ,-I 0
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
MEETING DATE:
July 23, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
11.I.2.
SUBJECT:
Report to the Board - Annual Capital Improvement Projects
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OFINFORMATION:
Background:
When the 86-87 Budget was ad~Pted, it did not specify which projects
were to be funded in the ann~al CIP. An appropriation of $1.0 million
was included to cover $1.7 million in requests. In addition to the
$1.0 million, $220,000 in undesignated CIP funds from 1985-86 is
available. Staff has reviewed the requested projects and recommends
the following allocations.
Industrial Road Access
Drainage Projects
Northern Landfill Cell Construction
Clover Hill Bunkroom Construction
Fire Station General Repairs
Resurface Tennis Courts
Buildings & Grounds General Maintenance
Modification of Church for
Training Academy
Matoaca Station Repairs
Design Work for Future Vacated Space
Warehouse Design/Site Preparation
$ 150,000
133,000
100,000
100,000
125,000
94,500
179,800
50,000
65,500
130,000
92~200
$1,220,000
If the Board desires additional information, a work session can be
scheduled on July 30, August 11 or August 13/o~ at this meeting ~if
time per mits.
PREPARED BY; ·
~_es J
. ~. St~gm~ier
C~ief of-Budget and
ATTACHMENTS: YES r"l NO ~ Management
COUNTY ADM ! N I STRATOR
Renovate Human Service Space
Renovate Courts Space
Drainage Projects
Road Industrial Access
Repair Police Training Academy
Fire-General Station Repairs
Matoaca Station
Clover Hill Bunkroom
Expand Maintenance
Facilities
Parks-Resurface Tennis Courts
Soccer field lighting
Bleacher Boards
San±tation-Leachate Spray Back
System
Buildings and Grounds-Normal
Maint.
Portable Office Space
Northern Landfill Cell
Construction
Warehouse Design/Site
Preparation
TOTAL
Original Revised Staff
Request Request Recommendation
$ 248,000 $ 248,000
40,000 40,000 ] 130,000
133,000 133,000 133,000
150,000 150,000 150,000
200,000 200,000 50,000
200,000 125,000 125,000
100,000 65,500 65,500
100,000 100,000 100,000
100,000 100,000 -
94,500 94,500 94,500
0 90,000 -
0 10,800 -
50,000 50,000 -
206,700 159,800 179,800
100,000 100,000 -
1,722,200 1,666,600
0 100,000 100,000
0 0 92,200
$1,722,200 $1,766,600 $1,220,000
The majority of CIP requests are honored in this allocation. The
differences between original requests and the recommendation
include the addition of cell construction at the Northern Area
landfill which was not anticipated until FY88, the reduction of
the amount for renovation of Human Services and Courts space
because only design work can take place this fiscal year, and the
reduction of the amount for the Police Training Academy with the
understanding that the church purchased by the County will be
available for Police to use as a training center. Also, the
amount requested for Buildings and Grounds was increased to
accommodate bleacher boards for Parks and to provide some
additional storage for the Fire Maintenance Facility. Soccer
field lighting and a Leachate Spray System for the Northern
Landfill were not addressed and the need for additional portable
office space has diminished since the original request due to the
$250,000 appropriated by the Board for that purpose in FY85-86.
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE:
July 23, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
11.I.3.
SUBJECT: Report - District Chiefs' Association Budget Request
for 1986-87
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Background:
The District Chiefs' Association submitted a request to fund four items
which are priorities for the Volunteers. This report will address staff
response to each of these issues.
Request: Increase volunteer expense reimbursement per fire call from
$1.00 to $3.00. Approval of this request will increase expenditures
in the Fire Department by approximately $60,000 per year. The Board
of Supervisors approved reimbursement of $1.00 per call in the Fall
of 1980. The Fire Department recommends the increase become effectiw~
July 1, 1987, so the increased cost can be included for funding in
the 87-88 budget, otherwise funds will have to be appropriated.
Request: Improve accident, disability and life insurance benefits
of volunteers so that it mirrors the protection afforded career
firefighters. Staff is continuing to discuss additional benefits
for volunteers with underwriters. To date, no firm quotes have been
offered. Staff will provide an updated report and recommendation on
this issue when more definitive information is available.
July 18, 198~5
ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO ~1'
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMI N ISTRATOR
agenda Item - District Chiefs' Association
Budget Request for 1986-87
July 23, 1986
Page 2
Request: Fund the addition of a bunkroom for the Clover Hill
Fire Station. Staff has allocated $100,000 in the 86-87 annual
CIP for funding the Construction of a bunkroom at the Clover Hill
Station. The Board of Supervisors must decide on priorities
for CIP funding on this item and item 4. There are $1 million
available to fund $1.7 million in needs.
Request: Replace furnace at the Wagstaff Circle Fire Station.
This request is also addressed in the funding of the annual
CIP. The Fire Department is allocated $125,000 for general
station repairs. One of the intended projects is the replace-
ment of the furnace at the Wagstaff Circle Station.
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE; July 23, 1986
ITEM NUMBER;
ll.J
SUBJECT:
Executive Session for Consultation with Legal Counsel
Regarding the County History Book Pursuant to Section
2.1-344 (a) (6) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as Amended
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
PREPARED BY: i
ATTACHMENTS:
YES [] NO
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
COUNTY OF
CHESTERFIELD
VIRGINIA
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
DATI~:
The Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors
Richard L. Hedrick, County Administrator~
July 18, 1986
Attached Memorandum Regarding Route 288
We will discuss the attached memorandum with the Board on
Wednesday to determine how it should be handled with the
legislators.
jsd
Attachment
cc: Mr. Richard Sale
Mr. John McCracken
~OARD OFSUPERVISORS
R. GARLAND DODD , CHAIRMAN
BERMUDA DISTRICT
HARRY G. DANIEL, VICE CHAIRMAN
DALE DISTRICT
G. H. APPLEGATE
CLO.VER HILL DISTRICT
JOAN GIRONE
MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT
JESSE J. MAYES
MATOACA DISTRICT
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
P.O. BOX 4O
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832
COUNTY ADMI NISTRATO R
RICHARD L. HEDRICK
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Richard L. Hedrick, County Administrator
R. J. McCracken, Director of Transportation~
July 10, 1986
Route 288 from Route 10 to Route 1
and from Route 360 to Route 10
On July 9, 1986, VDH&T conducted a pre-advertisement meeting on
the Route 288 project from Route 10 to Route 1. The following
status report is provided for your information:
· The Corps of Engineers has rejected the Environmental
Document which VDH&T submitted for the Route 288 project. The
Corps is getting pressure from some of the federal agencies, U.S.
Fish & Wildlife, etc., regarding the damage that the project is
doing to some of the wetlands. Jack Hodge is scheduled to meet
with the Corps on~i~ ..... i7th to see if these issues can be
resolved. If the Corp~..-r~_fuses to accept the document which has
been submitted, it could create a significant delay in the
advertisement of the project. The Corps has insisted that all of
Route 288 from Route 360 to 1-95, be considered as one project
when the permits for the project are issued. If VDH&T cannot
resolve the issue with the Corps, the County's project from Route
360 to Route 10 could also be delayed.
· VDH&T will still make no commitment as to who will fund the
Route 10 interchange. The project has been designed to permit an
at grade or cloverleaf interchange.
· VDH&T will probably advertise the project from Route 10 to
Route 1 as a calendar day project (contractor will get extensions
of time for bad weather, etc.) instead of a fixed date contract
(complete by a set date or pay significant penalty). We asked
VDH&T to consider advertising the project under both concepts.
They seem very reluctant to pursue this.
Richard L. Hedrick
July 10, 1986
Page Two
· A diamond interchange will be constructed at Chester Road
which will permit an eventual cloverleaf interchange at a later
date. VDH&T advised that the "loops" of the interchange were not
included in the current project because of the cost. An at grade
intersection will be constructed at Route 1 with the ultimate
cloverleaf intersection constructed when the project from Route 1
to 1-95 is advertised in January of 1987.
e The cost estimate for the project from Route 10 to Route 1
is now $46 million versus $34.5 million in VDH&T's previous
estimate. The new cost reflects the latest bids which VDH&T has
received on contracts for other projects (Powhite Parkway, etc.).
The cost estimate for the project from Route 360 to Route 10 is
now $34 million versus the $29 million previously. This excludes
the Route 10 interchange. We have asked VDH&T previously to
consider any potential savings which could be realized if asphalt
pavement was used on the project in lieu of reinforced concrete.
VDH&T has not responded to our request. The concrete pavement
has a very long life compared to asphalt and, therefore, reduces
significantly VDH&T's maintenance costs. The concrete pavement
would provide the best facility over the long term, however, if
we need to reduce our initial cost we may still wish to pursue
this matter with VDH&T. We will also need approximately $1
million to extend Whitepine Road to Belmont replacing Reycan Road
as the back access to the airport.
Since the costs of the Route 288 projects now appear to be
exceeding the available funding, we recommend that the County
take the following actions:
1. The Board/Delegation should immediately schedule a meeting
with VDH&T's Commissioner to obtain a commitment from VDH&T that
they will fund the Route 10 interchange with the
Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike tolls.
2. The Board/Delegation should request VDH&T to advance the
advertisement of the Route 288 project from Route 1 to 1-95 so
that it will coincide with the first advertisement date of the
Parham/Chippenham project (4 projects, advertised November
86/December 86/October 87/July 87). If VDH&T waits until January
of 1987 to advertise this Route 288 project, it could be "at the
mercy" of bids received from not only the 288 project from 1 to
10 but also the Parham/Chippenham projects. VDH&T could then be
in a position where they could advise the County that they have
made a commitment to the Parham/Chippenham project and would have
to delay the last section of 288 because of a lack of funds.
Richard L. Hedrick
July 10, 1986
Page Three
3. If we are unsuccessful in getting a commitment from VDH&T on
recommendations 1 and 2, the Board/Delegation should seek to gain
a commitment from the Governor that his Commission on
Transportation, or Senate Bill 79, will fund: 1) the Five Forks
interchange if we must delete it from our project, 2) Route 10
interchange, and 3) whatever additional funding is needed to
complete Route 288 to 1-95. We should also see if a commitment
could be obtained to expand the 288/95 interchange so that access
could be provided to the property to the east.
4. The Board/Delegation should contact VDH&T to see if any
"political help" is needed to resolve the environmental permit
issues.
VDH&T will be making several critical decisions on Route 288 as
far as scope and timing in the next few weeks. It is very
important that the Board have input in this process. We should,
therefore, take the recommended actions immediately. If you need
any additional information, or wish to discuss these matters
further, please let me know.
RM6J10/ens
ccs: Messrs. M. D. Stith, Jr.
Richard Freeman Sale
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE: July 23, 1986
ITEM NUMBER: ll.B.
SUBJECT:s30 Million Bond Issue for Route 288 Project and Set Public
Hearing Date for the Appropriation of Bond Proceeds and Debt
Service·
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OFINFORMATION;
Bids will be taken on Wednesday, July 2~ 1986 for the sale of the
$30,000,000 Route 288 bond proceeds· The Board must approve all
legal documents and accept the low bid in order to complete the
financing· Also, a public hearing date is recommended for the
appropriation of the bond p~oceeds and debt service payment.
Background-o
The County's financial advisors have recommended that the County
should sell these bonds prior to the planned sale in August.
There are three reasons for accelerating this sale:
ATTACHMENTS: YES I-I NO
The Federal tax reform is likely to be effective
September 1, 1986. In order to avoid some of the
arbitrage provisions of the tax bill, this sale should
be completed before then.
The calendar of sales scheduled for August is large as
other issuers are trying to beat the September
deadline, therefore, the supply of bonds in the market
will be high.
The interest rate is approaching the March-April low
and this will be a good time to issue.bonds, i~
Lane B. Ramsey, Di~ctor
Budget and Accounting
SIGNATURE:____
COUNTY ADMINI STRATOR
/-
Agenda Item-S30 Million Bond Issue, Route 288
July 23, 1986
Page 2
Board Action:
The Board will need to take the following action:
Approve the legal documents necessary to complete the
sale. These documents will be delivered to the Board
at the meeting.
Accept the low bid from qualified underwriter. Bids
will be opened at the State Treasurers Office at 11:00
a.m. on July 23, 1986. The low bid will be verified
and the information will be relayed to staff at the
Board meeting for formal acceptance.
Set a public hearing date for the appropriation of the
bond proceeds and the one interest payment scheduled in
1986-87. Any appropriation exceeding $500,000 may only
be made after a public hearing is held. The suggested
public hearing date is August 13, 1986. The Board will
be asked at that meeting to appropriate the $30,000,000
to the construction of the project and the
approximately $1,150,000 in interest payments which
will occur in 1986-87. It is anticipated that
investment income from the bond proceeds will offset
this cost.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR
THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF THIRTY
MILLION DOLLARS ($30,000,000) PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES OF
]986, OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD,
VIRGINIA; ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL FOR THE
PURCHASE OF SUCH BONDS; FIXING THE RATES OF
INTEREST TO BE BORNE BY SUCH BONDS; APPROVING
THE FORM OF AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND THE
DISTRIBUTION THEREOF; RATIFYING CERTAIN ACTS
AND PROCEEDINGS; AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING FOR
THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH BONDS
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA:
SECTION 1. Findings and Determinations.
(a) Pursuant to the Public Finance Act, an
election duly called and held under the Public Finance Act
in the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "County"), on
November 5, 1985, and an Order of the Circuit Court of the
County dated December 17, 1985, the County is authorized to
contract debt and issue its general obligation bonds in the
maximin amount of thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) for
the following highway improvement project in the County:
construction of Route 288 and related improvements.
None of such general obligation bonds have
heretofore been issued by the County, and the Board deems it
advisable and in the best interests of the County to
authorize and provide at this time for the issuance, sale
and delivery of thirty million dollars ($30,000,000)
aggregate principal amount of such bonds for the purpose
described in the immediately preceding paragraph.
(b) The Notice of Sale (the "Notice of Sale") of
thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) principal amount of
Public Improvement Bonds, Series of 1986 (the "Bonds"), was
duly published on July 17, 1986, in The Bond Buyer, a
financial journal published in the City of New York, New
York.
The Notice of Sale provided that sealed proposals
for the purchase of the Bonds would be received by or on
behalf of the County, at the office of the Treasurer of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, James Monroe Building, 101 N. 14th
Street, 3rd Floor, Richmond, Virginia 23219, until 11:00
A.M., Local Time, on Wednesday, July 23, 1986, at which time
and place all proposals would be publicly opened. Pursuant
to the Notice of Sale, (__) proposals for the purchase
of the Bonds were received, each accompanied by a certified
or bank treasurer's or cashier's good faith check payable to
the order of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, in the
amount of $600,000. The names of the bidders submitting
each such proposal, the purchase price for the Bonds
specified in each such proposal and the "True" or "Canadian"
interest cost to the County resulting from each such
proposal are as follows:
Name of Bidder
Purchase Price
Specified
Interest
Cost
After due consideration of all such proposals,
this Board finds that (a) (the
"Purchaser") is a responsible bidder, (b) of the proposals
received, the proposal of the Purchaser (the "Proposal") is
the proposal to purchase the Bonds at the lowest "True" or
"Canadian" interest cost to the County, computed by doubling
the semiannual interest rate (compounded semiannually)
necessary to discount the debt service payments from their
respective payment dates to the date of the Bonds and to the
price bid, not including interest accrued, if any, to the
date of delivery, and (c) the Proposal is the best proposal
received, is in accordance with the provisions of the Notice
of Sale, and should be accepted.
SECTION 2. Authorization of Bonds. For the
purpose of financing the costs of the public improvement
project of the County described in Section 1 hereof, there
are hereby authorized to be issued, sold and delivered an
issue of thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) principal
amount of general obligation bonds of the County to be
designated and known as "Public Improvement Bonds, Series of
1986" (hereinafter referred to as the "Bonds"). The Bonds
shall be dated as of July 15, 1986; shall be numbered from
No. R-1 upwards in order of issuance; shall be issued in
fully registered form in the denomination of $5,000 each or
any integral multiple thereof; and shall mature serially on
July 15 in each of the years and in the amounts set forth
below, with the Bonds maturing in each of the years
specified below bearing interest payable on January 15, 1987
and semiannually on each January 15 and July 15 thereafter
at the rate per annum set forth opposite such year, as
follows:
Principal Interest Principal Interest
Year Amount Rate Year Amount Rate
1988 $1,580,000 % 1998 $1,580,000
1989 1,580,000 1999 1,580,000
1990 1,580,000 2000 1,580,000
1991 1,580,000 2001 1,580,000
1992 1,580,000 2002 1,580,000
1993 1,580,000 2003 1,580,000
1994 1,580,000 2004 1,580,000
1995 1,580,000 2005 1,580,000
1996 1,580,000 2006 1,560,000
1997 1,580,000
SECTION 3. AccePtance of Proposal. The Proposal,
being a proposal to purchase the Bonds at the price of
($ )', plus
accrued interest from the date of the Bonds to the date of
delivery thereof to and payment therefor by the Purchaser,
with the Bonds to bear interest at the rates per annum
specified in Section 2 hereof, is hereby accepted and the
Bonds are hereby awarded to the Purchaser.
SECTION 4. Good Faith Checks. The good faith
checks of the unsuccessful bidders shall be returned
forthwith. The good faith check of the Purchaser will be
deposited by the County and the proceeds thereof credited
against the purchase price due for the Bonds upon their
delivery or retained as and for liquidated damages in the
event the Purchaser fails to take up and pay for the Bonds
in accordance with the Proposal.
SECTION 5. Appointment of Registrar; Payment of
Bonds; Books of Registry; Exchanges and Transfers of Bonds.
(a) Appointment of Registrar.
at ~ts principal corporate trust office in the
City of , , is hereby appointed Registrar
for the Bonds (h~'reinafter referred to as the "Registrar").
(b) Payment of Bonds. (i) The interest on the
Bonds shall be payable by check mailed by the Registrar to
the registered holders of the Bonds at their addresses as
the same appear on the books of registry as of the first day
(whether or not a business day) of each calendar month in
which such interest is payable.
(ii) The principal of and premium, if any, on the
Bonds shall be payable at the principal corporate trust
office of the Registrar.
(iii) The principal of and premium, if any, and
interest on the Bonds shall be payable in such coin or
currency of the United States of America as at the
respective dates of payment is legal tender for public and
private debts.
(c) Books of Registry; Exchanges and Transfers of
Bonds. (i) At all times during which any Bond remains
outstanding and unpaid, the Registrar shall keep or cause to
be kept at its principal corporate trust office books of
registry for the registration, exchange and transfer of the
Bonds. Upon presentation at the principal corporate trust
office of the Registrar for such purpose, the Registrar,
under such reasonable regulations as it may prescribe, shall
register, exchange, transfer, or cause to be registered,
exchanged or transferred, on the books of registry the Bonds
as herein set forth.
(ii) Any Bond may be exchanged at the principal
corporate trust office of the Registrar for a like aggregate
principal amount of such Bonds in other authorized principal
amounts of the same interest rate and maturity.
(iii) Any Bond may, in accordance with its terms,
be transferred upon the books of registry by the person in
whose name it is registered, in person or by his duly autho-
rized agent, upon surrender of such Bond to the Registrar
for cancellation, accompanied by a written instrument of
transfer duly executed by the registered holder in person or
his duly authorized agent, in form satisfactory to the
Registrar.
(iv) Ail transfers or exchanges pursuant to this
Section 5(c) shall be made without expense to the holder of
such Bonds, except as otherwise herein provided, and except
that the Registrar shall require the payment by the holder
of the Bond requesting such transfer or exchange of any tax
or other governmental charges required to be paid with
respect to such transfer or exchange. All Bonds surrendered
pursuant to this Section 5(c) shall be cancelled.
SECTION 6. Redemption of Bonds.
(a) Provisions for Redemption. The Bonds
maturing on or before July 15, 1996 shall not be subject to
redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Bonds
maturing on and after July 15, 1997 shall be subject to
redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated
maturities, in whole at any time, or in part from time to
time on any interest payment date, (a) on or after July 15,
1996, and prior to July 15, 2001, upon payment of the
principal amount of the Bonds (or portions of the principal
amount thereof to be redeemed), plus a premium of
one-quarter of one percent (1/4 of 1%) of the principal
amount of each Bond or portion thereof to be redeemed for
each twelve (12) month period or fraction thereof between
the date fixed for redemption and the stated maturity date
of such Bond, but not to exceed one hundred and two percent
(102%) of such principal amount or portion thereof, and (b)
on or after July 15, 2001, upon payment of the principal
amount of the Bonds (or portions of the principal amount to
be redeemed), together in each case with interest accrued
thereon to the date fixed for redemption. In the event less
than all of the Bonds of a particular maturity are called
for redemption, the particular Bonds of such maturity or
portions thereof in installments of $5,000 to be redeemed
shall be selected by the Registrar by lot.
(b) Notice of Redemption. Notice of any such
redemption shall be mailed not less than thirty (30) days
prior to the date fixed for redemption by first-class mail,
postage prepaid, to the registered holder of the Bonds to be
redeemed at such holder's address as shown on the books of
registry kept by the Registrar for the Bonds as of the close
of business on the forty-fifth (45th) day preceding the date
fixed for redemption. Such notice shall specify the date,
numbers and maturities of the Bonds to be redeemed, the date
and place fixed for their redemption and the premium, if
any, payable upon such redemption, and if less than the
entire principal amount of any Bond is to be redeemed, that
such Bond must be surrendered in exchange for the principal
amount thereof to be redeemed and the issuance of a new Bond
equalling in principal amount that portion of the principal
amount thereof not to be redeemed, and shall also state that
upon the date fixed for redemption there shall become due
and payable upon each Bond called for redemption the
principal amount thereof and redemption premium, if any,
thereon, together with the interest accrued thereon to the
date fixed for redemption, and that from and after such date
interest thereon shall cease to accrue.
(c) Effect of Redemption. When notice of redemp-
tion of any Bonds shall have been given as hereinabove set
forth, such Bonds shall become due and payable on the date
so specified for their redemption at a price equal to the
principal amount thereof and redemption premium, if any,
thereon together with the interest accrued thereon to such
date. Whenever payment of such redemption price shall have
been duly made or provided for, interest on the Bonds so
called for redemption shall cease to accrue from and after
the date so specified for their redemption. All redeemed
Bonds shall be cancelled and not reissued.
SECTION 7. Execution and Authentication of Bonds;
CUSIP Identification Numbers.
(a) Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be ex-
ecuted in the name of the County by the manual or facsimile
signatures of the Chairman and the Clerk of this Board, and
the corporate seal of this Board shall be impressed, or a
facsimile thereof printed, on the Bonds.
(b) Authentication of Bonds. The County Adminis-
trator shall direct the Registrar to authenticate the Bonds
and no Bond shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose un-
less and until the certificate of authentication endorsed on
such Bond shall have been manually executed by an authorized
signator of the Registrar. Upon the authentication of any
Bond the Registrar shall insert in the certificate of au-
thentication the date as of which such Bond is authenticated
as follows: (i) if the Bond is authenticated prior to the
first interest payment date, the certificate shall be dated
as of the date of the initial issuance and delivery of the
Bonds; (ii) if the Bond is authenticated upon an interest
payment date, the certificate shall be dated as of such
interest payment date; (iii) if the Bond is authenticated on
or after the first day of a calendar month in which there is
an interest payment date and prior to such interest payment
date, the certificate shall be .dated as of such interest
payment date; and (iv) in all other instances the certifi-
cate shall be dated as of the actual date upon which the
Bond is authenticated. The execution and authentication of
the Bonds in the manner above set forth is adopted as a due
and sufficient authentication of the Bonds.
(c) CUSIP Identification Numbers. CUSIP
identification numbers may be printed on the Bonds, but
neither the failure to print any such number on any Bonds,
nor any error or omission with respect thereto, shall
constitute cause for failure or refusal by the successful
bidder for the Bonds to accept delivery of and pay for the
Bonds in accordance with the terms of its proposal to
purchase the Bonds. No such number shall constitute or be
deemed to be a part of any Bond or a part of the contract
evidenced thereby and no liability shall attach to the
County or any of its officers or agents because of or on
account of any such number or any use made thereof.
SECTION 8. Arbitrage Bond Provision. The County
shall make no use of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds
which would cause the Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" under
Section 103(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as
amended, and the County shall comply with the applicable
regulations of the Internal Revenue Service adopted under
such Section 103(c) so long as any Bond is outstanding.
SECTION 9. Sources of Payment of Bonds. The full
faith and credit of the County shall be and is hereby
irrevocably pledged to the punctual payment of the principal
of and interest on the Bonds as the same become due. There
shall be levied and collected annually, at the same time and
in the same manner as other taxes are assessed, levied and
collected, ad valorem taxes upon all property subject to
taxation by the County, without limitation as to rate or
amount, sufficient to provide for the payment of the princi-
pal of and interest on the Bonds as the same respectively
become due and payable.
SECTION 10. Form of Bonds. The Bonds shall be in
substantially the form set forth below with such necessary
or appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as are
incidental to their numbers, interest rates and maturities
or as are otherwise permitted or required by law or this
resolution:
[FACE]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BOND
SERIES OF 1986
REGISTERED REGISTERED
No. R- $
INTEREST RATE: MATURITY DATE: ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE: CUSIP NO:
REGISTERED HOLDER:
July 15, 1986
PRINCIPAL SUM:
The County of Chesterfield (hereinafter referred
to as the "County"), a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, for value received, hereby
promises to pay to the Registered Holder (named above), or
registered assigns, on the Maturity Date (specified above),
unless this Bond shall have been duly called for previous
redemption and payment of the redemption price shall have
been duly made or provided for, the Principal Sum (specified
above), and to pay interest on such Principal Sum on January
15, 1987 and semiannually on each January 15 and July 15
thereafter (each such date is hereinafter referred to as an
"interest payment date"), from the date hereof or from the
interest payment date next preceding the date of
authentication hereof to which interest shall have been
paid, unless such date of authentication is an interest
payment date, in which case from such interest payment date
if interest has been paid to such date, or unless such date
of authentication is within the period from the fourteenth
(14th) day next preceding an interest payment date to such
interest payment date, in which case from such interest
payment date if interest has been paid to such interest
payment date, such interest to be paid to the maturity or
redemption hereof at the Interest Rate (specified above) per
annum, by check mailed by the Registrar hereinafter
mentioned to the Registered Holder in whose name this Bond
is registered on the books of registry kept and maintained
by the Registrar as of the close of business on the first
day (whether or not a business day) of each calendar month
in which interest is payable at his address as it appears on
such books of registry.
The principal of and premium, if any, on this Bond
are payable upon presentation and surrender hereof at the
principal corporate trust office of
in the City of , (the "Registrar").
The principal of and premium, if any, and interest on this
Bond are payable in such coin or currency of the United
States of ~merica as at the respective dates of payment is
legal tender for public and private debts.
REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE FURTHER PROVISIONS OF
THIS BOND SET FORTH ON THE REVERSE HEREOF, WHICH FURTHER
PROVISIONS SHALL FOR ALL PURPOSES HAVE THE EFFECT AS THOUGH
FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN.
The full faith and credit of the County are
hereby irrevocably pledged to the payment of the principal
of and interest on this Bond as the same become due.
This Bond shall not be valid or obligatory unless
the certificate of authentication hereon shall have been
manually signed by an authorized signator of the Registrar.
It is hereby certified, recited and declared that
all acts, conditions and things required to have happened,
to exist and to have been performed precedent to and in the
issuance of this Bond and the series of which it is one, do
exist, have happened and have been performed in regular and
due time, form and manner as required by law, and that this
Bond and the Bonds of the series of which this Bond is one
do not exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation of
indebtedness.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County, by its Board of
Supervisors, has caused this Bond to be executed by the
facsimile signature of the Chairman of such Board; a
facsimile of the corporate seal of such Board to be
imprinted hereon, attested by the facsimile signature of the
Clerk of such Board; and this Bond to be dated as of
the fifteenth day of July, 1986.
[SEAL]
Attest:
Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors
Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This Bond is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant
to the within-mentioned proceedings.
By:
Date of Authentication:
· Registrar
Authorized Signator
[BACK]
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD· VIRGINIA·
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BOND, SERIES OF 1986
This Bond is one of a duly authorized issue of
Bonds (herein referred to as the "Bonds") of the aggregate
principal amount of Thirty Million Dollars ($30,000,000) and
is issued under and pursuant to and in full compliance with
the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, including Chapter 5 of Title 15.1 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended (the same being the Public
Finance Act), an election duly held in the County under such
Chapter 5 on November 5, 1985 and a resolution duly adopted
by the Board of Supervisors of the County under such
Chapter 5 on July 23, 1986, for the purpose of financing the
costs of a public improvement project of and for the County.
The Bonds of the series of Bonds of which this
Bond is one (or portions thereof in installments of $5,000
or any integral multiple thereof) maturing on and after July
15, 1997 shall be subject to redemption at the option of the
County prior to their stated maturities in whole at any
time, or in part from time to time on any interest payment
date, (a) on or after July 15, 1996, and prior to July 15,
2001, upon payment of the principal amount of the Bonds (or
the portions of the principal ~mount thereof to be
redeemed), plus a premium of one-quarter of one percent (1/4
of 1%) of the principal amount of each Bond or portion
thereof to be redeemed for each twelve (12) month period or
fraction thereof between the date fixed for redemption and
the stated maturity date of such Bond, but not to exceed one
hundred and two percent (102%) of such principal ~mount or
portion thereof, and (b) on or after July 15, 2001, upon
payment of the principal amount of the Bonds (or the
portions of the principal amount to be redeemed), together
in each case with interest accrued thereon to the date fixed
for redemption. In the event less than all of the Bonds of
a particular maturity are called for redemption, the
particular Bonds of such maturity or portions thereof in
installments of $5,000 to be redeemed shall be selected by
the Registrar by lot.
If this Bond is redeemable and this Bond (or any
portion of the principal amount hereof in installments of
$5,000) shall be called for redemption, notice of the
redemption hereof, specifying the date, number and maturity
of this Bond, the date and place fixed for its redemption
and the premium, if any, payable upon such redemption, and
if less than the entire principal amount of this Bond is to
be redeemed, that this Bond must be surrendered in exchange
for the principal amount hereof to be redeemed and the
issuance of a new Bond equalling in principal amount that
portion of the principal amount hereof not to be redeemed,
shall be mailed not less than thirty (30) days prior to the
date fixed for redemption by first-class mail, postage
prepaid, to the Registered Holder of this Bond at his
address as it appears on the books of registry maintained by
the Registrar as of the close of business on the forty-fifth
(45th) day preceding the date fixed for redemption. If
notice of redemption of this Bond shall have been given as
aforesaid, and payment of the principal amount of this Bond
(or the portion of the principal amount hereof to be
redeemed) and of the accrued interest and premium, if any,
payable upon such redemption shall have been duly made or
provided for, interest hereon shall cease from and after the
date so specified for the redemption hereof.
Subject to the limitations and upon payment of the
charges, if any, provided in the proceedings authorizing the
Bonds of the series of which this Bond is one, this Bond may
be exchanged at the principal corporate trust office of the
Registrar for a like aggregate principal amount of Bonds of
other authorized principal amounts and of the series of
which this Bond is one. This Bond is transferable by the
Registered Holder hereof, in person or by his attorney duly
authorized in writing, at the principal corporate trust
office of the Registrar but only in the manner, subject to
the limitations and upon payment of the charges, if any,
provided in the proceedings authorizing the Bonds of the
series of which this Bond is one, and upon the surrender
hereof for cancellation. Upon such transfer a new Bond or
Bonds of authorized denominations and of the same aggregate
principal amount of the series of which this Bond is one
will be issued to the transferee in exchange herefor.
FORM OF ASSIGNMENT
For value received,
assigns and transfers unto
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY
OR OTHER TAX IDENTIFYING NUMBER
OF ASSIGNEE:
hereby sells,
the within-mentioned Bond and hereby irrevocably constitutes
and appoints , attorney, to transfer the same
on the books of registry of the County kept at the principal
corporate trust office of the Registrar with full power of
substitution in the premises.
Dated:
NOTE-.
Registered Holder
The signature to this assignment must
correspond with the name as written on the
face of the within Bond in every particular,
without alteration, enlargement or any change
whatsoever.
Signature Guaranteed:
NOTE:
Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a member
firm of The New York Stock Exchange, Inc. or
a commercial bank or trust company.
SECTION 11. Execution and Delivery of the Bonds.
The Chairman and Clerk of this Board, the County
Administrator, the County Treasurer and other appropriate
officers, employees and agents of the County are authorized
and directed to take all such action and to execute such
instruments as shall be deemed by them to be necessary or
appropriate to effect the printing, execution and issuance
of the Bonds and the delivery of the Bonds to the Purchaser
in accordance with the terms of the Proposal, the Notice of
Sale, and this resolution, upon receipt of the purchase
price therefor as set forth in Section 3 hereof, and for the
proper application and use of the proceeds of such sale.
SECTION 12. Preliminary Official Statement;
Official Statement; Certification Concerning Official
Statement. The Chairman of this Board and the County
Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to execute
and deliver to the Purchaser copies of an Official Statement
of the County relating to the Bonds, in substantially the
form of the Preliminary Official Statement of the County
relating to the Bonds, dated July 17, 1986 (the "Preliminary
Official Statement"), after the same has been completed by
the insertion of the interest rates to be borne by the Bonds
and by making such other insertions, changes or corrections
as the County Administrator, based on the advice of the
County's financial advisors and legal counsel, deems
necessary or appropriate; and this Board hereby authorizes
such Official Statement and the information contained
therein to be used by the Purchaser in connection with the
sale of the Bonds. The County Administrator and the
Director of Budget and Accounting are hereby authorized and
directed to execute on behalf of the County and deliver to
the Purchaser the certificate referred to in the Official
Statement under the caption "Certificate Concerning Official
Statement".
SECTION 13. Covenant As to Compliance with H.R.
3838. The County hereby covenants and agrees to comply with
the provisions of H.R. 3838, as passed by the U.S. House of
Representatives on December 17, 1985 and as modified by the
Joint Statement issued on March 14, 1986 by the Chairmen and
Ranking Members of the U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Ways and Means and the U.S. Senate Committee on
Finance, and the Secretary of the Treasury (the "Joint
Statement"), that relate to the Bonds if and to the extent
required to maintain the exemption of interest on the Bonds
from federal income taxation. It is to be understood,
however, that the County shall not be required to comply
with the provisions of H.R. 3838, as modified by the Joint
Statement, to the extent that the County receives an opinion
from any nationally recognized bond counsel that
noncompliance will not cause the interest on the Bonds to be
subject to federal income taxation.
SECTION 14. Ratification. The action of the
County Administrator in causing the Notice of Sale to be
published as described in Section 1 hereof, and in causing
the Notice of Sale, a Proposal for Purchase of Thirty
Million Dollars ($30,000,000) General Obligation Public
Improvement Bonds, Series of 1986, and the Preliminary
Official Statement to be distributed, and the form and
contents of the Notice of Sale, such Proposal and the
Preliminary Official Statement, and all actions and
proceedings heretofore taken by this Board, the County
Administrator and the other officers, employees, agents and
attorneys of the County in connection with the issuance and
sale of the Bonds, are hereby ratified and confirmed.
SECTION 15. Filing of This Resolution. The
County Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to file a
copy of this resolution, certified by the Clerk of this
Board to be a true and correct copy hereof, with the Circuit
Court of the County of Chesterfield.
SECTION 16. Invalidity of Sections, Paragraphs,
Clauses or Provisions. If any section, paragraph, clause or
provision of this resolution shall be held invalid or unen-
forceable for any reason, the invalidity or unenforceability
of such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not
affect any of the remaining portions of this resolution.
SECTION 17. Headings of Sections. The headings
of the sections of this resolution shall be solely for
convenience of reference and shall not affect the meaning,
construction, interpretation or effect of such sections or
of this resolution.
SECTION 18. Effective Date.
shall take effect upon its adoption.
This resolution