The URL can be used to link to this page

12-13-1978 PacketMEETING DATE: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS December 13, 1978 SUBJECT: - Appointments A. Youth Services Commission B. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 15. Mental Health and Mental Retardation Services Board COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - No Recommendation. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - Ao Rev. C. B. Jackson, representing the Youth Services Commission, ~ill be present at the Board meeting and will propose youth candidates which the Board will be asked to appoint to the Youth Services Commission. B. See Attached. ATTACHMENTS: - [] YES [] NO These three people will be appointed today for the Youth Services Commi s s i on: Dale District Carla Wells 4411 S~illcutt Road Richmond, Va. 275-7642 llth Grade Midlothian District Keith Boswell 10525 Ashburn Road Richmond, Va. 23235 272-5355 12th Grade Bermuda District Towana Copeland 12200 Jefferson Davis Highway Chester, Va. 23831 748-5090 10th Grade, Thomas Dale High - (hesterfwlfl Mental Health and Mental Retardation Services Board P.O. Box 92.43wslerfiehi.Virgini;~ 23832 Phone: 718-1,121 December 6, 1978 21.A. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mr. Nicholas M. Meiszer County Administrator Mr. Albert K. Wynne, Administrato~ Mental Health and Mental Retarda~Yion Services Board Appointments to Chesterfield County Mental Health and Mental Retardation Services Board Records of this office indicate that the term of office of the following members of the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Services Board expires on December 31, 1978 and becauss they have served two successive three year terms, are not eligible for reappointment: Mr. Andrew R. Martin - Midlothian District Mr. C. G. Manuel - Bermuda District In addition, Mrs. Richard Wilson - Midlothian District.- has submitted her resignation from the Board, effective November 30, 1978. Request that this information be brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors in order that they can appoint replacements as early as possible. Appointment dates should be effective January 1, 1979 for a period of three years. Further, the term of office of the following board members expires December 31, 1978: Mr. Morris Mason - Dale District Rev. Charles L. Johnson - Dale District Dr. Paul E. Prince - Clover Hill District These members are eligible for reappointment and because of their experience and past contributions I recommend that they be reappointed for a three year term, effective January 1, 1979. Mr. Nicholas M. Meiszer Subject: Appointment to Chesterfield County ~Iental Health and Mental Retardation Services Board Page Two If you have any questions concerning any of the above appointment,s, please call. I have included for your information a copy of the policy concerning membership and organization of Community Mental Health and i Mental Retardation Services Board which was adopted by the State Mental. Health and Mental Retardation Board. A roster of the present County Services Board members is also included for your information. AKW/ert Enclosures o nembership, Organization Duties and Responsibilitfes A Board shall consist of not less than five nor more than fifteen members appointed in the manner prescribed by law. The membership should be representative, wherever possible, of the community. This membership should have participating representation according to race, socio-economic status, age and sex. Attention is called to Section 15.1-50 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, which precludes the appointment of certain individuals to the Board. No employee of the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation may serve as a Board Member. However, it is anticipated that such personnel involw~d in the delivery of local services will be utilized to the fullest extent in an advisory capacity. Appointees to a Board, in the exercise of their duties, are expected to represent mental health, mental retardation, and substance abuse concerns. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL RETARDATION SERVICES' BOARD Mrs. Elsie H. Blanton 4001 Flintridge Road Richmond, Va. 23235 Home: 276-5862 Bus: 257-0095 District: Clover Hill Mrs. Gerald Beach (Marie) 13511 Salisbury Road Midlothian, Va. 23113 Home: 794-8068 District: Midlothian Mr. John Waddill 4601 Bruce Road Chester, Va. 23831 Bus: 771-4553 District: Bermuda Mr. John A. Flowers P.O. Box 354 Colonial Heights, Va. Bus: 732-8811 District: Matoaca 23834 Rev. Charles L. Johnson 5155 Ironbridge Road Richmond, Va. 23234 Home: 743-0737 Study: 275-1648 District: Dale Mr. Robert W. Carlson 3508 Marquette Road Richmond, Va. 23234 Home: 275-8660 District: Dale Mrs. Janice Mack 19100 Rosewood Lane Petersburg, Va. 23803 Home: 526-9361 Bus. 526-5788 District: Matoaca Mr. Jack Manuel Director, General Services Chesterfield Courthouse Chesterfield, Va. 23832 Bus: 748-1215 District: Bermuda Mrs. Rebecca Davis 4008 River Road Ettrick, Va. 23803 Home: 526-7937 Bus: 861-93301 District: Matoaca Mr. Andrew R. Martin P.O. Box 3106 Bon Air, Va. 23235 Home: 272-3253 Bus: 272-7171 Mr. Morris Mason 4318 Vauxhall Road Richmond, Va. 23234 Home: 271-6154 Bus: 748-2229i District: Dale Mrs. Ann C. Peterson 2349 Stuts Lane Richmond, Va. 23235 Home: 276-0377 Bus: 748-2070 District: Clover Hill Dr. Paul E. Prince 9250 Redbridge Road Richmond, Va. 23235 Home: 272-7684 Bus: 786-73671 District: Clover Hill Mrs. Richard Wilson 2600 Cherrytree Lane Richmond, Va. 23235 Home: 272-8705 Bus: 272-7548 District: Midlot.hian Mr. Robert W. Allen 12641 Winfree St. Chester, Va. 23831 Home: 748-4832 Bus: 271-2100 District: Bermuda UTILITIES DEPART~YENT COUi,!TY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE bfEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DECEMBER 13, 1978 III. Financial Reports - Water and Sewer Approval of water contract: 1. 6(7)9042 Southside Shopping Center Developer: Chesterfield Associates Contractor: Allied Design Est. Contract Cost: $83,104.00 Est. County Cost: $13,013.20 Appropriate as follows': $5,250.00 from Surplus 111, General Fund $7,763.20 from Surplus 563, Utility Fund to 380-1-69042-7212. Recommend approval Dale Consideration of request from Mr. G~ W. Butler for extension of time on the refund provision under Water Contract AC-463, Cameron Hills. Recommend One Year Extension Bermuda IV. Request for additional appropriations for Sewer Contract 7(7)8931, Springhill and Gatewood and Sewer Contract 7(7)8941, Milhorn and South Streets. Recommend approval Clover Hill and Matoaca V. Consideration of an alternate request from Queeasmill Corporation for refunds under Sewer Contract 7(7)8802, Queensmill Offsite trunk sewer. Clover Hill and Recommend approval Midlothian VI. VII. VIII. IX. Consideration of adjustments on appropriations of water and sewer proj e'cts. Consideration of a request for sewer service to 5425 Belmont Road. Estimated cost: $7,400.00. Clover Hill Vacation and re-dedication of a sewer easement along Hornet's Run and Courthouse Road. Recommend approval Clover Hill Vacation of portions of a drainage and utility easement in Reams Run, Section C. Reco~end approval Clover Hill Utilities Agenda Page 2 December 13, 1978 XI. XII. XIII. XIV. Vacation of 16-foot easement in Brighton Green, Section 15. Recommend approval Midlothian Request for adjustment of appropriation in an additional amount of $3,526.00 for the right of way for Ramblewood Road Industrial Access Project. Recommend approval Bermuda Resolution authorizing condemnation proceedings against Richard H. and Patricia B. Hamilton for sewer easement under Contract S68-1C/D. Recommend approval Clover Hill Consideration of condemnation proceedings against Chesmid Park Corporation for parcel of land adjacent to Midlothian Fire Department. Recommend approval Midlo thian Miscellaneous: 1. Report of developer water and sewer contracts. SL"..C~..~: - MAJOR S~'TER PROJECTS Showi=f Projects by Classification and Financial Stat~s Funds Available 11f30/78 as per Treas. Office(l) Reimb:r~ament from Developers Addict=mai Federal and State Aid Due' Letter~ of CretiC for Rocky Run Hud To:a! Available Funds .. FUNDS CC ??IITTE D (~:. ?rojec~s(~ther than Fed.Aid)under contract (X) (e Federal & State Aid Projects under contract (~ Projects under contract from Escrow Fund ('i Projects held in Escrow (**~ Projecrs on-site off-site (HUL HUD Contracts (X~ ?.avenue Sharing Projects Page l- Additional Projects Authorized Colcn~al Heighus Pumping Station-Page Peter.'-:&rg Treatment Plant-Page 5 Difference Amount Escrowed and Loan insurance Fund Rese_~r2 for Interest Payable Temporary Loans Payable OBLIa~TZD PROJECTS ?.'~2-18A Kingsland Creek Trunk fro,. Bellwood Lagoon ~o R~. $75-1T Gravel Brook PR0I'~Z.:ED BY BOARD DF SUPERVISORS ?Cii-2B Crestwood Farms - Oahnke Place O~dER PROJECTS Old Town Trunk West of Matoaca · Upgrade Lagoons · S7~-20T Trunk on Southsfde of Reservoir 7C~2-1C Burrough S~reet, Bom Air Bom Air Ruthers Road L~d¢o Crystal Farms Jcssup Farms (Old Coach HII~S) S7~-2T Rock SprtnEs Farms Land O Pines Sherbourne Road Indian Springs Victoria Hills - Bruce Farms Johnson Crae~ - Remainder Wa%thall November 30, 1978 $ 2,633,480 - 93,998 - 9'1,500 ~ 5,047,158 $ 151,473 ~2) 1,830,731 628,871 ~4,~2~' 3,468 1,253 446,295 35,246 525,000 208,200 ~5,047,158 $ 3,91~,860 $1,132,298 $ 236.337 293 $ 530,112 602,186 Fuqua Farms, TOTAL PROJECTS ADDITiOXAL FUNDS (1) ~_~ tttnate 0nl~ (2) (3) $ ..160,95~ $ .160,939 $ 450.000 250,000 i,017,809 155,731 278,000 33.000 262,127 203,472 441.016 649,574 127.200 77,83S 671,043 248:~6 441,247 $5,538,020(3) $10,14~,931 ' ($5~096; 773) County share of Sunnybrook Acres Pumping Station completed. foes mot include Falling Creek Treatment ~lamt. 'Rev:i. sad Estlmated Fed. & State Aid (See-~tcached sheet for details) Grant Approved Amount Received Balance Due $14.2 88,701 $%2,080,054 $ 2,208.647 UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DECEMBER 13, 1978 IT~4 NO: II (1) CONTRACT NUMBER: W79-4CD or 6(7)9042 LOCATION: Southside Shopping Center DEVELOPER: Chesterfield Associates CONTRACTOR: Allied Desisns DISTRICT: Dale ESTIMATED CONTRACT COST: Estimated cash refund: General Fund = $ 5~250.00 Utility Fund = $ 7,763.20 ESTIMATED CASH RE~UNDS: $13,013.20 ESTIMATED DEVELOPER COST: $83,104.00 $13,013.20 $70,090.80 COPE: Appropriate $5,250.00 from surplus 111 General Fund and $7,763.20 from surplus 563 Utility Fund to 380-1-6(7)9042-7212. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE ~ETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DECEMBER 13, 1978 ITEM NO: III Consideration of request from Mr, G. W. Butler for extension of time of the refund provisions on contract AC 463 - Cameron Hills. (See attached letter) DISTRICT: Bermuda Recommend one (1) year extension County, 732 Okuma Drive Chester, Virginia 23831 November 21, 1978 Dear Sirs: I am writing concermi~g the water contract AC-463 for Cameron Rills Subdivision w~ich was dated November 1, 1967. This contract was given ff_uml acceptance by Chesterfield County, Ymrch 18, 1969. My contract runs ou~ this month; however, due to bad weather, slow contractors, s_nd high priority state contracts, I was unable to complete t~e road, water and sewer lines. In addition the high interes~ =ates have caused the builders and buyers in this end of Chesterfield County to hold on to their money. With the above setbm~_s in mind, I sincerely hope this Board of Supervisors will aeriously consider granting another years extension of time of the refund provisions as you so graciously did last year. Sincerely, · .... -'~.W. Butler--__~ Four Enclosures cc: fir. Garland Dodd, Supervisor r~. Robert A. Painter, R~rector of Utilities UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS December 13, 1978 ITEM NO. IV Request for additional appropriations for Contract 7(7)8931, Springhill and Gatewood, and Contract 7(7)8941, Milhorn and South Streets. Contract 7(7)8931 - Springhill and Gatewood The Board awarded the above contract to E. G. Bowles Company in the amount of $10,150.00 with 60% being paid from Utility Funds and 40% from the 3¢ Fund. This project was bid by the ton of asphalt and to complete the project 42.09 additional tons was needed at $29.00/ton which amounts to an additional $1,220.61. We request this amount be appropriated to 573-1-11781-4394 from the following: 40% or $448.24 from the 3¢ Fund 60% or $732.37 from 573 Surplus District: Clover Hill Contract 7(7)8941 - Milhorn and South Streets The Board awarded the above contract to E. G. Bowles Company in the amount of $5,000.00 with 60% being paid f~om the Utility Fund and 40% from the 3¢ Fund. An additional 29 tons of asphalt was needed to pave the most needy areas at an additional cost of $435.00. We request this amount be appropriated to 573-1-11781-4394 from the following: 40% or $174.00 from the 3¢ FUnd 60% or $261.00 from the 573 Surplus District: Matoaca UT ILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS December 13, 1978 ITEM NO. V Consideration of a request from QueensMill Corporation for refunds under Contract 7(7)8802, QueensMill Offsite Trunk Sewer. The total contract cost is $284,114.10 and the offsite cost is $263,048.45. The contract was approved by the Board on November 22 1978 with refunds for the off-site from connections from QueensMill for a fifteen (15) year period. The developers requested the County to make a cash refund of one-half the off-site cost. This matter was deferred. The developers now suggest, as an alternate to their original request, that the County allow QueensMill Corporation rebates of all other property developed in the area serviced by this sewer. These rebates will be secondary to any contracts that the County might enter into with other developers in the area. We recommend approval of QueensMill Corporation's alternate request with the understanding that the developers will be responsible for notifying the County when such additional refunds are due. District: Clover Hill and Midlothian UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD ADGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DECEMBER 13th, 1978 Item No: VI Consideration of Adjustments on Appropriations of Water & Sewer Projects. (A) (u) (c) Hylton Park - W78-10C - Decrease Appropriations in the amount of $4,894.10 from Code 380-1-68101-4393 to 563 Fund Balance. Happy Hill - W78-29CD - Decrease Appropriations in the amount of $787.00 from Code 380-1-68292-4393 to 563 Fund Balance. Fan Court, Division C - S76-1CD Div. C. - Decrease Appropriations in the amount of $21,548.59 from 380-1-76016-2142, $1,092.29 and 380-1-76016-4393, $20,456.30 to 377 Fund Balance. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGE~DA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS December 13, 1978 ITEM NO: VII At the request of Mr. Bookman, we have estimated the cost to provide sewer to 5425 Belmont Road to be $7,400.00 ~, based on open cutting Belmont Road. This extension will also provide sewer service to 5415. We recommend the County extend the sewer provided the two property owners pay the cost of the extension which cost to include the sewer connection fee. District: Clover Hill UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS December 13, 1978 ITEM NO: VIII SUBJECT: Vacation and rededication of a sewer easement along Horner's Run and Courthouse Road' Clover Hill Magisterial District In 1974, the County was granted a sewer easement along~ Hornet's Run and Courthouse Road by plat which was incorrect. We are requesting a resolution to vacate the existing easement and authorizing a new easement agreement be executed by E. Merlin O'Neill Sr. and Nicholas M. Meiszer to affirm same. Approval is recommended. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS December 15, 1978 ITEM NO: IX SUBJECT: Vacation of portions of a drainage and utility easement in Reams Run, Section C; Clover Hill District. We have received a petition from Reams Run DeVelopment requesting the vacation of portions of a drainage and utility easement in Reams Run, Section C. This has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommend- ed. UNTY 4 ~ 8 ~ Mosswood 19 Ct. 27'8 5/~V'r4 ~ 7 glf 0/77 gl, b85-78 $/~o/'~ 4 UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS December 13,1978 ITEM NO. X SUBJECT: Vacation of 16' easement in Brighton Green, Section 1S; Midlothian District. Ne have received a petition from Brighton Green Land Corporation requesting the Vacation of a 16' easement in .Brighton Green Section 1S. This has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIBLD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS December 13, 1978 ITEM NO: XI SUBJECT: Increase in the appropriation for the purchase of the right of way for the Ramblewood Road Industrial Access Project; located in Bermuda Magisterial District On June 28, 1978, the Board appropriated $17,500.00 from the unappropriated surplus to cover the estimated cost of the Right of Way to be purchased for the improvements to Ramble- wood Road from Pine Bark Road to Parkers Avenue. When estimating the offers for this right of way, we failed to include a 2S' wide drainage easement which cuts a parcel of land owned by Jimmie A. and Leonard McAdams. This easement has been valued at $3526.00. It is therefore necessary that we obtain an additional appropriation of $3526.00 from the unappropriated surplus to cover this additional easement. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS December 13, 1978 ITEM NO: XII SUBJECT: Condemnation of Richard H. and Patricia B. Hamilton; S68-1C/D; Clover Hill District. On November 8, 1978, Richard H. and Patricia B. Hamilton were made a revised offer of $77.00 for a sewer easement across their property along Pocoshock Creek. Two previous offers were refused and the sewer line installed after deposit of funds with the Court. We are requesting a resolution authorizini the County Attorney to proceed with Condemnation. ~X .,..: UTILITIES DEPARTMENT . .~ ". COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS December 15, 1978 ITEM NO.. XlII SUBJECT: .Consideration of a resolution authorizing con-':- demnation on a parcel of land adjacent to Midlothian Fire Department. By resolution of the Board, October 11, 1978 and letter of Novemb~r~27, 1978 from Willis W. Pope, an offer in the amount of $18,500.00 was made to Mr. John R. Smith, Chief Executive Officer of Chesmid Park Corporation for the purchase of a parcel of land adj'acent to Midlothian Fire Department. This offer has been: refused. : /VD~T~ .~IL~E OF U~5, ~DUT~ /;'/ / D /_, o ~/,/'///,~ PREVIOUB JOB J. K. TIILII',IONS & ASSOCIATES DATE- NO ~./ /~, J~ SCALE D~AWN ~Y- ,-L.'~ /_.. ~ / / -: CH~'CKED DY- '.f/,'/"~. ' L.' MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD Of SUPERVISORS December 13, 1978 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 3. A. & B. Highway Engineer A. Miscellaneous Road Matters B. Presentation of a Petition from Residents of Petersburg Street. COUNTy ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - No Recommendation. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - Ao This will be the regular meeting with the Highway Engineer to discuss miscellaneous road problems in each district. See Attached. ATTACHMENTS:- ]~] YES Y-'INo SIGNATURE: PETITION We, the undersigned residents of the 12100 block oe Petersburg Street and the 3800 block of Gill Street and vicinity in the County of Cbesterfteld, do petition. the Board of Supervisors and in particular Garland B. Dodd, Representative of the Bermuda District, concerning the unsafe and hazardous traffic condition on our streets. The increase in the amount of vehicular traffic and the high rate of speed of some of this traffic is endangering the lives of our children and da~mge to our property. We request that 2Omph speed signs be posted at the intersections of Petersburg Street and Rt. 10, Gill Street and Winfree Streets, and Dodomead and Winfree Streets. In addition, we request that signs reading to the effect "Slow- Children Playing" or "No Through Traffic" also be posted at the aforementioned intersections. ADDRESS MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: - CHESTErfIELD COUNTY BOARD Of SUPERVISORS December 13, 1978 - 9:00 a.m. AGENDA ITEMNUMBER: Department of Community Development Environmental Engineering 4.a. Industrial Park/Airport Whitepine Road - "Court B" COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Recommend Approval. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:- We have reviewed an estimate from J. K. Timmons and Associates in the amount of $4,500 for providing engineering plans for road and drainage, sewer and water and preparation of recordation plats, handling all contract administration and bidding documents for a complete engineering package. Therefore, we would request that the County enter into a contract with J. K. Timmoqs for $4,500 for the complete package deal for the construction plans for Court B. I-'lYES SIGNATURE: TY ADMINISTR~O R~~~ Submitted N / / / / / / MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF: SUPERVISORS December 13, 1978 - 9:00 a.m. AGENDAITEMNUMBER: Department of Community Development Environmental Engineering 60/147 Drainage District - Midlothian District COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Recommend Approval. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - The proposed shopping center which is to be built at the intersection of Routes 60/653 will be extending a sewer line from Farnham Drive to Route 60 and then to the shopping center. The plans nave been drawn so that an earth ditch can be constructed in conjunction with the placement of the sewer line. By doing both jobs at this time, we will be able to save approximately $8,000 in sewer construction. This ditch is part of the proposed ditch that would have to be constructed in conjunction with the District. The bid estimates received for both jobs are in the neighborhood of $70,000. The pro-rata share for the shopping center is approximately $45,000, leaving in the neighborhood' of $25-30,000 needed. ATTACHMENTS: SIGNATURE: It is our request that we treat this as a capital improvement project. In this fiscal year's capital improvements we have $60,000 which has been earmarked to a Woodale Drainage Project in Bermuda District. The consultant has not progressed swiftly with the plans, and in no way will this project be done this fiscal year.or next. We had intended asking that this money be reallocated to Grindall Creek project in Dale District so as to be done in the summer. We have approved plans and we have obtained 17 of the 20 required drainage easements for this project. r'~YES r-]NO Submitted by: ~ ~ J~ey B, ~ Agenda Board of Supervisors Page 2 This Grindall Creek project has been a problem for approximately seven years and we are finally able to see progress. Therefore, we are proposing that the Grindall Creek project be our number one priority of the 1979-80 capital improvements projects and that $30,000 of the proposed $60,000 be earmarked for the proposed ditch. This $30,000 would be refundable over a period of time as hopefully, it would be recouped through pro-rata shares. Therefore, we are requesting that these monies only be transferred if the number one priority for the 1979-80 capital improvements projects would be the Grindall Creek Park. Please note that we prefer to have this money earmarked for 60/147 project. However, if the Grindall Creek project will not be the number one priority of the capital improvements program, then we would like this money to stay earmarked for the existing Woodale project. ~.~'~zo G~ m Z z r- ~) m MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD Of SUPERVISORS December 13, 1978 - 9:00 a,m. AGENDAITEMNUMBER: Department of Community Development Environmental Engineering State Road Acceptance COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Recommend Approval. SUMUARYOFiNFORMATION:- Somerset, Section 1, Matoaca District Reams Run, Section C, Clover Hill District Bermuda Gardens, Bermuda District Brookwood Estates, Midlothian District ATTACHMENTS:- ~] YES E]N0 COUNTY /%DMI N ISTRAT~i~/S by:~~ _\ ~ey B.. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ITEM NUMBER: MEETING DATE: Board of Supervisors Environmental Engineering Roads to be Taken into the State System Somerset, Section 1 December 13, 1978 SOMERLANE ROAD: Beginning at intersection with Harrowgate Road, State Route 144 and going southwesterly to intersection with Tri Gate Road. TRI GATE ROAD: Beginning at intersection with Somerlane Road and going northwesterly to intersection with Stardown Court, thence northwesterly to intersection with Windcry Drive, thence northwesterly to a temporary turnaround. WINDCRY DRIVE: Beginning at intersection with Tri Gate Road and going southwesterly to intersection with Sandwave Road. Agenda Board of Supervisors Page 2 SANDWAVE ROAD: Beginning at intersection with Windcry Drive and going northwesterly to a temporary turnaround. Beginning at intersection with Windcry Drive and going southeasterly to intersection with Somerlane Circle, thence this road becomes Seamist Road. SOMERLANE CIRCLE: Beginning at intersection with Sandwave Road and going southwesterly to a cul-de-sac. SEAMIST ROAD: Sandwave Road becomes Seamist Road at inter- section with Somer±ane Circle and goes northeasterly to intersection with Santana Street, thence northeasterly to intersection with Somerlane Road. STARDOWN COURT: Beginning at intersection with Tri Gate Road and going northeasterly to a cul-de-sac. SANTANA STREET: Beginning at intersection with Seamist Road and going northwesterly to intersection with Seasigh Court, thence northwesterly to a cul-de-sac. SEASIGH COURT: Beginning at intersection with Santana Street and going northeasterly to a cul-de-sac. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ITEM NUMBER: MEETING DATE: Board of Supervisors Environmental Engineering Roads to De Taken into the State System Reams Run, Section C December 13, 1978 MISTYWOOD ROAD: Beginning at State Route 647, thence northerly to a temporary turn-around. WENATCHEE TERRACE: Beginning at State Route 1831, thence westerly to a cul-de-sac. COPPERWOOD COURT: Beginning at State Route 1832 thence westerly to a cul-de-sac. MOSSWOOD ROAD: Beginning at State Route 1833 thence westerly to Mistywood Road. SILVERLEAF TERRACE: to a cul-de-sac. Beginning at Mistywood Road thence easterly SILVERLEAF COURT: Beginning at Silverleaf Terrace thence northerly to a cul-de-sac. TO: FROM SUBJECT: ITEM NUMBER: MEETING DATE: Board of Supervisors Environmental Engineering Roads to be Taken into the State System Bermuda Gardens, a Portion of A and Section B December 13, 1978 RIVERMONT ROAD: Beginning at its intersection with Enon Church Road, State Route 746, northerly .06 mile to its intersection with Barberry Lane. BARBERRY COURT: Beginning at its intersection with Barberry Lane northerly .07 mile to a cul-de-sac. BARBERRY LANE: Beginning at its intersection with Rivermont Road northeasterly .07 mile to a temporary turnaround. Beginning at its intersection with Rivermont Road south- westerly .04 mile to its intersection with Starpine Lane. STARPINE LANE: Beginning at its intersection with Barberry Lane northerly .21 mile to a temporary turnaround. Agenda Board of Supervisors Page 2 HACKBERRY ROAD: Beginning at its intersection with Cobbs Avenue northerly .05 mile to a temporary turnaround. COBBS AVENUE: Beginning at end of State maintenance .14 mile northeasterly to a temporary turnaround. MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD Of SUPERVISORS December 13, 1978 - 9:00 a. m. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Department of Community Development Environmental Engineering State Road Acceptance (Additions to agenda previously submitted) COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - Brandermill Parkway Extended, Clover Hill District *Brookwood Estates, Section 2, Midlothian District Deerfield Estates Subdivision, Section A, Dale District Fox Chase (Brandermill), Clover Hill District Millwood Road, Bermuda District Nuttree Woods (Brandermill), Clover Hill District Pleasant Ridge, Clover Hill District *Previously requested to be placed on agenda, however vicinity sketch was not attached. ATTACHMENTS:- I'll YES r-]NO SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S Submitted by :~~ TO: FROM: SUSJECT: ITEM NUMBER: MEETING DATE: Board of Supervisors Environmental Engineering Roads to De Taken into the State System Brandermill Parkway Extended December 13, 1978 BRANDERMILL PARKWAY: Beginning at State Route 1921 thence westerly 0.30 mile to a temporary turnaround. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ITEM NUMBER: MEETING DATE: Board of Supervisors Environmental Engineering Roads to be Taken into the State System Brookwood Estates, Section 2 December 13, 1978 WESTGATE DRIVE: Beginning at intersection with Huguenot Road (State Route 147) southerly .05 mile to intersection with Williamswood Road. WI LLIAMSWOOD ROAD: Beginning at intersection with Westgate Drive easterly .06 mile thence southerly .18 mile thence westerly .11 mile to intersection with Fillmore Road. Beginning at intersection with Westgate Drive westerly .11 mile. ROBERT EARL CIRCLE: Beginning at intersection with Williams- wood Road northerly .04 mile to a cul-de-sac. FARR LANE: Beginning at intersection with Williamswood Road westerly .18 mile to intersection with Fillmore Road. STRUMINGTON COURT: Beginning at intersection with Williamswood Road southerly .04 mile to a cul-de-sac. FILLMORE ROAD: Beginning at end of State maintenance (Route 1798) northerly .17 mile. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ITEM NUMBER: MEETING DATE: Board of Supervisors Environmental Engineering Roads to be Taken into the State System Deerfield Estates Subdivision, Section A December 13, 1978 P~PAS DRIVE: Beginning at State Rou~e 2006, Deerfield Drive, thence southerly 0.10 mile to Fawndale Drive thence southerly 0.04 mile to a temporary turnaround. FAWNDALE DRIVE: Beginning at Pampas Drive thence westerly 0.08 mile to Woodgate Road thence westerly 0.09 mile to State Route 2007. WOODGATE ROAD: Beginning at State Route 2008 thence southerly 0.07 mile to Fawndale Drive. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ITEM NUMBER: MEETING DATE: Board of Supervisors Environmental Engineering Roads to be Taken into the State System Fox Chase (Brandermill) December 13, 1978 QUAIL HILL DRIVE: Beginning at existing Quail Hill Drive thence northerly 0.04 mile to Fox ChaseRoad thence northerly 0.16 mile to a temporary turnaround. FOX CHASE ROAD: Beginning at Quail Hill Drive thence westerly 0.06 mile to Fox ChaseDrive thence northerly 0.05 mile to Fox Chase Terrace thence northerly 0.05 mile to a cul-de-sac. FOX CHASE TERRACE: Beginning at Fox Chase Road thence westerly 0.10 mile to a cul-de-sac. FOX CHASE DRIVE: Beginning at Fox Chase Road thence westerly 0.16 mile to Fox ChaseCourt thence northerly 0.10 mile to a temporary turnaround. FOX CHASE COURT: Beginning at Fox Chase Drive thence southerly 0.07 mile to a cul-de-sac. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ITEM NUMBER: MEETING DATE: Board of Supervisors Environmental Engineering Roads to be Taken into the State System Millwood Road December 13, 1978 MILLWOOD ROAD: Beginning at end of State maintenance (State Route 1691) westerly .17 mile to its intersection with South Chester Road (State Route 616). TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ITEM NUMBER: MEETING DATE: Board of Supervisors Environmental Engineering Roads to be Taken into the State System Nuttree Woods (Brandermill) December 13, 1978 NUTTREE WOODS DRIVE: Beginning at Brandermill Parkway thence northerly 0.27 mile to Nuttree Woods Drive thence 0.06 mile to Nuttree Woods Terrace thence easterly 0.08 mile to Nuttree Woods Place thence 0.04 mile to Over, reek Lane thence southerly 0.07 mile to Nuttree Woods Court, thence southerly and westerly 0.18 mile to Nuttree Woods Drive. NUTTREE WOODS TERRACE: Beginning at Nuttree Woods Drive thence westerly 0.04 mile to a cul-de-sac. NUTTREE WOODS PLACE: Beginning at Nuttree Woods Drive thence northerly 0.03 mile to Nuttree Woods Lane thence northerly 0.04 mile to a cul-de-sac. NUTTREE WOODS LANE: Beginning at Nuttree Woods Place thence westerly 0.04 mile to a cul-de-sac. NUTTREE WOODS COURT: Beginning at Nuttree Woods Drive thence westerly 0.04 mile to a cul-de-sac. OVERCREEK LANE: Beginning at Nuttree Woods Drive thence northerly 0.09 mile to a temporary cul-de-sac. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ITEM NUMBER: MEETING DATE: Board of Supervisors Environmental Engineering Roads to be Taken into the State System Pleasant Ridge December 13, 1978 REAMS COURT: Beginning at Reams Road, State Route 647, then north for .18 mile. MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: - CHEStErFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS December 13, 1978 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING STREET LIGHT REQUESTS 4,D. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Recommendation is Approval/Denial as Indicated. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - i/ 1. End of Howlett Road, Bermuda District (VPD/53) This request is not at an intersection. It is at the end of the road and would serve only seven houses at the most. Intersection of Walker Avenue and Dupuy Road, Matoaca District Resident has an existing light on private property 20+ feet from the State right-of-way. She would like for the County to take over payments. This light does not meet the criteria, plus it is located on private property. Jeff Davis Highway in the vicinity of Solar Energy Products Building, Bermuda District (VPD/14,730) This is a request for lights to be taken over for payment. The lights were installed a few years ago for private entrances to a small trailer park and place of business. These lights appear to benefit the existing Solar Energy Products building more so than the residents. The two lights in question are approximately 100 feet apart. ArlFACHMENTS: - r'~YES E]NO SIGNATURE: SUBMITTED BY j~ Board o~ Supervisors Agenda Page 2 existing pole. 598 VPD. Intersection of Easy Street and Blithe Drive, Bermuda District Request street light at intersection on an Traffic count in this area is approximately 5. Parkdale Road, Dale District (VPD=37) Is not at an intersection, is a dead end street, and would serve only four houses. There is an existing pole. o Intersection of Percival Street and Stebbins Street, Bermuda District (VPD¥ Percival St.-459, Stebbins St.r166)' Is located at an intersection, there are 25 houses, however, there is an existing street light approximately 250' from the intersection. There is an existing pole. 7. Courthouse Road, Clover Hill District (VPD=5,422) This street light is proposed in the middle of a block and not at an intersection. Tt would serve to light private entrances to three homes. There is an existing pole. STREET LIGHT REQUEST Date~~~~,~ Tax Map... Name of Requestor~ Location of Proposed Light:~,j~_,~~,~ Intersection of Pole Number if any_ and Date Approved by Board of Supervisors Date Letter Seat to V.E.P.Co. Existing New STREET LIGHT EQUES% Da t e__k~j~~ Name of Requestor_ Phone Tax bIap. , I _~;Z.- I Pole Number if anL ~-~1~ Exis~g ~ New ~ Date Approved by Board of Supervisors Date Letter Sent to V.E.P.Co. Date Installed STREET LIGHT REQUEST Date_ _ II Name of Requestor_~~~~~~]~._ Tax Map__ Location of Proposed Light:_. latersection of Pole Number if any_g~D~__' Date Approved by Board of Supervisors Date Letter Sent to V.E.P.Co. Date Ins tailed and Ex is t lng ~ New [] STREET LIGHT REQUEST Date__ Name of Kequestor~% Address__~~F~~! Phone Tax Map__ I1{-t~. Location of Proposed Light:_~~~~~ ,_~_~ Intersection o f_._,,.....~~__ Pole Number if any__ Ex is t lng ~ New [] Date Approved by Board of Supervisors Date Letter Sent to V.E.P.Co. Date Installed STREET LIGHT REQUEST Name of Requestor___~_._~L~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~~ Addr ess.____~ --~2~[_~2~~ _~. Phone 27m- 9.1 ~1 Tax Map. Location of Proposed Intersection of Pole Number if any_ and Existing New Date Approved by Board of Supervisors Date Letter Sent to V.E.P.Co. Date Installed MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY bOARD Of SUPi::bVi$Ob$ December 13, 1978 - 9:00 a. m. AGENDAITEMNUMBER: Department o~ Community Development Environmental Engineering 3¢ Road Fund - Dale District 4.G. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Recommend Approval. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:- (This is at the request of Mr. Apperson) Fuqua Farms subdivision is draining water underneath Hopkins Road toward Kimberly Acres. The developer of Fuqua Farms will install a pipe in the easement if an easement is obtained and the pipe supplied. The people will not dedicate the easements unless they are assured that the pipe will be bought. Hence we are asking for the appropriation. We anticipate that it will not exceed $6,500. Theretore, we need a resolution authorizing payment for the pipe be made from the Dale District 3¢ Road Fund. ATTACHMENTS:- r--lYES [~NO SIGNATURE: Submitted by: MEETING DATE: CHESTERFIELD COU BOARD Of SUPERVISORS December 13, 1978 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: NTY 4.E. SUBJECT: - Agreement between the County and VDH&T for construction of sewer facilities along Willis Road. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Recommend Approval. ATTACHMENTS: - SUMMARYOFINFORMATION:- On June 14, 1978, the Board of Supervisors authorized a maximum expenditure of $18,000 as the County's portion of the cost for storm sewer facilities in conjunction with improvements to Willis Road. The $18,000 figure is 66.5% of the estimated cost of the storm sewer improve- ments. VDH&T policy is to require localities to guarantee a percentage of the actual cost of this type of project, rather than a dollar figure based on the percentage of estimated cost. Furthermore, VDH&T policy requires a guarantee of an additional 10% of the County share for construction engi- neering costs. The attached contract submitted by the VDH&T includes these policies. Staff has reviewed these VDH&T policies regarding County contributions for construction and construction engineering costs, and have found them con- sistent with previous agreements with VDH&T (sidewalk construction, reloca- tion of County utilities, etc.). If the Board wishes to proceed with this project in an expedient manner, then the Board should accept the VDH&T policies as indicated in the attached contract. To address the issue of these policies now will delay this project. If the Board wiShes to proceed with this project but wishes further explanation of this issue for addi- tional projects then Staff recommends that the Board direct Staff to assemble all available information on this matter. The attached contract,if the Board authorizes the Chairman to sign, specifies the percentage of construction which the County guarantees (in this case, 66.5%), and guarantees an additional 10% of that percentage. The Board, for their information, may allocate a total dollar figure as established by the County Engineer. In the case of Willis Road the do, ar figure is $19,800. ' r'~YES E~NO Submitted by: .7~~_~~rB.~M~ eve±op~2/6778 SIGNATURF' COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD VIRGINIA MEMO TO: FROM: ' DATE: RE: Dexter R. Williams, Chief of Comprehensive Planning Bruce A. Kimble, Assistant County Attorney ~ November 17, 1978 Agreement Between the County and VDHandT for Construc- tion of Sewer Facilities Along Willis Road I have reviewed the attached latest proposed agreement for the County to pay their proportional share of the cost of a storm sewer along Willis ROad. This revision differs from the draft which I sent to you on August 29 and which the VDHandT reviewed in that the recent draft: 1) Does not contain the previous dollar limit to the County's financial obligation of $18,000, but merely states that the County will pay 66.5% of the actual contract costs; and, 2) Includes a 10% surcharge to cover construction engineering costs. The latest draft agreement cannot be signed by the Chairman of the Board without further Board action because the Board resolution of June 14 only authorized the expendi- ture of up to $18,000 for this project. The estimate of the County's share, excluding any surcharge, to be paid out of the three cent road funds is $17,967.85. This estimate may well have increased since the figures were determined in the spring. Please note that the original draft submitted by- the VDHandT did not include a 10% surcharge. Everette Covington recentlY advised me that the VDHandT policy con- ,cerning this surcharge might have changed one year ago to prohibit charging localities for construction engineering costs. Since this surcharge issue will again arise on more expensive projects, until a uniform policy is devised con- cerning whether the County is willing to pay this surcharge, this draft should not be signed in its present form. I also understand that this surcharge is not the only issue holding up the commencement of the project. Memo to Dexter R. Williams Page 2 November 17, 1978 If you determine that the surcharge should remain in the agreement and if the Board approves the agreement, then the last seven words of paragraph three should be deleted and the following words should be typed in the margin or above them: "...plus actual construction engineering costs not to exceed 10% of the proportionate share which the County will pay." I might suggest that in prior agreements between the County and the VDHandT for relocation of utility lines the surcharge limit has been 8%. ' BAK/jbr Attachment AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES ALONG WILLIS ROAD (STATE ROUTE 613) PROJECT 0613-020-175, C501 THIS AGREEMENT, dated this day of , 1978, between the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY, and the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION, hereinafterl referred to as the DEPARTMENT. W t T N E S S E T H: !~-IERF_~S, the Department plans reconstruction and ~aprovements to Willis ;!Road (Route 613) in Chesterfield County, beginning at Route 1 (Jefferson Davis ~Highway) and running east for a distance of 0.303 mile, which improvements are i~shown in detail on plans dated February 1974 with subsequent revisions, said ?lans prepared by the Department and designated as Project No. 0613-020-175, !,C501. 8aid plans include storm sewer of various sizes located within the !~pro]ect limits; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the policy of the Highway and Transportation ~Commission in Departmental Memorandum 8-6 dated January 1, 1973, the County is ilrequired to participate in the proportionate share of the cost of storm sewer 'paid on percentage of the runoff outside of the right of way limits; and WHEREAS, the Department and the County have reviewed the detailed plans ~of the above project and have agreed upon the improvements to be constructed ~!and the percentage of participation of the storm sewer costs, which will be 1,33.5 percent by the Department and 66.5 percent by the County of the actual !Icontract costs; and WHEREAS, by resolution dated June 14, 1978, the Board of Supervisors of i the''' County authorized the County to reimburse the Department for construction iicosts of the above-described improvements; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, ,the Department and the County agree as follows: ~I 1. The Department shall provide, at no charge to the County, pre- ~ liminary engineering and develop approved plans to construct and install a storm sewer system in conjunction with said iscal Division pproved ~" ate .egal Division ~ppr~v~ Date 2. Upon construction of the improvements shown on ~he above described plans and final acceptance of such storm sewer improvements by the Department, and upon receipt of an invoice, therefor, the County shall reimburse the Department for 66.5 percent of the actual contract cost for the drain- age pipe of the sizes, lengths and at the locations along Department Project 0613-020-175, C501. 3. The term actual contract cost means the actual quantity of pipe installed by the Department's construction contractor for which the County is responsible multiplied by the unit price of such pipe contained in the construction contract awarded to the contractor by the Department, plus 10% to cover construction engineering costs. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and the Department have caused their names to be affixed to this Agreement on the date set forth above by duly authorized officers of their respective organizations. THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA ' E. ]~eriin O'Neil, Sr.~ Chairman, Board of Supervisors i ATTEST' Nicholas M. Meiszer County Admlnis trator ATTEST: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION BY: Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer Title CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: ~cember 13 ~ 19 78 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 4. F. SUBJECT: - Discussion of Response from Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation on Proposed Rural Addition Projects COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - No Recommendation. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:- Attached is the response from the VDH&T regarding the County's request for five Rural Addition projects. County Staff will be available to discuss to the implications of the VDH&T comments. Because the Supervisor from Bermuda District was not present at the November 22, 1978 meeting, the projects in that area were non discussed. at that time. A'I-I*ACH M ENTS: - ~] YES r']NO ~ ADMINISTRA~rC L. E. BRETT, JR. DISTRICT ENGINEER ,, F,-J" . COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 November 14, 1978 Dexter Williams, Chief Comprehensive Planning County of Chesterfield Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 JOHN E. HARWOOD DEPUTY COMMISSK)NER & CHIEF ENGIN~FER W. S. G. BRITTON DIRECTOR OF AOMINISTRATION LEO E. BUSSER III DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT J, M. WRAY. JR DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS J. P. ROYER, JR, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING P. B. COLDIRON DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO OFFICE OF DISTRICT ENGINEER PETERSBURG. VIRGINIA 23803 P.~. Box 3036 Bon Air, Virginia 23235 Re: Proposed Rural Addition Projects Dear Dexter: We have reviewed the Rural Addition Projects requested in the Board of Supervisors resolution dated August 23, 197R. It appears that Satinwood Road will qualify as a rural addition. Quaiff Lane does not have the required number of individual property owners, and cannot be considered as a rural addition at this time. From the information that you supplied to us, it appears that the phy- sical development of Oakdale Avenue occurred in 1957. This street could be accepted under Section 33.1-72 of The Code of Virginia. The county will be responsible for providing 1/2 of the cost to bring the street up to the min- imum standard for acceptance. The physical development of Velda Drive appears to have occurred in 1957. This road can be accepted under Section 33.1-72 of the Code of Virginia. How- ever, the county will have to provide 1/2 of the cost to bring the street up to the minimum standard for acceptance. An extension of South.General Boule- vard would serve the property owners involved in this request. Therefore, the section of Velda Road from Belmont Avenue to South General Boulevard would not have to be constructed. Mt. Clair Road appears to have been physically developed in 1Qsg. This street could be accepted under Section 33.1-72 of The Code of Virginia. How- ever, the county will be responsible for the total cost of bringing the street up to the minimum standard for acceptance. A HIGHWAY IS AS SAFE AS THE USER MAKES IT M,. Dexter Williams -2- .avember 13, 1978 If you wish to discuss these projects further, please contact this office. Yours very truly, E. L. Covington, Jr. Resident Engineer R~J. McCracken Assistant Resident Engineer RJM:rbw cc: Mr. Phillip L. Winters Mr. E. L. Covington, Jr. Mr. H. A. Warren MEETING DATE: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS December 13, 1978 AGENDA ITEM NUMRER: SUBJECT: - o Consideration of a Resolution Supporting the Resource Recovery Study Grant Application COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Recommend Approval. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - Chesterfield County is one of four localities considering application for an EPA solid waste resource recovery grant (five localities if Fort Lee agrees to participate). Pre-application must be postmarked by 4:00 p.m., December 15, 1978. A sun, nary of the scope of the project and the costs are attached. On motion of , seconded by , it is hereby resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, acting as the implementing agency designated by the Virginia Department of Health for solid waste disposal, states its support of the Crater Planning District Commission to perform necessary planning tasks leading to the implementation of the Tri-Cities Resource Recovery Pro~ect. And be it further resolved that the Board of Supervisors hereby agrees to fully support all phases of the said project. ATTACHMENTS: - [] YES [] NO Submitted by:~~~ SI GNATU RE: ~ o--"~--~'~'-~ N ~ S~ On motion of , seconded by , it is hereby resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, acting as the implen~nting agency designated by the Virginia Department of Health for solid waste disposal, states its support of the Crater Planning District Commission to perform necessary planning tasks leading to the implen~ntation of the Tri-Cities Resource Recovery Project. Be it further resolved that the Board of Supervisors hereby agrees to fully support all phases of the said project. Vote: CRATER CITY OF COLONIAL HEIGHTS COUNTY OF DINWIDDIE CITY Of EMPORIA COUNTY OF GREENSVILLE CITY OF HOPEWELL CITY OF PETERSBURG COUNTY OF PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY OF SURRY COUNTY OF SUSSEX PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION CHARLES F. TURNER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PHONE 861 1666 2825 CRATER ROAD, SOUTH POST OFFICE BOX 1808 PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA 23803 November 29, 1978 b~biORANDUM TO: Messrs. William Cook, Byron Haner, N. M. Meiszer, Clinton Strong, John Royster FROM: Charles F. Turner, Executive Director SUBJECT: Resource Recovery Study Grant Preapplication Here is a summary of the preapplication package for an EPA solid waste resource recovery grant. The grant would fund activities oa a 75/25 basis, and would carry your present activities through to bids for hardware. Total Cost: $158,800 Local Share: $ 39,700 Total match each per 4 participants: $ 9,925 Maximum in-kind: $ 3,000 Minimum Cash: $ 6,925 Total match each per 5 participants (add Fort Lee) $ 7,940 Maximum in-kind $ 2,600 Minimum Cash: $ 5,293 Recommend: Ask for $9,925 each for four. Scale down from there. Reasons: (1) Fort Lee participation uncertain. (2) The more local cash you can deliver, the better your chances for funding. Scope of Project: Summary attached Response needed from your governing body as soon as possible. NOTE: A meeting is scheduled for 10 a.m., December 4, 1978 in Bill Cook's office. CRATER PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION MEMO RAN DUM - 2- November 29, 1978 Deadline: Preapplication must be postmarked 'by 4:00 p.m., December 15, 1978. cc: State Department of Health, Mr. William Gilley State A-95 Review Officer Mr. Richard Hedrick Mr. W. C. Knott Richmond Regional Planning District Commission RESOURCE RECOVERY - NARRATIVE SUPPLEMENT PROGRAM NARRATIVE STATEMENT DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA The Crater Planning District Commission has initiated a regional resource recovery program. Participants in the program include the Cities of Colonial Heights, Hopewell and Petersburg as well as the County of Chesterfield and the military installation of Fort Lee, as illustrated in the map on Figure 1. PROGRAM ORGANIZATION Using its regional planning role, the Crater Planning District Commission initiated the regional resource recovery program in 1977. A feasibility study recommended the implementation of an RDF facility which would market fuel to resident industry in the tri-cities area. In 1978, Chesterfield County, which is also a member of the Richmond regional resource recovery program, opted to join the rtl-cities program as well, particularly to serve the southern portion of its geographical area. In the fall of 1978, the Crater Planning District Commission initiated an energy market negotiation project with the support and financial participation of the member jurisdictions. The project is still in progress. It is envisioned that the Crater Planning District Commission will remain the focal point for the resource recovery program until the regional implementing agency can be established to shoulder the financial and technical responsi- bilities of implementing the facility and legal aspects of the plan. 1. CURRENT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES A more complete description of the project area is included in the Solid Waste Management/Resource Recovery R~port provided as a backup documentation for this grant request. Additionally, an Executive Summary provides a more detailed review of the tri-cities areas existing Resource Recovery Program. The comments that follow are meant to address the specific information requirements included in the pre-application kit. me The population of the project area is approximately 150,000. It is estimated that 515 tons per day of refuse are disposed of in local disposal sites. Residential Waste Collection - The cities of Petersburg and Colonial Heights provide collection service to its residents. Private haulers supplement this service by collecting commercial refuse. Fort Lee and Hopewell use private haulers on a contract basis to collect and transport ~h~ir refuse to their respective disposal sites. The City of Hopewell, however, collects brush and leaves from its residents. Chesterfield County uses a private hauler. Ce Mo fe A private hauler is~ retained in Petersburg by some citizens desiring back-door service. Percentages of solid waste collected by each service is estimated below: (1) Public collection service - 50% (2) Municipally-contracted private hauler - 45% (3) Private haulers hired by citizens - 4% (4) Other - citizens taking their - 1% refuse to disposal site 100% Commercial amd Industrial wastes in general are the respon- sibility of the respective waste generators. Some commercial wastes are collected and disposed of in local disposal sites. At present, the existing resource recovery program is primarily concerned with the disposal of residential refuse. Quantities involved are estimated at 10% c.f the total refuse load, or about 52 tons per day. Disposal System - Approximately 515 tons c,f solid waste are presently landfilled in the regional area. This figure is based on the volume estimates made at the four local land disposal sites that are currently o~erated in the tri-cities area. Landfill Operators - The Cities of Hopewell and Petersburg, as well as Fort Lee operate their own sanitary landfills presently. Colonial Heights and the southern portion of Chesterfield County use a private landfill operated by Shoosmith Brothers, Inc. This landfill is located in the southern portion of Chesterfield County. Percentages are: Number of Sites (1) Municipally operated (2) Privately operated (3) County-operated (4) Other - industrial - 70% - :3 (incl. Fort Lee) - 2O% - ]L - O% - --0- - 10% - l',unknown) 100% In all cases, the cost for solid waste coZLlection disposal is paid for by the respective jurisdictions out of their general operating funds. There are no charges for solid waste collection and disposal. Not applicable. J DISPOSAL NEEDS Land Disposal Sites. Table 1 provides site specific information on the four sanitary landfills that currently serve the project area. Each of the landfills is cnrrently operated under the supervision of the Virginia Departme~t of Health and have received or are in the process of receiving operating permits for their site, There are currently no violations of federal standards or impending enforcement activities. See attached table, page 4. Incinerators - There are no incinerators operating within the project area for solid waste disposal. Future Disposal Sites - Chesterfield County, Hopewell, and Petersburg have all taken action within the last year to secure additional landfill sites. Approximately two years ago, Colonial Heights closed its existing landfill and opted to sign a three year disposal contract with Shoosmith Brothers for their landfill. At present, Colonial Heights has no plans for locating another landfill site. It is estimated that there are 8 to 10 years of disposal capacity left, considering both existing and potential disposal sites. Disposal Costs - Table 2 illustrates the disposal costs for each of the participating jurisdietionm in the regional program. These costs are exclusive of waste collection. The participating jurisdictions generally budget for an 8% to 10% cost increase each year to account for inflation and contract negotiation. Because most of the jurisdictions in the project area operate their own sanitary landfills, only a nominal haul distance exists between the cemtroid of,waste generation and the respective disposal sites. If a regional r~source recovery facility is implemented within the project area, it is anticipated that several of the communities would have a one-way haul distance of approximately 10 to 15 miles. e. Co-Disposal Projects - Not applicable. 3. RESOURCE RECOVERY AS A SOLID WASTE MANAG~NT SOLU£ION Landfill volume in the tri-cities project area is rapidly being depleted and efforts to find additional landfill sites have not proven totally successful. Regional efforts over the last 5 to 7 years have not proven successful in locating a central regional land disposal sites. Individual jurisdictions have been somewhat successful in obtaining additional landfill space adjacent to their existing landfill operations. It is the consensus of opinion among jurisdictions within the tri-cities area that their landfill resources will be exhausted within 8 to 10 years unless alternative disposal managememt measures are implemented. .,i 0 :3:: ,-I I W W 0 U _J ~3 0 hi Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 eX:) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%) 0 0 0 C) Lf~ ~DO I~ .-- .J 0 ~ 0 0 .6 The tri-cities study area initiated a resource recovery plan ap- proximately two years ago to investigate alternative disposal methods. The results of that planning effort indicated the feasibility of the regional resource recovery program which would produce RDF fuel for sa~~ to local industries. This study, performed by consultant Roy ¥. W~,ston, was paid for by local funds in the amount of $16,000. The tri-cities area has moved forward with the recommendations of the plan and have funded a subsequent market development program. The purpose of this effort is to initiate discussions with local industrial energy markets identified in the plan in an effort to obtain market commitments for the purchase of fuel. This regional effort is ~n agree- ment with the State's Solid Waste Management Planning Effort which would commence the implementation of resource recovery as well. At present, the tri-cities resource recovery program concerns itself with residential refuse only and specifically excludes co-disposal with wastewater treat- ment slUdges. This study will cost about $8,500, is being done by Weston, and will be paid for by local funds. 4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The resource recovery program being sponsored and managed by the Crater Planning District Commission has progressed beyond the feasibility stage and is, in fact, in the procurement planning phase, described as Phase II under this Grant program. In fact, the program is currently in a market development phase which includes market discussions and negotiations relative to the implementation of the system. The purpose behind the market negotiations stage is to lay the groundwork for market commitments to participate in the program. Subsequent program activities which are included in this grant application therefore concern themselves with Phase II activities involving procurement planning for the tri-cities regional resource recovery program. The primary goal of this effort is the implementation of the resource recovery facility. The objectives of this resource recovery facility project are: a. To provide a long-term disposal aleternate for the region. b. To maximize the existing landfill resources of the region. Ce To use the leverage of rising energy costs to provf~,~c a net system cost, competitive with the regional l~ndfiil alternative. To provide an environmentally safe, long-term alternative to the sanitary landfill for regional solid waste disposal. The proposed project includes ten basic project elements directed at achieving the project objectives and goals. These elements are listed and described below: Task I - Market Developmen~ The Crater Planning District Commission has initiated a market development phase to open negotiations and discussions with potential energy markets in its planning area. These potential markets are indu~tr[,~ within the Hopewell industrial community which have the capacity and potential need to fire RDF in their existing or proposed boiler facilitit.~;. Although the existing market development phase is under way, it is anticipated that a continuing market development phase will be required to achieve successful project implementation. For that reason, a continuing market development and market negotiation element is included in the scope of this grant request. The market development phase will be used to carry on technical and institutional discussions with respective industrial markets to identify technical, fiscal and administrative constraints which will have continuing influences over the direction and scope of the rest of the project elements. Task II - System Development It is anticipated that the market development phase will identify market specifications for the implemented system. ~ese specifications or constraints can include, but not necessarily be limited to, the quality characteristics of the RDF fuel, fuel quantity, system reliability, fuel pricing, fuel price index, fuel price escalation, on-site vs. off- site fuel storage, capital expenditures, rate of return, land availability, traffic and delivery of fuel, etc. As market questions are developed, it is essential that sufficient system development work be performed to maintain the necessary dialog that will lead to a market commitment. Market specifications will also assist in the development and modification of a basic RDF processing system configuration that will provide the basis of preliminary system costs. Once preliminary system costs have been established, a range of costs and fuel prices can be established upon which final implementation decisions will be based. The necessary engineering effort will be provided to establish a preliminary system configuration, design parameters and operating sequence in order to establish preliminary capital and operating costs. Once system costs can be identified and accepted by the jurisdictional participants, the institutional framework of the resource recovery program can be initiated. Task III - Institutional and Management Aspects Preliminary' analysis of the institutional options available to the regional program reco.mmended that a regional refuse agency be established to implement the program. The institution of a regional implementing agency, however, is contingent upon the identification of a positive energy market commitment and an economically attractive net system cost. It is anticipated that outputs from the systems development project element will assist in the development of a regional implementing agency. Work under this project phase will include the development of draft agreements between each individual jurisdictionand the regional implementing agency. Also, draft agreements between the implementing agency and identified markets for both energy and materials will be pursued. Finally, necessary legal and legislative action will be initiated to settle the question of waste ownership and assure the availability of waste for the RDF processing facility. Task IV - Site Location Concurrent with the system development phase will be an assessment of potential sites for the resource recovery facility. Initial feasibility studies have indicated that the city of Petersburg and the city of Hopewell are potential locations for an RDF facility. Each location provides some transportation advantages and disadvantages as well as cost trade-offs between the cost to deliver raw refuse to the RDF facility and the cost of delivering RDF fuel to the respective energy markets. Potential site locations will be identified and will be evaluated using a pre-determined set of decision criteria developed through a technical advisory committee. Task V - Draft Agreements A continuing phase of the project will be the development and modification of draft agreements that will be required for the successful implementation of the program. These draft agreements will include market commitments either through letter, memorandums of understanding or draft contracts contingent upon final economic and technical analysis and design. Inter-jurisdictional agreements with the regional agency, including the aspects of waste ownership, system cost, cost allocations, and credit for the back-haul and disposal of residue from both the RDF processing facility and ash from the combustion of RDF fuel. Further draft legislation required to amend the Code of Virginia to permit the regional authority to operate in a cost effective manner will be prepared for submission to the State Legislature. Task VI - Financial Analysis Based upon the system costs in the institutional arrangement form to implement the system, an analysis will be prepared to supply financial alternatives available to fund the project. A list of regional constraints regarding desireable financial aspects of the plan will be prepared and discussed with appropriate bond financial counsel. Separate financial advisor will be retained to work as program consultant to analyze the appropriate financial alternatives available to the regional agency. Task VII - Procurement Analysis Concurrent with the financial analysis element will be the analysis of methods of procurement of the regional resource recovery system. Procurement options will be based upon the attitudes, perferences and constraints of the regional agency and its member jurisdictions relative to system cost, system operational responsibility, implementation schedule, project financing and energy market constraints. The procurement options will include the A & E turnkey, as well as acceptable modifications in order to provide the regional agency with the most suitable procurement method to meet its needs. Task VIII - Advisory Committee Activity. One or more advisory committees, as necessary, will be established to assist the regional program in accomplishing its objectives. The advisory committee will provide a resource of technical, professional and business expertise which will be used to establish a decision criter~a and develop selection methodology for alternatives involving project .financing, system economics, institutional arrangements and legal and contrac tural ins truments o Task IX - R~ulatory Liaison The Commonwealth of Virginia currently supports the implementation of regional resource recovery programs as a method of achieving effective long-term solid waste disposal. The Crater Planning District Commission and members of its technical advisory committee as well as the project consultant will maintain continuing contact with the State and Federal Regulatory Agencies, as it has done in the past, in order to assure compliance with both regulations and State level resource recovery planning. Task X - Public Participation The Commission has a citizens' advisory council which would serve as the focus for citizen input. The council, the Planning and Development Advisory Council, has two members from each of the three Crater cities. These people would be supplemented by two citizens from Chesterfield County, as that Board of' Supervisors may desire. Citizen participation from Fort Lee would be devised with the commanding general. It is anticipated that the citizens would meet separately as needed to become familiar with the project and its successive stages. The group might also meet with the task force responsib]~e for the project. The citizens group would identify the need for other citizen groups to add whatever depth of concern is felt advisable. PROJECT SUCCESS FACTORS Securin~ Waste Supply. The cities of Petersburg and Colonial Heights provide municipal collection serwice for their residents. Fort Lem and Hopewell use private haulers under private contract to collect and transport their refuse. Chesterfield County collects approximately 10% of the solid waste generated by its residents permitting private haulers to contract individually with home owners to provide collection services. It is felt that cooperative contracts between the member jurisdictions and the regional authority will be developed that will require waste generated within the jurisdictions to be delivered to the regional resourcerecovery facility. 10 Co Implementin8 Entity. At present, the Crater Planning District Commission is fulfilling the need of a program manager and regional project coordinator. The Crater Planning District Commission has, since its inception, worked to plan and implement a regional program. It is not envisioned, however, that the planning district commission will be the final [mpl~.-- menting agency. One of the recommendations of the regional resource recovery program is that a refuse agency be formed to implement the project. During this regional resource recovery project, the Crater Planning District will serve as the Project Manager. The member jurisdications will participate through the city and county managers, public works directors, county engineers and engineering representatives to provide technical assistance and to serve on advisory councils. Support for the Project. Local government support illustrated by the appropriation of local funds is the single most important fact that will illustrate the local commitment to the success of this project. In addition, the State solid waste program supports the concept of resource recovery for this area. Public statements in support of this project will be as an attachment to this application, as they become available. Local-Regional Cooperation. The best illustration of the local-regional cooperation is the fact that all the municipalities involved in this project have supported a feasibility study and a market development study using 100% local funding. Twice within the last two years, local jurisdictions have echoed their support for the project by appropriating their fair share for these projects out of their general fund. To reiterate this important commitment, statements from each jurisdiction are included as an attachment to this application. The jurisdictions involved in this project have a history of cooperation on regional programs. This includes a regional landfill site investigation study and a 208 plan that included out only the Crater Planning District but also the Richmond Planning District. Regional cooperation is further exemplified by the fact that Chesterfield County has transcended regional planning district boundaries in order to be a party to this regional program. Project Markets and Technical Feasibility. The Regional Resource Recovery Feasibility Study identified twelve regional energy markets in a 10 to 15 mile radius in the center of the study area. Table 3 summarizes these markets. The Feasibility Study determined that the production and distribution of RDF was the most economically feasible option for the regional program to implement. The regional RDF facility was sized at 350 tons. Today it has an estimated capital cost of approximately $7 million dollars. Annual cost for this facility including financing, operating costs, and delivery costs to the energy markets were approximately $12 per ton with anticipated energy 11 revenues approaching $8 per ton. Energy revenues were based upon marketing the fuel at a nominal price of 50% of the price of coal computed on an equivalent BTU basis. The major thrnst of the RDF fuel concept was supported by thc fact that several industries in the Hopewetl ar~a ar~: ~n tht' process of converting their boiler facilities from oil to coal. This fact will relieve a regional program from the added expenditure of a boiler facility and enhances the overall economic viability of the program. A more complete discussion of the entire resource recovery program is included in the form of the regional solid waste report. Extent of Energy Materials and Recoverx. The Cegional resource recovery program currently envisions the production of an RDF fuel and the recovery of ferris and non-ferris metals. It is anticipated that approximately 715% of the solid waste delivered to the resource recovery facility will be recovered as am RDF fuel or as recycled goods for shipment to the secondary materials market. By implementing this regional resource recovery facility approximately 25% of the incoming waste will therefore be diverted back to the sanitary landfill for ultimate disposal. In addition, it is envisioned that 25% to 27% of the RDF fuel will be returned to the land disposal in the form of ash. Integration of Conservation Approaches. ¢)ne of the primary t--hrusts of this regional resource recovery program is to integrate itself with the National Coal Conversion Program that is currently under way. By offering an alternative fuel to oil, it is felt that the resource recovery program will in fact serve to support not only a National Resource Recovery Program but also the National Energy Policy. Energy markets that are currently being pursued by the regional program are currently involved in the coal conversion process. 6. POTENTIAL FOR.SUPPORTING THE URBAN POLICY OBJECTIVE Two major objectives of this p~oposal which are consistent with the major thrusts of the Urban Policy are (1) provide a stable supply of refuse- derived fuel to industrial energy users in the tri-cities area thereby insuring the area against unemployment due to fuel shortages caused by oil embargo, coal strike, or natural gas shortages and (2) expand employment opportunities in the tri-cities area by offering a stable alternative fuel. source to induce new industry to located within the area. The following information is given as a curso~ overview of current conditions and trends found within the Petersburg-Colonial Heights-Hopewell Metropolitan Area: 12 SMSA Estimated and Projected Population 1970-1980' 1970 1976 128,809 127,700 * The 1976 figure is estimated by Tayloe Murphy Institute. 1980 125,500 The 1980. figure 'is projected by the Virginia Department of Planning and Budget. SMSA Per Capita Income 1970-1976' 1970 1972 1974 1976 SMSA 3,314 3,869 4,898 5,790 Virginia 3,677 4,386 5,337 6,298 * Personal Income Estimates for Virginia Cities and Counties 1969 to 1976. Tayloe Murphy Institute, 1978. Employment 1978' February April June Virginia 2,239,280 2,311,384 2,370,381 SMSA 54,528 55,307 55,924 * Virginia Employment Commission August 2,376,040 54,961 Unemployment 1978' February April June Virginia 165,396 (6.9%) 115,430 (4.8%) 123,124 (4.9%) SMSA 4,332 (7.4%) 3,140 (5.4%) 3,467 (5.8%) * Virginia Employment Commission August _~9,5~9 (5. Z) 3,611 (6.2%) 13 7. PRIOR PROGRESS Crater Planning District Commission initiated a regional resource recovery program approximately two years ago. A completed feasibility study recommended the implementation of a regional RDF facility which would produce fuel for sale to industrial energy markets. A subsequent ~project is under way at present involved with the energy market development. The purpose of that phase would be to enter into preliminary negotiations with viable energy markets for the purchase of RDF fuel. Draft contracts have been prepared and reviewed by the municipalities regarding the sale and purchase of RDF and municipal contract with municipal implementing agency. Consulting services for the regional feasibility study were provided by Roy F. Weston and was also currently under contract for the market development stage of this project. OTHER FACTORS None of significance. 14 ~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ~-~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ~ ,-t o o o o o o o o o o o ~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o © o o oq o ~-~ ~-~ ~ ~- ~o 00 ,-t ~u~ ~ o o 00 o ~1 00 ~1 o~ o g O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~-~ I,,3 ~n O O O~ O ~30 C~ O O O O O O O O O O O O I C~ C) C~ CD C) O O CD O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 C 0 0 RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Crater Planning District Commission _?..rogram Cost Estimate I II - III IV - V - VI VII VIII IX - X - PROJECT ELEMENT Crater Consul rant P.D.C. Market Development 15 29 System Development 5 74 Institutional and Management Aspects 5 27 Site Location 5 19 Draft Agreements 5 32 Financial Analysis 5 36 Procurement Analysis 10 27 Advisory Committee 29 44 Regulatory Liason I0 IO Public Participation 33 38 Cost* 14,600 3O ,6OO 11,800 8,600 13,800 15,4OO 12,800 23,400 6,000 21,800 TOTAL 122 336 158,800 *Cost - Estimated professional effort plus expenses Z 0 Z hi hi J CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD Of SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: Decemb er 13, 19 7 8 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT: - o Resolution Commending Robert L. Eanes, Jr. and Dennis C. Turling- ton on their Appointment to the Virginia S~ate Fire Services Commission COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS:- Recommend Approval SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - Whereas, In 1978 the General~sembly of Virginia recognized the need for a statewide Fire Services Commission for the purposes of planning and coordinating statewide fire prevention, fire education, technical as s i s t ance, personnel standards; evaluating fire prevention and protection programs; and, developing a model fire prevention code; and Whereas, The Comnission is composed of fourteen members representing a wide range of community and firefighting org~.~izations; snd Whereas, Fire Chief Robert L. Eanes, Jr. and Chief Dennis C. Torlington of the Chesterfield Cosmty Fire Department have been appointed by the Governor of Virginia to serve on the initial Fire Services Conrnission; and Whereas, The appoin~nent of Chiefs Eanes and Turlington evidences the Governor's recognition of the high quality of professional service provided Chesterfield County in our fire suppression and fire prevention services; and ~hereas, The appoin~nent of Chiefs Eanes and Turlington to the Fire Services Conn&ssion relfects the high esteem in which the Chiefs are held by the Governor and the Virginia Fire Chiefs Association and the Virginia Fire Prevention Association. Nc~, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of S~?ervisors connmnds Fire Chief Robert L. Eanes, Jr. and Chief Dennis C. Turlington for their recent appointment to the Virginia Fire Services Connission and recognizes their accomplishments in providinj efficient and effective fire services not only for Chesterfield County, but also for the Commonwealth of V~rginial ATTACHMENTS: - [] YES ~ NO SIGNATURE: ChESTE RFIELD COUNTY BOARD Of SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: December 13, ] 978 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 8. SUBJECT: - Authorization to Fill Vacancy Above Step 2 of Salary Range COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR~ RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS:- Recommend that the Director, Data Processing be authorized to hire an applicant for the Data Base Administrator position at a salary of $20,856 which is above Step 2 of the salary range for this classification. SUMMARY OFINFORMATION:- Recruitment efforts to fill this very critical position at Step l or 2 of the existing salary range have been unsuccessful. Two efforts were made to fill the position, one localized to the Richmond Metropolitan Area was unsuccessful, and the other expanded to include the D.C. area and Raleigh, North Carolina area. A total of 7 applications were received, none qualified in the opinion of Rick Parks, Director of Data Processing. In addition to these efforts, Mr. Parks was also searching for a replacement and found an individual who is presently employed, qualified, and willing to relocate for $20,856, which would mean a lateral move on his part. The difficulty we have had in recruiting to fill this position is reflected in the results of our salary survey conducted last Auqust which indicated that our Data Processinq classifications were 5% to 10% below the market at that time. ATTAC.ME.TS:- I::;Z]YES E].o COUNTY A DMI N IST~(ii/i-O R,S R. B. Galusha, Personnel Director CHESTERFIELD COUNTY CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832 MEMO TO FROM DATE SUBJECT Mr. N. M. Meiszer, County Administrator R. Galusha, Personnel Director~ December 1, 1978 Status of Recruitment Effort to Fill Data Base Administrator Position - Data Processing. On November 9, 1978, Bob Rogers, Data Base Administrator, Data Processing, submitted his resignation to accept employment elsewhere. Due to lack of depth in his particular expertise, his departure left a critical void in the operational capability within the department as explained in the attached memo from Rick Parks. Although we have attempted two recruitment efforts, the first restricted to the Richmond Metropolitan Area and the second, due to the lack of response to the initial effort, expanded to incorporate the Washington, D.C. and Raleigh, North Carolina area, we received a total of seven applications. All applications have been reviewed by Rick Parks and he is of the opinion that none of the applicants are qualified for the position. In as much as we advertised the range rather than the starting salary I can only assume that the availability of such expertise is minimal and the salary range is not attractive enough to interest them. Over the past year the demand for experienced personnel in both the areas of finance administration and data processing has exceeded the supply of such expertise, consequently we find ourselves experiencing a sellers market. Even at the time we collected our survey data last August the data indicated that our data processing classification grade levels were too low to maintain a competitive position within the market. Based on the current market trend we could be in an even poorer competitive position than we were in August. The results of our recent recruiting effort tends to bear this out. In Rick's memo he advises that, through his individual efforts, he has found an individual who is obviously well-qualified to fill the vacancy and is willing to to relocate at a salary of $20,856 which is Step 5 of our range for Data Base Administrator. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832 MEMO TO FROM DATE Mr. N. M. Meiszer, County Administrator R. Galusha, Personnel Director~ December 1, 1978 SUBJECT Status of Recruitment Effort to Fill Data Base Administrator Position - Data Processing. On November 9, 1978, Bob Rogers, Data Base Administrator, Data Processing, submitted his resignation to accept employment elsewhere. Due to lack of depth in his particular expertise, his departure left a critical void in the operational capability within the department as explained in the attached memo from Rick Parks. Although we have attempted two recruitment efforts, the first restricted to the Richmond Metropolitan Area and the second, due to the lack of response to the initial effort, expanded to incorporate the Washington, D.C. and Raleigh, North Carolina area, we received a total of seven applications. All applications have been reviewed by Rick Parks and he is of the opinion that none of the applicants are qualified for the position. In as much as we advertised the range rather than the starting salary I can only assume that the availability of such expertise is minimal and the salary range is not attractive enough to interest them. Over the past year the demand for experienced personnel in both the areas of finance administration and data processing has exceeded the supply of such expertise, consequently we find ourselves experiencing a sellers market. Even at the time we collected our survey data last August the data indicated that our data processing classification grade levels were too low to maintain a competitive position within the market. Based on the current market trend we could be in an even poorer competitive position than we were in August. The results of our recent recruiting effort tends to bear this out. In Rick's memo he advises that, through his individual efforts, he has found an individual who is obviously well-qualified to fill the vacancy and is willing to to relocate at a salary of $20,856 which is Step 5 of our range for Data Base Administrator. Mr. N. M. Meiszer, buunty Administrator December 1, 1978 Page 2 Considering our classification surveyed at one to two steps below the market we are in fact addressing a Grade 27, possibly Grade 28. The salary in question, $20,856 would be Step 4 of Grade 27, or Step 3 of Grade 28. Regardless of the conditions the salary would have to be approved by the Board of Supervisors; however, the market conditions certainly should be considered a legitimate argument in securing the Board's approval to hire at above Step 2 of the salary range. Richmond is currently recruiting to fill a similiar position at a salary range of $19,136-$24,414 and is experiencing the same problems we are so it appears that we may be forced to "buy" a replacement. The position is critical to the continued operations of the Data Processing Department, and our efforts to fill the vacancy at Step 1 or 2 of the current salary range have been futile, therefore, I feel our only recourse is to request authorization from the Board of Supervisors to hire the applicant recommended by Rick Parks at a salary of $20,856. COORDINATION: ---__ Approved Comments: Disapproved MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD Of SUPERVISORS December 13, 1978 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: o Resolution Authorizing County Attorney to Enforce Liens for Delinquent Real Estate Taxes CO UNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Recommend Approval. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - On motion of , seconded by , be it resolved that pursuant to §58-1016 of the Code of Virqinia, 1950, as amended, the County Attorney is directed to enforce the County's liens for delinquent real estate taxes on the fol- lowing parcels of land: 1. A parcel of land 'located in the Bermuda Magisterial District of Chesterfield County, designated as lot 1 on tax map 133-10(1). A parcel of land located in the Clover Hill Magisterial District of Chesterfield County, designated as lot 7, block D of the Pocoshock Heights Subdivision. e A parcel of land located in the Midlothian Magisterial District of Chesterfield County, designated as lot 6 on tax map 18-16(1). A parcel of land located in the Matoaca Magisterial District of Chesterfield County, designated as lot 3 on tax map 163-11(1). ATTACHMENTS: - SIGNATURE: r-lYES r~NO Submitted by: COUNTY ADM I NISTRi~R'S~ Steven L. Micas County Attorney MEETING DATE: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS December 13, 19 78 AGENDA ITENI NUMBER: SUBJECT:- Consider Livestock Claim 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Recommend approval of amount indicated by State Agriculture Dep ar tmen t. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - We have received a game claim from Mrs. Virginia Hall of 5433 Cogbill Road for the destruction of two rabbits. She estimates the worth of the rabbits to be $40.00. The State Agriculture Department recommends $9.00. ATTACHMENTS: - r-] YES [] NO SIGNATURE: I, Warden ANIMAL CONTROL DEPARTMENT CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY CLAIM INVESTIGATION REPORT R. L. Rcott Date 10/25/78 on this date investigated the claim of Address 5433 Co§bill Rd. for 2 No. which occured on I estimate value of $ Male - 1 - Female pregnant - lyr. white 10 lbs. Rabbits 1 - male 1 yr. hlm~ ~ lh~i - DeScription (kind,~age, weight) 10/19/78 Female 10/24/78 Male = 19 ..in Chesterfield CQunty. £emale - $6.00 $3.00 each, total valueS 9.oo Authority Dick Balendar Stage Agricultural Department I (~i~ did not) witness the actual (killing l~~z~il~) of the animals claimed. The guilty (Y~R~j~ dogs) (~, have not) been (caught,~) and are described as follows: one black and grey shephard one b]am~ And bro~n~ g~ ............. :~:p~=~ two ~"c~- .. ......v~vv~o~--~- Damage was done in the following manner: The dogs tore open the pen and killed th~ ~abbits. As a result of maining, 0 of the total claimed above were destroyed by the owner, or by me at the ownerrs request. Following are witness: I have investigated this claim as thoroughly as possible. I have not) viewed the remains of the animals claimed. I (have,~) viewed the area where said animals w~re attacked along' with other physical evidence and I (have, ~~) questioned available witnesses. Respectfully, ~.~L. Scot~ 55~ MEETING DATE: SUBJECT:- CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS December 13, 19 78 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Consider Erroneous Tax Claims 11. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS:- Recommend Approval. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - There are 24 erroneous tax claims amounting to $2,995.87. They have been reviewed by the County Attorney and he advises they are in proper order for payment. ATTACHMENTS: - [] YES [] NO SIGN.~,TURE: MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD Of SUPFRVISObS Decenber 13, 1978 AGENDA iTEM NUMBER: Holiday Schedule for CY 1979 12. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Recommend Approval. SUMMARY OFINFORMATION:- The,~attached list of holidays reflect those holidays normally observed by Chesterfield County. These days and dates are consistent with the State's proposed CY 1979 holiday schedule. ATTACI.tM ENTS: - [~YES E]NO Sub~ .~ Personnel DirectSr ~ COUNTY ADMINISTRA~ ." ~,. ........inmmII ~I'~ 0 -l- in CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: December 13, 1978 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 13. SUBJECT: - Contract with David M. Griffith and Associates COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Recommend Approval. SUMMARYOFINFORMATION:- Permission is requested for the County Administrator to enter into a one-year contract with David M. Griffith and Associates of Raleigh, North Carolina for assistance in recovering indirect costs incurred in administering federal grants and programs. This firm will assist the County in setting up a method of allocating administrative costs such as those incurred by personnel, accounting, and purchasing to Federal grants, CETA, and other programs of this type. It is expected that the County can recover a minimum of $200,000 annually using the services of this firm. The cost to the County will be a percentage of the funds recovered but will in no way exceed $12,000. Payment will be made from funds reCeived by the County. The County Attorney has reviewed and approved the contract as to form. ^=AC.MENTS:- E]¥ES EINo SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINIsTR/~R'S Elmer C. Director Management Services MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS December 13, 19 78 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Consider Requests for Bingo/Raffle Permits for 1979 14. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Recommend Aoproval/Denial As Indicated. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - APPROVAL: 1. Meadowbrook High School Athletic Association, Inc. 2. Virginia Belles Softball Team 3. Thomas Dale Music Boosters 4. Manchester Athletic Association, Inc. 5. Cavalier Athletic Club 6. La Societe De 40/8 Voiture Locale 1530 7. Optimist Club of Bermuda, Inc. DENIAL: 1. Robert E. Lee Post 2239, Veterans of Foreign Wars (See Attached) ATTACHMENTS: - [] YES [] NO SIGNATURE:__ On November 6, 1978, the following resolution was passed at the Monthly Meeting of the Meadowbrook High School Athletic Association held at Meadowbrook High School. A motion was made by Betty Sommervitle and seconded by Alan Mason that the.organization accept the following resolution: "That the Meadowbrook High School Athletic Association apply for a Bingo Permit for 1979 so as to continue running the game with the profit going to the School's athletic program." The resolution was unanimously passed. Meadowbrook High School :~ nle~lc Association APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONDUCT BINGO GAMES OR RAFFLES The undersigned applicant, pursuant ~co section 18.2-335 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, petitions the Board of Supervisors of CheS~6~fi~id-COunty for a permit to conduct bingo games or raffles during the ~ calendar year. The applicant, in support of this application, offers the follow- ing information: cent's or anization is a (circle one): volunteer 1. The appli g ~ --~ ,-~ ~ne~ ' corporation, fire departmen~,~~ resCUen~qt.u.a~e~, ~~f~un~tion operated h. rust fassociati~, commu ~ . . . churc . t -' ..... ~ .... ~ ~ious. charitable, scientific, exclusively tor [clrc±e,Qn '. ~ ~. ,~ literary, community or ~uc ~a...t. iona£ pu~- Does the organization operate in order to make a ~O · profit? 3. How long has the organization been in existence? 4. Has the organization met on a regular basis for at least two years preceding the date of this application? 5. Does the organization intend to operate more than three bingo games or raffles within any one week? 6. Does the organization intend to use signs to adver- tise for the bingo games or raffles? 7. Will such signs be placed on the premises or within 100 yards of the premises where the bingo games or raffles will be held? 8. Does the organization intend to receive greater than 33 1/3% of gross receipts from "instant bingo" or "bingo in rotation?" 9. Does the organization intend to use the proceeds from the operation of the bingo games or raffles for either: a. The purchase of real estate or improvements for a meeting place for the organization?; or, b. The maintenance or benefit of a private organi- zation which does not exist for any of the above stated purposes?; or, c. The direct or indirect benefit of any organi- zation member? 10. Is this application for a new or renewal permit? Attached to this application are: 1. A copy of a resolution of the organization requesting this permit; and, 2. A check in the amount of $10.00 payable to the Treasurer of Chesterfield County as an application fee. The applicant states that the information furnished in this application is true and correct. The applicant further states that he has read the conditions and penalties and agrees on be- half of the organization to comply therewith. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: Date: (Title) ~,~o~,~ o~f ~rganization) ( Name (Address of Organization) (Telephone No. of Organization) (Address 0~ Applicant) (Telephone No. of Applicant) STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD I, ~i ~..~~~ , a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that .~, ~.~~;~ ~. in his capacity as ~~ of . .~. ~~~-/ ~/,~.~~3 organization and whose name is signed to the foregoing appeared before ma this day and acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand this My Con~nission Expires: day of ~-~_~_ , 19 7~- Notary Publ' APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONDUCT BINGO GAMES OR RAFFLES The undersigned applicant, pursuant to section 18.2-335 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, petitions the Board of Supervisors of Ches~mrfield-County for a permit to conduct bingo games or raffles during the 7~7~ calendar year. The applicant, in support of this application, offers the follow- ing information: 1. The applicant's organization is a (circle one): volunteer fire department, volunteer rescue squad, or (circle one): corporation, church, trust,~-~~ community chest, fund, foundation operated exclusively for (circle one): religious, charitable, scientific, literary,~_~m~_~it~or educational purposes. 2. Does the organization operate in order to make a ~J~ profit? 3. How long has the organization been in existence? ?~L 4. Has the organization met on a regular basis for at least two years preceding the date of this application? 5. Does the organization intend to operate more than three bingo games or raffles within any one week? 6. Does the organization intend to use signs to adver- tise for the bingo games or raffles? 7. Will such signs be placed on the premises or within 100 yards of the premises where the bingo games or raffles will be held? 8. Does the organization intend to receive greater than 33 1/3% of gross receipts from "instant bingo" or "bingo in rotation?" 9. Does the organization intend to use the proceeds from the operation of the bingo games or raffles for either: a. The purchase of real estate Qr improvements for a meeting place for the organization?; or, b. The maintenance or benefit of a private organi- zation which does not exist for any of the above stated purposes?; or, c. The direct or indirect benefit of any organi- zation member? 10. Is this application for a new or~enewa~ermit? Attached to this application are: 1. A copy of a resolution of the organization requesting this permit; and, 2. A check in the amount of $10.00 payable to the Treasurer of Chesterfield County as an application fee. The applicant states that the information furnished in this application is true and correct. The applicant fuzther states that he has read the conditions and penalties and agrees on be- half of the organization to comply therewith. WITNESS the following signatures and seals~ ~W; _.~~ - /, ,:~.X..H".~.;~."' ._Z /.:' Witnesses: (Signature of Applicant) ,.tr ,~:'~ .,..,',. ,~ ~ ..... 1: :-'? /~/./~,-? : ~_ ~.~.. (Title) (Name of Organizatioh) (Address of Organization) ~. . , .- ~ ~ .' (Telephone No. of Organization) (~e~egho~e ~o. o~ ~pg~a~) STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD I, ~'l ~-/~'% <': 0x , a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that AA k~'~.'~z!¥:.) /-< /? ~,~.- .~ .?,:~.t in his capacity as ~'.,~,,.:~.~,~ ~,~...~,/,~'~.~..~ of ~/4.,~.3.~'~? rLz.~ ->,'z:( f~g~ 6 ~..~ organization and whose name is signed to the foregoing appeared before me this day and acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid. Given day of under my hand this My Con~nission Expires: t ~ - / -2,- ~" i Notary ~l~ic APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONDUCT BINGO G~_MES OR RAFFLES The undersigned applicant, pursuant to section 18.2-335 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, petitions the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County for a permit to conduct bingo games or raffles during the j?fy calendar year. The applicant, in support of this application, offers the follow- ing information: 1. The applicant's organization is a (circle one): volunteer fire department, volunteer rescue squad, or (circle._~p_~.~..: .... ~Q?poratioD, church, trust, association, community chest, fund,Q~gundation operate_~ ~xcluslvely ~ (c~rcle one): religIous, charitable, scientific, li[~-r-~y, ~_m~_..~_U~y or' educa~i0n~[ ~'~~. 2. Does the organization operate in order to make a ~-. · profit? 3. How long has the organization been in existence? 4. Has the organization met on a regular basis for at least two years preceding the date of this application? 5. Does the organization intend to operate more than three bingo games or raffles within any one week? 6. Does the organization intend to use signs to adver- tise for the bingo games or raffles? 7. Will such signs be placed on the premises or within 100 yards of the premises where the bingo games or raffles will be held? 8. Does the organization intend to receive greater than 33 1/3% of gross receipts from "instant bingo" or "bingo in rotation?" 9. Does the organization intend to use the proceeds from the operation of the bingo games or raffles for either: a. The purchase of real estate or improvements for a meeting place for the organization?; or, b. The maintenance or benefit of a private organi- zation which does not exist for any of the above stated purposes?; or, c. The direct or indirect benefit of any organi- zation member? 10. Is this application for a new or renewal permit? Attached to this application are: 1. A copy of a resolution of the organization requesting this permit; and, 2. A check in the amount of $10.00 payable to the Treasurer of Chesterfield County as an application fee. The applicant sLaLes that the information furnished in this application is 'true and correct. The applicant further states that he has read the conditions and penalties and agrees on be- half of the organization to comply therewith. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: Witnesses: (Signature of/Applicant) Bingo Chairman (Title) Thomas Dale Music Boosters (Name of Organization) Glenn Boquist, Pres. ~028 Belspring Rd., Chester, VA. (Address of Organization) 7~8-6733 (G. Boquist)' (Telephone No. of Organization) g05 Bermuda Hundred Rd., Chester, VA. (Address of Applicant) ~58-h995 (Telephone No. of Applicant) STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF CIDJSTEi~,~IELD I, .~, , ~ , a Notary Public in and for the Co~ty and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that .~-~cm~ }'.~ ~~ in his capacity as organization and whose name is signed to tile foregoing appeared before nm this day and acknowledged the s~ before nm hu Lhe jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand 'this My Commission Expires: No'raCy Public APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONDUCT BINGO GAMES OR RAFFLES The undersigned applicant, pursuant to section 18.2-335 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, petitions the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County for a permit to conduct bingo games or raffles during the ~7~ calendar year. The applicant, in support of this application, offers the follow- ing information: 1. The applicant's organization is a (circle one): volunteer fire department, vo~u_9~, rescue squad, or (circle one): corporation, church, trust~~~~ommunity chest, fund, foundation operated exclusively~): religious, charitable, scientific, literary~'d~~-i~r educational purposes. 2. Does the organization operate in order to make a ~ profit? 3. How long has the organization been in existence? 4. Has the organization met on a regular basis for at least two years preceding the date of this application? 5. Does the organization intend to operate more than three bingo games or raffles within any one week? 6. Does the organization intend to use signs to adver- tise for the bingo games or raffles? 7. Will such signs be placed on the premises or within 100 yards of the premises where the bingo games or raffles will be held? 8. Does the organization intend to receive greater than 33 1/3% of gross receipts from "instant bingo" or "bingo in rotation?" 9. Does the organization intend to use the proceeds from the operation of the bingo games or raffles for either: a. The purchase of real estate or improvements for a meeting place for the organization?; or, b. The maintenance or benefit of a private organi- zation which does not exist for any of the above stated purposes?; or, c. The direct or indirect benefit of any organi- zation member? 10. Is this application for a new or renewal permit? Attached to this application are: 1. A copy of a resolution of the organization requesting this permit; and, 2. A check in 'the amount of $10.00 payable to the Treasurer of Chesterfield County as an application fee. The applicant stat. es that the information furnished in this application is true and correct. 2'he applicant fu:ther states hhat he has read the conditions and penalties and agrees on be- half of the organization to comply therewith. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: wi tr ~ z(Signa{ure o{ APplicant) (Title) (Name of Organization) (Address of Organization) (Telephone No. of Organization) (Address of Applicant) ~~ ' (Telephone No. of Applicant) STA%~ OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF e~STEPt'I ~ILL~ [-} {: ~ .e, { O i, ~ , a Not~ P~lic ~: ~d for ~e Co~ty ~d State aforesaid, do hereby certify '~at ~~, ~ ~ his org~ization ~d whose n~e is sign~ to ~e forego~g ap~t before ~ ~is day and acknowledged the s-amc before ne ~n O~e jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand this My Conmission Expires: day Of ~~ , 19 '~. PEP~.'II T By Resolution of the Chesterfield County Board of Super- visors duly adopted on , permission to conduct Bingo games or raffles is hereby granted to to conduct Bingo games and/or raffles during the calendar year This permission is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. That no part of the gross receipts derived from such activity inures directly or indirectly 'to the benefit of any private shareholder, member, agent or employee of said organi- zation; 2. Said organization shall, not enter into a contract with any person or firm, association, organization, partner- ships or corporation of any classification whatsoever, for the purpose of organizing, managing or conducting Bingo games or raffles; 3. Said organization may delegate the authority or duty of organizing, managing or conducting Bingo games or raffles only to a natural person or persons who are bona fide members of said organization; 4. Said organization shall not place or permit to be placed on the premises, or within one hundred yards of the premises, where shdh Bingo game is to be conducted, any sign or signs advertising such Bingo game; 5. Records of all receipts and disbursements shall be kept and shall be filed no later than January 31 of each year with the Chesterfield County Commonwealth's Attorney and such records shall be a matter of public record; 6. No person shall pay or receive for use of the premises 'to conduct the bingo games or raffles a sum of money in excess of the current fair market rental value of the premises and in no event shall such sum of money be based upon or determined by a percentage of the proceeds derived from the bingo games or raffles; 7. The organization shall not conduct more than three bingo games in any week unless a special permit is granted by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County for more frequent games; 8. The organization shall not derive more than thirty- three and one-third per centum (33 1/3%) of its gross receipts from the bingo games or raffles by the playing of "instant bingo" or "bingo in any rotation"; 9. The proceeds from the operation of the bingo games or raffles shall neither be used for the purchase of real estate or improvements for a meeting place for the organiza- tion, nor shall the proceeds be used for the maintenance or benefit of a private organization which does not exist exclu- sively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, community or educational purposes, nor shall the proceeds directly or indirectly benefit any member of the organization. 10. For bingo games conducted either for the genera], pub- lic or for the membership and guests of the organization, the proceeds derived from the operation of such bingo games shall be for eleemosynary or charitable purposes or activities of the organizations specified in Section 18.2-335 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended; 11. The Board of Supervisors may revoke the permit of said organization for any non-compliance with these conditions; 12. ANY PERSON, SHAREHOLDER, AGENT, MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE OF SAID ORGANIZATION VIOLATING ANY OF THESE CONDITIONS SHALL BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A FINE NOT TO EXCEED ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS. ANY ORGANIZATION VIOLATING CONDITIONS 5 OR 6 ABOVE SHALL HAVE ITS PERMIT AUTOMATICALLY REVOKED; 13. THIS PERMIT MUST BE RENEWED AT THE END OF EACH CAL- ENDAR YEAR BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. 14. THIS PERMIT OR A COPY THEREOF MUST BE POSTED ON THE PREMISES WHERE SAID BINGO GAMES AND/OR RAFFLES ARE CONDUCTED AND IS NOT ASSIGNABLE. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Attest: ' By Chairman County Administrator WHEREAS, Manchester High School Athletic Association, did in 1978 have a permit from Chesterfield County to play bingo, to provide funds for athletics at Manchester High School, which cannot be funded by the School Budget. WHEREAS, all profits made from conducting bingo games are applied to the needs of Manchester High School. NOW therefore the Membership of Manchester High School Athletic Association, by resolution request the extension of their permit, to allow the Association to conduct bingo games for calendar year 1979. President, Manchester High School Athletic Association APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONDUCT BINGO GAMES OR RAFFLES The undersigned applicant, pursuant to section 18.2-335 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, petitions the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County for a permit to conduct bingo games or raffles during the ~'7~ calendar year. The applicant, in support of this application, offers the follow- ing information: 1. The applicant's organization is a (circle one): volunteer fire department~rescue squad, or (circle one): corporation, church, trust,~L~_ociatio~ community chest,fund, foundation operated exclusively for (circle one): religious,~_~r~ scientific, literary,~nl~or educational purposes[ 2. Does the organization operate in order to make a ~/O profit? 3. How long has the organization been in existence? 4. Has the organization met on a regular basis for at least two years preceding the date of this application? 5. Does the organization intend to operate more than three bingo games or raffles within any one week? 6. Does the organization intend to use signs to adver- tise for the bingo games or raffles? 7. Will such signs be placed on the premises or within 100 yards of the premises where the bingo games or raffles will be held? 8. Does the organization intend to receive greater than 33 1/3% of gross receipts from "instant bingo" or "bingo in rotation?" 9. Does the organization intend to use the proceeds from the operation of the bingo games or raffles for either: a. The purchase of real estate or improvements for a meeting place for the organization?; or, b. The maintenance or benefit of a private organi- zation which does not exist for any of the above stated purposes?; or, c. The direct or indirect benefit of any organi- zation member? 10. Is this application for a new or renewal permit? Attached Lo this application are: 1. A copy of a resolution of the organization requesting this permit; and, 2. A check in 'the amount of $10.00 payable to the Treasurer of Chesterfield County as an application fee. The applicant skates that the information furnished in this application is true and correct. The applicant further states that he has read the conditions and penalties and agrees on be- half of the organization to comply therewith. Date: Witnesses: WITNESS the following signatures and seals: ? (SignatUre of Applicant) (~Yt!e) (Name of Organization) (Telephone No. o: Organ$zat$on) (T~2ephone No. of hpp~$can~) STA77~ OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF CItESTEI~IELD I, . - '1 , , a Notary Public in ~d for the County and State aforesaid, do here~y certify that ~~ /V- ~m~,~Zz in his capacity as :~L~6~'Tt~/~ of ~f_ ~4~L~ ~2)/L~')~ ~-~0~ organization and whose name is signed to the foregoing ap[~ared before me this day and acknowledged the s~ne before ~m ~ the jurisdiction aforesaid. under my hand 'this ~ ~' day of './~. ~~~ , 19 ~. Given My Con~aission Expires: Ivly Coi-m",'dssion Exi:i~'es Doc.ember 19, 1979 No'h~:~/-y ~.ic CAVALIER ATHLETIC CLUB, INC. November 27, 1978 Mr. Nicholus M. Meiszer Board of Supervisors Chesterfield County Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Mr. Meiszer: At the November 26, 1978, meeting of the Cavalier Athletic Club held at the R.E.M. Building, 20910 James Avenue, Ettrick, Virginia, a motion was made by Mr. Jerry W. Springfield and seconded by Mr. Randall E. Gegenheimer for the club to continue Bingo until December 31, 1979. Richard Brockwell Secretary RB/br LA SOCIETE DES 40 HO~S ET 8 CHEVAUX ¥oI~ 153o 1~930 HAPPY HILL ROAD COLONIAL HEIGHTS VA. 2383~ RESOLUTION Where as, La societe de Forty et Eight, Voiture 1530 a non profit orginization of the American Legion and, ~he ro as Voiture 1530 Uses its money from Bingo to support Nurses Training Scholorships, Boys State, Chesterfield 'Welfare Chri$~mas Program,Retarded Childrens King and Queen for a Day, in addition to our own Programs therefore, Be it Resolved: That Voiture 1530 of the Forty et Eight, requeststhe Renewal of it's Permit to play Bingo in their building at 15930 Happy Hill Rd. Chesterfield Co. APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONDUCT BINGO GB-MES OR RAFFLES The undersigned applicant, pursuant to section 18.2-335 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, petitions the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County for a permit to conduct bingo games or raffles during the ..~ calendar year. The applicant, in support of this application, offers the follow- ing information: 1. The applicant's organization is a (circle one): fire department, volunteer rescue squad, or (circle one) : ~9~r_~atio~ church, trust, association, community ches~oundati6n operated exclusively for (circle one): religious, ~haritable~ scientific, literary, community or educational purpose .s~---~ - 2. Does the organization operate in order to make a profit? 3. How long has the organization been in existence? 4. Has the organization met on a regular basis for at least two years preceding the date of this application? 5. Does the organization intend to operate more than three bingo games or raffles within any one week? ~/~ 6. Does the organization intend to use signs to adver- ~/~ rise for the bingo games or raffles? /~ 7. Will such signs be placed on the premises or within 100 yards of the premises where the bingo games or raffles will be held?'~'/~/~? 8. Does the organization intend to receive greater than 33 1/3% of gross receipts from "instant bingo" or "bingo in rotation?" 9. Does the organization intend to use the proceeds from the operation of the bingo games or raffles for either: a. The purchase of real estate or improvements for a meeting place for the organization?; or, b. The maintenance or benefit of a private organi- zation which does not exist for any of the above stated purposes?; or, c. The direct or indirect benefit of any organi- zation member? 10. Is this application for a new or renewal permit? Attached to this application are: 1. A copy of a resolution of the organization requesting this permit; and, 2. A check in the amount of $10.00 payable to the Treasurer of Chesterfield County as an application fee. The applicant sLaLes that the information furnished in this application is true and correct. The applicant further states that he has read the conditions and penalties and agrees on be- half of the organization to comply therewith. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: Witnesses: STA2]~ OF VIRGINIA COblY£Y OF C~-~JSTERFIELD 1----~, 19. '-~' pp ' a t) (Title) ~' ' (N[me of org~{ization)" ---~f~'r'ess of ' 0rgan'ization} (Telephone No. of Applicant) I, ~ , , a Notary Public in and for the Couu~ty and hereby certify that p~JD~ K~~in his Sta-te aforesaid, do organization and whose name is signed to the foregoing appeared before me this day and acknowledged the s~ne before nm ~ hhe jurisdiction aforesaid. Given --- under my hand this 7 ~- day of ~/~~,~_~ , 19 ~. My Conmission Expires: ~"-"-~-o0] ' -7 Publi~ APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONDUCT BINGO GAMES OR RAFFLES The undersigned applicant, pursuant to section 18.2-335 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, petitions the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County for a permit to conduct bingo games or raffles during the ?9 calendar year. The applicant, in support of this application, offers the follow- ing information: 1. The applicant's organization is a (circle one): volunteer fire department, volunteer rescue squad, or (circle one): ~-L~orpora~ church, trust, association, community chest, fund, foundat~ operated exclusively for (circle one): religious, charitable, scientific, educational purposes literary,~or . 2. Does the organization operate in order to make a ~ profit? 3. How long has the organization been in existence? 18 yrs., 4. Has the organization met on a regular basis for at least two years preceding the date of this application? yes 5. Does the organization intend to operate more than three bingo games or raffles within any one week? nO 6. Does the organization intend to use signs to adver- tise for the bingo games or raffles? yes 7. Will such signs be placed on the premises or within 100 yards of the premises where the bingo games or raffles will be held? no 8. Does the organization intend to receive greater than 33 1/3% of gross receipts from "instant bingo" or "bingo in rotation?" no 9. Does the organization intend to use the proceeds from the operation of the bingo games or raffles for either: a. 'The purchase of real estate or improvements for a meeting place for the organization?; or, no b. The maintenance or benefit of a private organi- zation which does not exist for any of the above stated purposes?; or, no c. The direct or indirect benefit of any organi- zation member? no 10. Is this application for a new or renewal permit? Renewal Attached to ~his application are: 1. A copy of a resolution of the organization requesting this permit; and, 2. A check in the amount of $10.00 payable to the Treasurer of Chesterfield County as an application fee. The applicant sN~es that the information furnished in this application is true and correct. The applicant fu~ther states that he has read tlne conditions and penalties and agrees on be- half of the organization to comply therewith. WITNESS the following Date: November 27~1978 signatur and seals: ~ (Signature of Applicant) President (Title) Bermuda Optimist Club (Name of Organization) Witnesses: 1101 Point of Rock Road (Address of Organization) Chesber, Va., 23831 Telephone No. of Organization) ~15 Meadowville Road, Chester,Va. (Address of Applicant) 458-5149 (Telephone No. of Applicant) STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF C[~STERFII~iLD I, '. ~i {~'(~ , a Not~y P~lic hl ~d for ~e Comity ~d State aforesaid, do h~y certify ~at ~{~{. ~_. ~ ~D,.~./ ~ his org~ization ~d whose n~te is si~ to ~e foregoing ap~ before ne ~is day and acknowledged the sa~ne before ne in the jurisdiction aforesaid. under my hand this ~-' ~ _ day of ~/0 ~" , 19 ~/~i ~ Notary Public My Conmission Expires: Given COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD VIRGINIA MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Steven L. Micas, County Attorney Bruce A. Kimble, Assistant County Attorney November 17, 1978 Application of Robert E. Lee Post 2239, Veterans of Foreign Wars for a Renewal Bingo Permit For the following reasons, I recommend denial of the attached bingo application: 1. iThe organization intends to use the bingo proceeds for the purchase of real estate or improvements for a meeting place. The Attgrney General has opined that §18.2- 335~prohibits such user'(Opinion dated April 7, 1978); and, 2...~The organization intends to use the proceeds for the benefit of organization members~ In the above refe- renced opinion and in O.A.G. 1975-76 at page 209, the Attor- ney General reasoned that .the membership of a charitable organization cannot be the object of charitable projects if such project is financed by bingo proceeds~. .... Hence, the Attorney General construed~.~18.2-335 to prohibit bingo proceeds from being used for any expenses of an 0rganiza- tion's projects which benefit individual members,.!~ BAK/jbr Attachment VETL, ANS OF FOREIGN OF THE UNITED STATES FOUNDED 1899 AN ASSOCIATION OF MEN WHO HAVE FOUGHT AMERICA'S FOREIGN WARS ON LAND~ BEA AND 1N THE AIR. DEPARTMENT OF VIRGINIA ROBERT E. LEE POST 2239 ROUTE I NORTH, P. O. BOX 67 PHONE (804) 748-4896 COLONIAL HEIGHT$~ VIRGINIA 238:34 November 13, 1978 Mr. Nicholas M. Melszer County Administrator Board of Supervisors Chesterfield County Ohesterfield, Va. 23832 Dear Mr. Meiszer: You will find attached herewith permit application completed by Robert E. Lee Post 2239, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS, requesting permission to conduct BingoGames and/or Raffles at the Pest Home during calendar year 1979. A copy of resolution passed by the Post requesting the permit and a check in the amount of $10.00 is also attached. We trust the Board will act favorably and promptly on this request. Marvin S. Watkin8 Post Adjutant -msw eno-3 APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONDUCT BINGO GAMES OR RAFFLES The undersigned applicant, pursuant to section 18.2-335 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, petitions the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County for a permit to conduct bingo games or raffles during the 1979 calendar year. The applicant, in support of this application, offers the follow- ing information: 1. The applicant's organization is a (circle one): volunteer fire department, volunteer rescue squad, or (circle one): (corporation,) church, trust, association, community chest, fund, foundation operated exclusively for (circle one): religious, charitable, scientific, literary, community or educational purposes. Non-profit Veterans 2. Does the organization operate in order to make a profit? No 3. How long has the organization been in existence? 4. Has the organization met on a regular basis for at least two years preceding the date of this application? 5. Does the organization intend to operate more than three bingo games or raffles within any one week? 30 Yrs. Yes No 6. Does the organization intend to use signs to adver- tise for the bingo games or raffles? No 7. Will such signs be placed on the premises or within 100 yards of the premises where the bingo games or raffles will be held? 8. Does the organization intend to receive greater than 33 1/3% of gross receipts from "instant bingo" or "bingo in rotation?" No 9. Does the organization intend to use the proceeds from the operation of the bingo games or raffles for either: a. The purchase of real estate or improvements for a meeting place for the organization?; Oreo Present Plans Yes b. The maintenance or benefit of a private organi- zation which does not exist for any of the above stated purposes?; or, No c. The direct or indirect benefit of any organi- Yes zation member? Rehabilitation of Veterans and assist Veteran m~bers in distress 10. Is this app±zcation for a new or renewal permit? R.newal Attached to this application are: 1. A copy of a resolution of the organization requesting this permit; and, 2. A check in the amount of $10.00 payable to the Treasurer of Chesterfield County as an application fee. The applicant states that the information furnished in this application is true and correct. The applicant fuzther states that he has read the conditions and penalties and agrees on be- half of the organization to comply therewith. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: Date: ~ '~'~ !~(Signa-ture of Applicant) ~'Titnes se s: Post Commander (Title) Robert E. Lee Post 2239 VETERANS OF FOREIGN WAM~ (Name of Organization) P. 0. Box 67 Colonial He~ights, Virginia 2_3834 (Address of Organization) 748-~896 (Telephone No. of Organization) 209 Ridge Road Colonial He~ht~. V~gi~__~ (Address of A~pli~ant) 526-9560 (Telephone No. of Applicant) STAI~ OF VIRGINIA COU~Pf OF Ct~STENt?IELD I, ~/1~.~ i[_, a Notary Public h~ and for the Coumty and State aforesaid, do hereby certify 'that/~ X~[~/~,~/-/~/~_~, i~ his organization and whose name is si%u~ed to tJ~e foregoing appeared before ~e this day and acknowledged the same before nm in the jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand this AN ASSOCIATION OF MEN WHO HAVE FOUGHT AMERICA'S FOREIGN WARS ON LAND, SEA AND IN THE AIR. VI£TL ANS OF FOR£ GN ^IARS OF 17' E UNITED STATES FOUNDED 1899 ROBERT E. LEE POST 2239 ROUTE ! NORTH, P. O. BOX 67 PHONE (804) 748-4B96 COLONIAL HEIGHTS, VIRGINIA :23834 DEPARTMENT OF VIRGINIA RESOLUTIO~.I TO REQUEST PERMIT TO C 0NDUCT BINGO GAMES and/or RAFFLES DURING THE 1979 CALENDAR YEAR Extracted from the minutes of Robert E. Lee Post 2239, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS, meeting held Ne~ember 2, 1978 at the Post Home - - "It was moved by John W. Lane that an application be made to the County of Chesterfield to renew its permit to operate Bingo Games and/or Raffles during 1979 Calendar Year" - Motion duly seconded and Unanimously Adopted - - November 2, 1978 This is to certify that the above is a true copy of the motion passed at the Regularily scheduled Post meeting of the membership held Nov. 2, 1978 at the Post Home. Signed Marvin S~I WI~tki~$ -- Post Adjutant November 13, 1978 CHE STERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: December 13, 1978 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:, 6.A. SUBJECT: - Budget ItemS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Recommend Approval. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:- 1. The Department of Labor has determined that the use of CETA funds for the purchase of six buses from Hanover County was an ineligible cost. The total cost in question is I~O.J$~,445 and Chesterfield's Share is $1,034 to be paid from non-Ceta funds. A transfer ~/Afrom the contingency account is needed. 2. A contribution of $1,470 was made to the Police Department Vice Division. The Police ~,~' Chief has requested that these funds be used for equipment for the division. 3. Through oversight no funds were included in the Juvenile Domestic Relations Court ~,/~ capital project for furnishings. Funding of the low bid will require an additional appropriation of $80,000. 4. A supplemental appropriation of $43,772.83 is needed to close out the contract with ~ 1~' Moseley-Hening for architectual and engineering work on the Courthouse Administration . Complex. This amount should be transferred from the Contingency account. 5. General Service Department Budget Requests: Five radios presently being used in Sanitation need to be replaced. Repairing ~b.e radios is not cost efficient; therefore, five new radios are requested. A riding tractor, yard equipment and shrubbery equipment are needed for lawn care and landscaping of the County libraries; therefore, the above items are being requested by the Director of General Services. ATTACNMENTS: - E]YES r~NO Budget Items December 13, 1978 Page 2 Action Required: 1. Transfer $1,034 from Planned Budget Expense account 111-1-31400-4123 Contingencies to Planned Budget Expense account 111-1-31400-2959 Ceta Reimbursement. 2. Increase Planned Budget Revenue account 111-1-00011-0801 Contributions by $1,470 and increase Planned Budget Expense account 111-1-06160-4572 Office Equipment by $1,470. 3. a. Decrease Planned Budget Expense account 111-1-31400-4123 Contingencies by $80,000. b. Increase Planned Budget Expense account 330-1-92120-4513 Other Equipment-New by $80,000 for the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Building. 4. a. Decrease Planned Budget Expense account 111-1-31400-4123 Contingencies by $43,772.83. b. Increase Planned Budget Expense account 330-1-92140-2121 Architect Fee by $43,772.83 for the Courthouse Administration Complex Building. 5. General Services Budget Request: a. Decrease Planned Budget Expense account 111-1-11230-2656 Repair & Maintenance Landfill by $3,300 and increase Planned Budget Expense account 111-1-11220-4599 Radio Equipment-New. b. Decrease Planned Budget Expense account 111-1-11230-2656 Repair & Maintenance Landfill by $10,800 and increase Planned Budget Expense account 111-1-15100-4513 Other Equipment-New. LBR/lar MEETING DATE: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS December 13, 1978 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 6.B. SUBJECT: - Advance from General Fund to begin 1978 County Bond Projects COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Recommend Approval. SUMMARYOFINFORMATION:-Since several of the County Bond projects are already being started and expenses will be incurred before bonds are sold, an advanc~ from the General Fund should be made in order to begin these projects. Action Required: Establish Fund #331 as the "1978 County Bond Fund." The purpose of the fund is to account for the expenditures of bond proceeds as authorized by the November 1978 Bond Referendum. An advance of $1,000,000 should be made from the General Fund to the 1978 County Bond Fund to be repaid when the bonds are sold. A AC.UENTS:- [2YES SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRA~S~I~ B. Ram's~y, D~ctor Budget and Management Department AGENDA ITEM 6B CHESTERFIELD COUNTY CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832 MEMO NICHOLAS M. MEISZER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO FROM DATE SUBJECT Board of Supervisors Nicholas M. Meiszer, County Administrator December 8, 1978 Procedure for Bond Sale We have prepared for your information, an outline of the various steps which must be followed in the process of issuing the bonds which were authorized by the voters in November of 1978. You will note that if this schedule is followed, the actual receipt of funds will occur in June of 1979. The attached table indicates the responsibility for accomplishing each of the steps. In order to get some of the projects underway this Spring, it will be necessary to advance funding from the General Fund with the provision that reimbursement be made after the bond sale has taken place. This is the basis for my recommendation that $1,000,000 be transferred to the Capital Operating Fund from General Fund's unappropriated surplus. It may be that the time period indicated on the attached schedule can be shortened, however, it will be unrealistic to expect the sale to take place much earlier. During this period, the planning and administrative work for the various projects will be underway. Nicholas M. MeisJr Attachment bp 0 0 o 0 o~ H H ~ ~ o · · ~D ~ 0 m 0 0 0 o o o rto I.-I rt (D It ('I) o '~ o o o rt. rt' 0 I~ ~ ~-h o ~ ~. m ri. I..~. ~ i-,1 r~ ~ ~. o fo ~:r m ~:~o o~ r~ ~ o o 0 ~ ~.~ ~. ~ 0 H. o ~ o m ~ o ~ o o m m o ~ I ~ , o o (~ o o H~ 0 H~ I~. 0 I~· ~ o o 0 r~ MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: - ChESTErFIELD COUNTY BOARD Of SUPERVISORS December 13, 1978 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Appropriation for Bird High School Park Facilities 6.0. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Recommend Approval. SUMMAR¥OFINFORMATION:-On November 15, 1976 the Board of Supervisors agreed to reimburse the School Board $130,000 for park facilities at Bird High School. (See attached resolution.) These funds have been set aside in a "Reserve for Construction" account in the General Fund and now should be appropriated to reimburse the School Board. This action does not affect the General Fund Surplus as the funds have already been set aside. Action Required: Transfer and appropriate $130,000 from the Reserve for Construction account in the General Fund to Planned Budget Expense account 111-1-34100-91!23 Transfer to 1976 School Bond Fund. Also, that Central Accounting is to transfer the $130,000 upon the final acceptance of the facility. ATTACHMENTS:- r'~ YES r']NO SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRA~'$~ I~ane B. Ram~feY, -D~ector Budget and Management Departmen VIRGINIA: At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, held at the. Courthouse on November 15, 1976 at' 1:00 p.m. Mr. Ritz stated he was requesting authorization to seek bids for recreational facilities at the parks totaling approxi~ mately $210,000 and Board authorization for the School Board .to accept the low bid of Endobock-White of $121,000 for recreation facilities at the new Courthouse High School, plus an additi0nJl $9,000 (making a total of $130,000) to 'improve the tennis court fencing and provide better maintenance 'access to the baseball fields. After some discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Apperson, seconded by' Mr. Bookman, resolved that the Planning Department was authorized to seek bids for recreational facilities at the County Parks totaling approximately $210,000 and it was further resolved that the School Board was authorized to · accept the bid of Endobock-%,~ite of $121,000 plus an additiona $9,000 ($130,000 total) for' park facilities~ at 'the new Courthouse High School.with the Board reimbursing the School Board for these facilities after their completion. Ayes: A True Copy: Mr. O'Neill, Mrs.. Girone, Mr. Appe.rson, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Myers. Adminis t rat o~,~ CHESTERFIELD COU BOARD Of SUPERVISORS NTY MEETING DATE: December 13; 1978 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 16 .C. SUBJECT:- Presentation by students of Recreation Department of Virginia Commonwealth University concerning possible park site in Midlothian area at 12:00 noon. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - This is for the Board's information. SUMMAR¥OFINFORMATION:- The Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Depart- ment was contacted by the Recreation Department at Virginia Commonwealth University concerning their desire to assist with some park planning as part of their class requirements. At that particular time, we were looking at a 102 acre site adjacent to Robious Elementary School which is located off Robious and Huguenot Roads. As a result, we asked the class to study this area and to put together plans on what could be done with this piece of land. This has been completed and the plans will be presented by the stu- dents who studied and developed them. ATTACHMENTS: - r'~ YES ~ ¢OU~TY~ NI~TRATOR'$ ChESTERfIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: December 13, 1978 AGENDA iTEM NUMBER: 16. B. SUBJECT:- Resolution Commending Phil T. Hester for Participation in the 1978 U.S. Youth Games and for His Appointment as a National Coordinator for the 1979 Games COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Recommend ADproval. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - WHEREAS, the County of Chesterfield is a co-sponsor of the 13th Annual United State~ Youth Games which will be held on July 25 through 29, 1979 at the University of Richmond and WHEREAS, nearly 1,000 young athletes between the ages of 9 and 15 from 13 cities throughout the United States will compete in five sporting events during the five day event; and WHEREAS, Phil T. Hester, Director of the Chesterfield County Department of Parks an Recreation, participated, on behalf of Chesterfield County, in the 1978 Games held in Detroit, Michigan and has been appointed by Richmond Newspapers, Inc. to serve as a national coordinator for the 1979 United States Youth Games; and WHEREAS, the appointment of Phil T. Hester evidences recognition by his professional colleagues of his ability to effectively plan and coordinate national athletic events, an such appointment further evidences the high quality of recreational services provided to the citizens of Chesterfield County through the efforts of Phil T. Hester; and WHEREAS, the appointment of Phil T. Hester further reflects the high esteem in which Phil T. Hester is held by his professional colleagues in the field of recreation; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby cormnends the Director of the Chesterfield County Department of Parks and Recrea- tion, Phil T. Hester, for his recent appointment as a national coordinator for the 13th Annual United States Youth Games and this Board further recognizes his accomplishments in ATTACHMENT~Pr°vidinq _higb~li~ ~ecreationaltheServiCeSccranonwealthto the of CitizenSvirginia.°f Chesterfield County and SIGNATURE: Richmond News l~ader, Wed.. Nov. 29, 1978' U.S. Youth Gomes Plonned' Here With Richmond as the host The boys and girls who made last ¥ffar+s' games, Hopkins ?i Chesterfield, Henrtco and"~ city for the first time, the 13th up the Richmond metro team said; ~*:?:'Hanover.' ( annual U. $. YouthGames next last year tied with Washington .i With mostoftheev~ntsatone," Each of the four recreation summer will be held pr!madly for themost team trophies won site, Hopkins explained, youths:, and parks departments will at the University of Richmond. in the categories of boys' and will be able to cheer for team contribote $5,000 toward the Howard D. Hopkins, athletic director at MaggieWalker High School, and Phil T. Hester, director of Chesterfield Coun- ty's Recreation and Parks Department, will be national coordinators for the g~mes.- Nearl,~,000-y'oung athletes from 13 cities will compete in five sports, basketball, tennis, swimming, bowling and track girls' competition in the five spor*s. The competition is open to boys and girls aged 9 to 15. Each city is represented by a 76- member delegation. New York, Boston, Baltimore and Detroit: are among the cities that par- ticipate. : Hopkins and Hester said they were pleased that next sum- and field. 'mer'S games will be at the The Youth Games will get un-: University of Richmond. The der way with a downtown Rich- UR campus will accommodate mond parade July 25 and end the teams better than was the with an awards ceremony July case in Detroit where facilities __29. were scattered miles apart at members in other sports afterJ they are through competing for, j ' lhe'day. · '~ The cost of the Youth Games' -- most of it goes for housing, meals and facilities at UR -- is estimated at $67,000. Of that amount, AMF Inc., a manufac; turer of leisure products an~ national sponsor of the games{ will contribute $25,000. [ LOcally, the games are spon~'~: sored by the Richmond Timest ] Dispatch and the departments( of recreation and parks in Rich- ) mond and the counties of[ cost, and the Times-Dlspatch~ will pay the remainder. · A two-day meeting of dinators from the 13 par:~/ ticipating cities will start her~ tomorrow. ~i / Meanwhile, Hopktns He. ster are setting up 23 com-~/ m~ttees of local residents wino:} will be responsible for,") Richmond's role as host. ' . ( ',Youth Games Called C m ityAffair' Official certificates signify.::!'~neeting of coordin~itors ing that Richmond and the the 13 cities that starts today. counties of Chesterfield, · The Youth Games' national Henrico and Hanover Will be coordinators this year are Phil host for next summer's U.S. Hester, director of Chester. Youth Games were presented i,' field County's Recreation and. to representatives yesterday ~ Parks Department, and byJohnBrandtofAMFInc.~the :.'Howard! Hopkins, athletic '~' games' national sponsor. ~' director at Maggie At a newsconference, Brandt . High School. · said he was pleased that "Rich- mond is rallying around the Locally, the Youth Games Youth Game" as a "communi. i~ are sponsored by The Times- ty affair." The 13th annual ' Dispatch and the departments games will beein with a narade of recreation and parks in Rlch- Julx~ 9:~ '~ut~tth mt~Ql' ~nma~~ mond and the counties of schedul~ at the University of~:;~:~hesterfield, Henr~c0 and Richmond. The games will end ;~aan0v~r. with an awards ceremony July.~ :~' ~e Youth Games are es- 29. ~ c:timat~ to cost ~7,~, with~. Almost 1,~ youths age 9 to ~' ~ AMFcontrlbuting$25,~, each age 15 from 13cities, including I~ality giving ~,~ and The Richmond, will compete i~.Times.Dispatch p~yingfor.~ boys' and girls' basketball, ten,:./~ remainder ~ his, swimming, ~wling and~=~:~ .~ ~ track and field, ~ ,~?~4~ .~ ~'~ ~ ~ ......... ' ' The ortginai reason fo~ the ~q games, Brandt explained was '~ ;to ',give New York City youths · ~ an op~rtunity tO.dosomething [ !n ;~2uiT~:i'me a natiOnal:[ event. While originally set up for city youths,~suburban ~ youths now compete wtth,}he~ games serving as a way to re- Channel the energy of youths into athletics," said Brandt. ' ~ Brandies visit to Richmond ~ coincides with a two-day i ._ :Two Coord nato s Named' for Games Continued From. First Page will be the site for most of the events at the Youth Games, which officially will get under Way with a downtown Rich- mond parade July 25 and end with an awards ceremony July Cost to Be $67,000 .Th~ cost of the Youth Games. ~ most going for housing, meals and facilities at UR -- is estimated to be $67,000. Of that, AMF Inc., a manufacturer of leisur6 products and national sponsor of the games since the first year, will contribute $25,000. "" . An AMF rel~resentative will Last year, facilities for- events and housing for youths were'scattered miles apart, with participants often isolated at those locations. This year, with most of the eve. nts at one site, youths will be able to cheer for team membe'/'s in other sports after they are through competing for the. da~, he ex- plained. The coordinators are setting up 23 committees cordpesed of local resident§ who will be responsible far dlffgr~nt aspects of RichmOnd s firs~ role ashost;~' ' ' ' ' "The parade committee is ready to go. The members are pre. sent. th~ check to the just waiting for the tim ff~dn~l eooi'dinators a~ 10 set so ,they ~iifi']nvlt~,~pecial · guests and dign~ta~'ies/~' HeSter a~m. press conference todayat said. '~ ~? R{¢hmond NewSpapers In¢, 4n Tournaniont Direetor~ a~ance of a two-day meeting o~,.,.~oordinators from the 13 -' The coordinators'also will ci4ies that begins her~e choose fiational'tournament, tomorrow, directors in each sport, A Rich-~ Each of the four recreation, "'mond metro .coordinator and and parks departments will local coaches will be announced cOtftribute $5,000 toward' the ' later, along withdates for lOCal cost, while the remainder will preliminary competitiofis. . bepaidbyTheTime~-DiSpatch. ~' Hopkins; aa, was Richmond The Youth Games was be'gun ',. metro coordinator last year as a way for inner-city youths to and was co-coach for the 1977 compete in sports and travel to youth gamesI track team. He different cities.. Richmond's has been at Maggie Walker forI metroteamjoin~dtbegameSin '12 years and athleticdtr~etor ~ for the last six yeai's. 1974. Since then, the Richmond · He holds .an undergraduate metro team has grown to be one degree from Fayetteville State of the best in its competition College. an8 a,master's degree against cities including New ' from Virginia Coq~m~onwealth York, Boston, Baltimore and University. ' Detroit. · Hester, 32, has be~n Chester- Last year's Richmond metro field's recreation and parks team tied with Washington for director since March. For the most team trophies won in three years previously, he 'was the categories of boys' and chief of the Virginia Depart- girls' basketball, tennis, swim- ment of Recreationandprior to ming, bowling and track and ', that was a state recreation con- field. The competition is open 'Sultant. Healsohasheldjobsin to boys and girl~ ages 9 to,15, recreation administration in Each city sends a 76-member;.. Raleigh, N.C., and Danville. delegation to the games.;~i].,.~ ~' He holds a bachelor's degree "Ideal Situation" 'from North Carolina State · Both national coordinators University and a master's expressed pleasure yesterday' degree from the University of that next year's games will be North Carolina. Hester was held primarily at University of part of a. special .Richmond Richmond. "In comparison :team to observe last sumilaer'.s with Detroit [where the games' "Youth,Gam~.s in Detroit..: were held last.summer], the ~ , · .... , UnfversityofRichmondwillbe [_~r,t~,~¢-~ ~-.Coordinators Named commMate ali the teams and i ' ;;~: ' ' · provide for a camaraderie~;~;~;;~;; nual'U.S. Youth Games in ,which nearly 1,.000 young :~::~;~;?~ :{ athletes from 13cities will com. ~te In five s~rts. ' '~ Howard D. Hopkins, athletic director at Maggie Walker" High School, and Phil T. Hester, director of Chester- fie~d County's Recreation ~d Parks Department, will be national c~r~lnators for the.~~~ Locally, the Youth Games are sponsored by The TimeskDispateh and the depart. in Richmond and the counties of ' Staff~t~ ' :' Phil T. Hester Athletic Dir~tor . Cm, ti,,ed on Pa~e 6, Col. I ~' : ' Recreation Official CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: December 13 ~ 1978 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 16.A. SUBJECT:- Presentation to the Board of Supervisors of a certificate of appreciation from AMF Incorporated for support of the 1979 U.S. Youth Games which will be held'at the University of Richmond on July 25-29, 1978. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - The 1979 United States Youth Games will be held at the University of Richmond from July 25-29, 1979. Chesterfield County, through the Parks and Recreation Department, has been a cosponsor of this national program since 1976. The presentation being made is a certificate from the Chairman of the Board for AMF Incorporated to Chesterfield County noting its involvement in the 1979 U.S. Youth Games. A'^CNME.TS:- r-lYES -- r ' COI~NTY~NISTRATOR'S MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS December 13, 1978 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Authorization to enter into contract for architectural services. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS:- ApproVal SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - Action Needed- To authorize the County Administrator to enter into contract with Thomas W. Cockrell, Architect for design services related to improvements needed for the air circulation system at the County's Jail. *THIS DID NOT MAKE IT IN TIME FOR THE PRINTED AGENDA, BUT WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING. ATTACHI~ENTS: - [] YES ~]NO SIGNATURF:~ ~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS · MEETING DATE: D~cember 13, 1978 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 17. SUBJECT: - Reports A. Roads Taken Into the State System B. Chesterfield County Deoartment of Social Services Annual Report, July I, 1977 - June 30, 1978 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Informational Purposes Only. SUMMARYOFINFORMATION:- A. See Attached. B. See Attached. ATTACHI~ENTS: - t.~ YES r']NO SIGNATURIF: HAROLD C KING, COMMISSIONER LEONARD R. HALL. BRISTOL, BRI,'~TOL DI,¥?'~ICT HORACE G. f'RALIN, ROANOKE, SA£A~ DIf;TRK~T COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 November 16, 1978 LEO E. EUSSER, I|1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHIEF ENGINEER T. ASHBY NEWBY DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION J. M. WRAY, JR. DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS H. R. PERKINSON, JR. DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT W. L. BRITTLE, JR, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING OSCAR K. MABRY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO Secondary System Additions Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors County of Chesterfield Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Gentlemen: As requested in your resolution dated August 9, 1978, the following additions to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County are hereby approved, effective November 17, 1978. ADDITIONS LENGTH NORMANDALE TERRACE~ ADDITION SECTION "C" Arcadia Court - Beginning at its intersection with Arcadia Avenue westerly 0.05 mile to a cul-de-sac. Seminole Avenue - Beginning at its intersection with Rio Vista Street, State Route 1537, northerly 0.06 mile to a cul-de-sac. Arcadia Avenue - Beginning at its intersection with Rio Vista Street, State Route 1537, northerly 0.06 mile to a dead end. 0.05 Mi. 0.06 Mi. 0.06 Mi. Sincerely, Leo E. Busser, III, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer TRANSPORTATION -- AMERICA'S LIFELINES HAROLD C. KING, COMMISSIONER LEONARD R. HALL, BRISTOL, BRI,gTO£ DA~;TRICT HORACE G~ I-RALIN, ROANOKE, SALEM DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 November 30, 1978 LEO E. BUSSER, III DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHIEF ENGINEER T. ASHBY NEWBY DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION J. M. WRAY, JR. DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS H. R. PERKINSON, JR. DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM MANAGEMEN'~ W.L. BRI'CI'LE, JR. DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING OSCAR K. MABRY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO Secondary System Additions Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors County of Chesterfield Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Gentlemen: As requested in your resolution dated August 23, 1978, the following additions to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County are hereby approved, effective December 1, 1978. ADDITIONS LENGTH ORCHARDHILL, SECTIONS 1 AND 2 Orchardhill Drive - Beginning at State Route 1971, thence northerly 0.20 mile to its intersection with Winterleaf Drive. 0.20 Mi. Winterleaf Drive - Beginning at Orchardhill Drive, thence westerly 0.06 mile to Springleaf Court, thence 0.06 mile to Winterleaf Court, thence 0.03 mile to a temporary turn- around. 0.15 Mi. Springleaf Court - Beginning at Winterleaf Drive, thence southerly 0.09 mile to a cul-de-sac. 0.09 Mi. Winterleaf Court - Beginning at Winterleaf Drive, thence southerly 0.15 mile to a cul-de-sac. 0.15 Mi. Sincerely, Leo E. Busser, III, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer TRANSPORTATION -- AMERICA'S LIFELINES i-1. 0 ~ o o d- q 0 co o m Ir' ~o ! r~ 0 0 0 ~ r~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 I-JO 0 <~ ~ 8 Ib°°°°°°°°°°° oooooooooooo IGO'.D 0'~0~ 0'~0 ~O.L~ O~P,) COCO kD 10-4 0 0 0 0 CX:)~q 0~-10 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 r0u~ oua 0 0 .-~. . 18 bobbboooooo B 00000000000 H H H I-: H ~-~ tj Ox---,] OkO Co-q ---,2 0~-~ RO U~ L~ COU~ O~ o coo 0',o,~ ~ o b IkO 70 0-~ H ',J} '-'-,] 0--1 r'o ObO 0 0 [--, ox k..rl RO ~ --q H O'x x.n Ox I--' '-p-- t-' x..O --q LO ko G% 1'0 xm -p"O kO r'Oxm Oxco 1--~~ C~ 0~ ~0 0 0 ',_,5 ~ r~.:. -~,1 0 ,%'I ct L~ c+ l--J IT) I'~ I'0 rO POP.) ~0 :'~ IX) IX) IBrO L.:O I~ PO PO PO [O J'O o 0 0 g.~ I · · o100 "~° o~ Il-.~uJ C'~bo ;o ",,.n PO OL~ 0 I000000000000 - jl~ 1~) 1.0 ~j ia t~) l_j H H p F i~_~ I~n ~--L0-~ O00~-~ lOXO ~-~:)~0 W 0 COLO PO 00 IDO I~moomo~oo~ lo-, o', o-, -~-',.~ o-, ~-- ~----~- t,o ~-u: I.~ :-~ .~ .~ ??.~ .o ?-.o co IO",ro 0 0 c",o 0 Po 0",0 0 C~CO coo,coo~c=~ ~ ~ o d- o -i~ 0 ~.0 ~0 0 0~ x.n D~' i'.0 xo O~ i-~ LO 00',,0 O0 rO 0 LO l-~,- I'0 I 0 0 I-~ lba -.,1 o--,1 ax P0 .-..1-quo o 0 I-., l-q -l~oguo~ ox-4 o C~ ax cokn lbo O~H 10-,1 x_n',,,.n -~O'xrO--q L..OL.~LO x.n 000'% tD -~ CO OX CD O~ IX.1 -q 0 --~ -~ Lo ICo FO k.~'-.O ',Jl(..o I-~ C~ Co'x.O I"0 PO IGC--,.,1 Ua ~ g.) (..o',.0 GO'-~O k.n CoxO ION--q P-~ 0-~1 -~ xO -~10\UO O~ o~ ~1~ o o 0 ~o o 4~ "0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 o c'~ h · -~ 1['9 t,,o L,o 0 [9 PO'..n ~ 0 I--~',.0 ---,~ oo o o O~ I~, co 0 0 t-~ t-~ o 0 ~ o ~> ~ 0 ~ ~ o ~ 0 ~ 0 0 7'0 © 0 HENRY L. MARSH, Iii MAYOR RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 2321~ December 8, 1978 The Honorable Iohn N. Dalton Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia State Capitol Richmond, Virginia Dear Governor Dalton: I have been advised that you have received a letter dated November 30, 1978 from Mr. EdwardG. Councill, acting as Executive Coordinator for the Richmond Crater V~rater Quality Planning Agency, requesting that you desig- nate this organization as the 208 Planning Agency for the Richmond tri-city areas. The City of Richmond and the adjacent jurisdictions of Henrico and Chesterfield oppose the establishment of this structure for the continuation of Water Quality Management for the region and I request that you delay action on the re- quest until this matter is clarified. I understand that the Environmental Protection Agency has or soon will request you to withdraw the Richmond Crater 208 designation so that the ~Arater Control Board will become responsible for such planning. ! also request that you refrain from acting on this proposal until the local governments have had the opportunity to reorganize their efforts. The Honorable John N. Page 2 December 8, 1978 Dalton I will see that you are kept advised of subsequent developments concerning these issues. Sincerely, Henry L. Marsh, III Mayor CC: ~'Mr. Merlin O'Neill, Sr., Chairman Board of Supervisors, Chesterfield County Mr. George W. Jtnklns, Jr., Chairman Board of Supervisors, Henrico County Mr. Robert V. Davis, Executive Secretary State Water Control Board Hon. Wayland W. Rennle, Member of Council City of Richmond