10-27-1993 Packet
-.
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page ~ of2..
Meeting Date:
(){'t()h~r 17, 1 QQ1
Item Number:
7.C.4.
Subject:
Set a public hearing to consider amendments to Section 19.1-8 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield relating to taxicab fares
County Administrator's Comments:
~~ fJMb/,'(., lJ.~vif'lJ .r.,. /1.;1.3-4',
County Administrator:
46R
BoardAction Requested:
Set a public hearing for November 23, 1993
Summary of Information:
The Richmond Regional Planning District Commission met on October 14 and voted to adopt the
taxicab meter rate changes recommended by the Capital Region Taxicab Advisory Board's
Operations and Rates Committee. The Committee conducted extensive research and had many
meetings with industry representatives regarding the appropriate meter rates. Due to increased
operating costs associated with, among other factors, insurance and fuel, the Committee
recommended that the following changes be made to the taxicab ordinance:
1. Restore the $.30 charge for additional passengers over six years old;
2. Increase the surcharge for trips beginning between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. from
$.50 to $1.00; and
3. Restore the $.30 delay charge while the cab is stopped or moving at a speed less than ten
miles per hour.
The Board of Supervisors has been asked by the RRPDC to set a public hearing to consider the
Pr::~::e~~. '_ L ~AJ Title: County Attorney
Steven L. Micas
Attachments:
. Yes
D
No
0700,5223.1(5220.1) I #
043
-,
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING
AND REENACTING SECTION 19.1-8 RELATING TO
TAXICABS AND OTHER VEHICLES FOR HIRE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County:
(1) That Section 19.1-8 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended,
is amended and reenacted to read as follows:
Sec. 19.1-8. Same--Enumerated: special discount for elderly passengers and disabled
passengers.
(a) The rates to be charged passengers by certificate holders or drivers of taxicabs
shall be as follows, and it shall be unlawful for a certificate holder to permit or a driver to
make any greater or lesser charge for the transportation of passengers and baggage:
For the first one-fifth mile .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $1.50
For each succeeding one-fifth mile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.30
For each one minute of waiting time .............................. 0.30
For each additional passenger over one (1) ........................ 0.30
Provided, that children six (6) years of age or younger, when accompanying a fare-
paying passenger. shall not be deemed additional passengers for the assessment of
such additional charges.
Waiting time shall include the time consumed while the taxicab is stopped or moving at a
speed less than ten (10) miles per hour, and the time consumed while the taxicab is waiting
for a passenger beginning five (5) minutes after the time of arrival at the place to which it
has been called and the time consumed while it is standing at the direction of the passenger.
Waiting time shall not include, and no charge shall be made for, the time lost on account
of inefficiency of the taxicab, or its operation, or time consumed by premature response to
a call. No charge shall be made for mileage while waiting time is being charged.
(b) For a trip originating between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the day
following, in addition to the charges registered on the meter, a surcharge of fifty cents
($0.50) one dollar ($1.00) per trip shall be added to compute the fare for such trip.
(c) The owner of any taxicab may, upon receipt of satisfactory proof that a person
is sixty-five (65) years of age or older, or disabled, issue to any such eligible person a coupon
book or script entitling such person to transportation and services of the value of five dollars
($5.00) for a consideration of not less than four dollars ($4.00). For purposes of eligibility
OAl
I_.! q
-
under this chapter, disabled persons include individuals who are physically, hearing,
mentally, or visually impaired. The following identification may serve as satisfactory proof
of age or disability: a valid driver's license; a valid GRTC Senior Citizens ID or Medicare
Card; a valid GR TC Handicapped or Disabled Identification Card; or a valid identification
card issued by a public transportation provider to meet the requirements of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
(d) The owner of any taxicab may enter into written contracts with organizations and
companies to provide taxicab services on a negotiated basis. The owner of any taxicab may
enter into written contracts with individuals to provide, on a negotiated basis, regular
service, as defined in section 19.1-1. All such contracts must be kept and preserved in the
main offices of the taxicab company during the terms of the contract and for twelve (12)
months after termination of the contract. The rates to be charged for such services under
written contract shall not be fixed, prescribed, or established by the board of supervisors.
As required by section 19.1-6, taximeters shall be in operation at all times during the
transportation of passengers; however, the charge for such services shall be governed by the
written contract, and not the taximeter.
(2) This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
0700:5220.1
046
-
,-
Meeting Date:
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
October 27, 1993
Page ~of j.
Item Number:
13.
Subject:
Resolution honoring H. Joseph Lewin,
General Manager, WRIC-TV Channel 8
County Administrator's Comments:
County Administrator:
~
BoardAction Req uested:
Summary of Information:
The Honorable Edward B. Barber, vice chairman of the
Board of Supervisors, and Midlothian District
Supervisor, has requested a Resolution commending
Mr. Lewin for his outstanding services to Chesterfield
County.
Deputy County Administrator
Title: for Human Services
Attachments:
D No
1#
098
.-
Resolution Honoring H, Joseph Lewin
General Manager of WRIC-TV Channel 8
WHEREAS, H. Joseph Lewin, General Manager for WRIC-TV
Channel 8 for the past nine years has accepted a new position as
Vice-President and General Manager of Baltimore's NBC affiliate
WMAR-TV; and
WHEREAS, this move will take him from 60th place in the
television market to the 22nd place in the television market in
the United States; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Lewin was instrumental in consolidating WRIC
business offices and television station, and in the construction
of a new and beautiful, State of the Art studio and relocating in
Chesterfield County in 1990; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Lewin has been a strong supporter of
Chesterfield County, as well as the entire Richmond and
Tri-Cities area, and is an active member of the Metro Richmond
Chamber of Commerce; and
WHEREAS, under his tenure, WRIC has been a strong supporter
of education, establishing a volunteer telethon for education,
instituting the Prom Promise program, promoting the Golden Apple
awards for teachers, serving as an active member of the education
committee, and being a part of the education initiative for
Project 2,000; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Lewin supported Ft. Lee and officials who
worked diligently to lobby the U. S. Department of Defense to
remove Ft. Lee from the base closure list; and
WHEREAS, more recently he took a leadership role in support
for the victims of Hurricane Andrew in Florida, flood victims in
the Mid-West, and organized a tornado relief telethon for the
victims of Petersburg; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Lewin is an active member of the Maternal and
Child Health Care Council, Teen Pregnancy Prevention; served as
past president of The Arts Council of Richmond, Inc.; is past
president of the Virginia Association of Broadcasters; First Vice
Chairman of the Better Business Bureau; served on the March of
Dimes Board; Virginia Commonwealth University, Mass
Communications Advisory Committee; is a founding member of
Greater Richmond Sports Backers; and board member for the
Virginia Blood Service.
NOW, THEREFORE~ BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield Board
of Supervisors does commend him for his outstanding services to
Chesterfield County and surrounding area and wish him well in his
new endeavors.
088
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page -L of-1:..
Meeting Date:
Octoher 27, 199:1
Item Number:
5.A.
Subject:
Work session to consider cat licensing and animal control issues
County Administrator's Comments:
County Administrator:
~
BoardAction Requested:
Summary of Information:
In 1993 the General Assembly adopted a statute authorizing localities to license cats in the same
manner as dogs. The County may now adopt an ordinance requiring cat owners to license their
cats annually for a fee of between $1 and $10.
On June 9, 1993, the Board requested staff to prepare a presentation examining (1) cat licensing
by other localities and (2) the response by the County to cats caught in trees.
Attached is a copy of a memorandum which presents the issues regarding cat licensing and cats
caught in trees.
Preparer: ~~IA.{) Title:
. Steven L. Micas
Attachments:
. Yes
D No
County Attorney
1000,5179.1 (5079.1;41'lr
001
-
Summary of Cat Licensing Ordinance
1. A locally adopted cat licensing ordinance would require licensing of every cat
annually
a. Unenforceable without requiring use of a collar
b. Licensing fee up to $10.00
c. Estimated 40,000 cats in County, compliance rate approximately 3,250 cats
2. First year's revenue at $5.00 per sterilized cat and $7.00 per unsterilized cat - $25,850
First year's cost - $209,400; subsequent year's cost $88,000
3. Advantages of a cat licensing ordinance:
a. Reduces rabies threat
b. Reduces stray cat population
c. Easier to return cat to owner
4. Disadvantages of a cat licensing ordinance:
a. Cost
b. Low compliance rate
c. Success requires marketing with public and staff enthusiasm
d. Increased workload for animal control
5. Animal Advisory group recommends:
a. Adoption of a cat licensing ordinance
b. Expanding cost differential between sterilized and non-sterilized animals
c. Permitting five "companion" animals by amending the zoning ordinance
d. State legislation to permit sterilization after pet has been picked up by animal
control three times
6. Cats caught in trees:
a. Neither police nor fire believe that rescuing cats is an appropriate public
safety function
b. Neither Richmond, Hanover nor Hemico send the Animal Control or the Fire
Department to rescue cats
1000:5079.1(4752.1)
-1-
002
-
7. County Administrator recommendations:
a. Do not adopt a cat licensing ordinance
b. Do not require Animal Control or the Fire Department to rescue cats caught
in trees
c. Increase differential licensing fee for unsterilized pets through a 1994/95
budget recommendation
1000:5079.1(4752.1)
-2-
003
COUN'lY OF
CHESTERFIELD
VIRGINIA
MEMO
TO:
Steven L. Micas, County Attorney
FROM:
Lisa C. Dewey, Assistant County Attorney
DATE:
October 19, 1993
RE:
Local ordinance requiring the licensing of cats
On June 9, 1993, the Board requested staff to prepare a presentation (1) examining cat
licensing by localities and (2) the response to cats caught in trees.
In 1993, the General Assembly enacted legislation which allows localities to regulate cats
in the same manner as dogs. Because of that change, the County may now adopt a cat licensing
ordinance in which a cat owner would be required to obtain a license for any cat four months old
or older and the County could charge a license tax of up to $10 each year.
I. Background
Animal organizations estimate that the number of cats owned nationwide has increased and
may outnumber dogs. The American Veterinary Medical Association estimates that 31% of
households own cats and that each of those households owns approximately two cats. (Using these
statistics, it is estimated that over 40,000 cats are owned in Chesterfield.) Every year, a large
number of people are scratched or bitten by cats and may be exposed to rabies or other diseases.
Cats may contract rabies from wild animals such as raccoons, skunks and bats because of their
propensity to roam and hunt, and infected cats are likely to come into contact with humans. In
several states, rabies in cats is reaching near epidemic levels. Nationwide, the cat has surpassed
the dog as the primary domestic carrier of rabies: 212 cats were confirmed rabid in 1989 versus
160 dogs. Experts contend that the number of dogs contracting rabies has significantly decreased
004
-
-
Steven L. Micas
October 19, 1993
over the last 30 years due to dog licensing and restraint laws, laws which traditionally have
not applied to cats.
In Chesterfield County, three rabid cats have been reported since 1990 but no rabid
dogs have been reported. The rabies problem is most acute in Enon, where all three of the
rabid cats were found. Just recently, an Enon man was attacked by a rabid cat and was
given rabies treatments. Statewide, cats are more likely to carry rabies than dogs. In 1993,
eleven cats have been reported with rabies compared with only three dogs, according to Dr.
Suzanne Jenkins, a veterinarian with Virginia's Department of Agriculture. Furthermore,
40% of rabid cats are strays. Dr. Jenkins also pointed out that cats are the major carriers
of toxoplasmosis and cats carrying this disease may threaten the lives of unborn babies and
people with compromised immune systems. Supporters of the cat licensing requirement
believe it will reduce the number of rabid cats and the number of strays, thus improving
public health and safety.
Present law requires that cats receive rabies vaccinations, but enforcement is difficult
because cats are not required to wear tags or be restrained. Thus, Animal Control cannot
pick up cats merely because they are loose or are not wearing a rabies tag. Supporters of
a licensing request believe that it will provide localities with a tool for enforcing the rabies
requirements since proof of a rabies vaccination is required to obtain a license. However,
enforcement may be hampered under the new legislation because it does not require cats
to wear the license tag or to be restrained. Because it is often difficult to locate a cat's
owner or determine whether a cat is stray, this problem will continue unless cats are
required to wear collars. Richmond City Council has attempted to solve this problem by
enacting a cat licensing ordinance which requires a cat to wear a collar, despite complaints
by cat owners that this practice is dangerous. The ordinance does provide that cats may
wear break away collars which break apart if a cat becomes entangled.
Most experts dispute that it is dangerous for a cat to wear a collar. In fact, neither the
Humane Society of the United States nor the American Human Association have any
records of a cat strangling itself from wearing a collar. Such a requirement also allows
animal control to return a cat to its owner in the event it is picked up or brought to a
shelter. The current nationwide redemption rate for cats, which are traditionally unlicensed,
is 2%. (In Chesterfield the redemption rate is estimated to be much lower, about 5 cats a
year out of 1,763 handled.) However, the nationwide rate for dogs, which are traditionally
licensed, is 25% - 30%. (The redemption rate for dogs in Chesterfield is about 24%.) In
the Charlotte/Mecklenburg area, cat licensing has increased the cat redemption rate from
1 every 3 months to 30 - 60 per month.
One goal of the law is to encourage sterilization by providing for differential licensing
fees. This has been effective for dogs in other areas of the country where the differential
2
005
.-,
Steven L. Micas
October 19, 1993
is fairly large. (In Chesterfield, the cost of a license for a sterilized dog is $5.00 and $7.00
for an unsterilized dog. Such a differential is not wide enough to effectively encourage pet
sterilization in Chesterfield. In fact, of the 10,835 dogs licensed to date in 1993, 4,521 were
unsterilized and 6,314 were sterilized.) Some individuals want to see cat owners contribute
to animal control, an area traditionally financed by dog owners. Experience with dog and
cat licensing in other jurisdiction indicates that the goals of cat licensing are attainable.
II. Present County Law
Under the present law, Chesterfield Animal Control only investigates complaints of cat
bites and scratches and quarantines the offending cats. In 1993, 89 cat bites and scratches
have been reported. Animal Control does not pick up abandoned, stray or wild cats but it
will accept them from citizens and keep them for at least five days. It will investigate
reports of injured, sick or dangerous cats. The Animal Control supervisor, Don Rose,
indicated that he receives complaints on a daily basis ranging from cats killing wild animals
and rummaging through trash cans to leaving footprints on cars. Lacking statutory authority
to pick up cats , Animal Control does not investigate these complaints.
Dog licenses may be purchased from the Treasurer or from 12 local substations. (The
substations receive a commission for each license sold.) Information on dog licensing
requirements is included annually in the County water bill but otherwise little advertising
is done. License renewals are not sent through the mail. The Treasurer's Office predicts
that the licensing revenue generated by mail renewals and increased advertising would not
cover the costs. Presumably, if a cat licensing ordinance is adopted, these same policies
would apply to cats.
Animal Control handled approximately 3,786 dogs last year and 1,763 cats. Fifty
percent or 1,905 of the dogs were euthanized and sixty-eight percent or 1,207 cats were
euthanized. (Nationwide statistics indicate that animal control organizations euthanize 63%
of the dogs and 81 % of the cats handled.) Animal Control has limited space for cats even
though 20 cat cages were recently purchased. Additional cages would be required if this
ordinance is adopted. Animal Control charges an adoption fee of $10 and a redemption fee
of $30 for the first day and $12 for each additional day for dogs, but allows cats to be
adopted or reclaimed for free.
3
006
Steven L. Micas
October 19, 1993
III. Laws in Other Jurisdictions
A. Wytheville, Virginia
Other jurisdictions have enacted ordinances requiring cats to be licensed. The
town of Wytheville in southwest Virginia adopted such an ordinance prior to the enactment
of the enabling legislation by the General Assembly. Steve Moore, assistant town manager,
indicated that the town council had received a large number of complaints from home
owners regarding their neighbors' cats which left footprints on their cars and dug in their
shrubs. Some people complained that neighbors kept a large number of cats in their homes.
The town ordinance was enacted earlier this year and requires cats to be licensed upon
proof of a rabies vaccination.
Mr. Moore indicated that people opposed the ordinance for a variety of reasons.
Many people in rural areas maintain cats in their barns to control the mice population and
were opposed to a tax for these cats. As a result, farm cats were exempted from the
licensing requirement. Other complaints came from people who did not want to pay a tax
on their cats, especially the elderly. Furthermore, many people complained that it would
be dangerous to require cats to wear collars. (The Wytheville ordinance does prohibit
unlicensed cats from rumIing at large.) Additionally, people complained that this is another
example of "big government" interfering in private affairs. Mr. Moore said that Wytheville
Animal Control was also concerned about capturing and housing wild cats but has captured
very few cats since the ordinance was adopted. Those cats are housed in a veterinarian's
kennel and the owner is charged a housing fee. However, the animal warden has been able
to give most of the unclaimed cats to local farmers. Mr. Moore said that many people have
purchased licenses and the number of complaints regarding cats has declined. He is
unaware of any effect this ordinance has had on the stray cat population or on rabies
control.
B. Richmond. Virginia
The City of Richmond recently enacted an ordinance but it will not be enforced
until after January 1, 1994. Richmond has hired an animal control consultant, Tom
Reardon, who is embarking on a project to streamline Richmond's ordinances, improve
enforcement and educate the public. Reardon is in favor of the cat licensing ordinance
because it could reduce the threat of rabies and provide increased revenue. Reardon
indicated that City Council adopted the ordinance without much input or complaint from
citizens. One unique feature of the Richmond ordinance is the requirement that cats wear
collars. The authority for this requirement is tenuous, but the City Attorney's office believes
that it follows from the requirement that cats be licensed. Since this program is new,
statistics are unavailable.
4
aD''
-,
Steven L. Micas
October 19, 1993
C. Fort Wayne, Indiana
Pursuant to information provided by the Humane Society of the United States,
over 45 localities across the country have enacted cat licensing requirements and the number
is growing. Some of these jurisdictions have been contacted about their progress and the
reviews are mixed. Essentially, those programs which contain comprehensive terms and
which are properly funded and advertised are more successful. For example, in Fort Wayne,
Indiana, cats have been licensed for about a decade. Belinda Compton, the director of
animal control, has enacted a successful, comprehensive program which emphasizes
education, enforcement and sterilization. The ordinance was enacted to reduce the number
of stray pets in Fort Wayne. Fort Wayne has successfully reduced the number of unwanted
dogs and cats through a differential licensing program which charges $4 for a sterilized pet
and $25 for an unsterilized one. Low cost spay and neuter clinics are also offered. Fort
Wayne has instituted a program requiring a $100 breeder permit for individuals that allow
their pet to have more than one litter per year, whether intentional or not. A minor
breeder is one whose pet has one litter per year and he must obtain a permit for $40.
These methods have helped reduce the number of unwanted pets in Fort Wayne. In fact,
between 1972 and 1992, Fort Wayne's human population decreased by 3% while the number
of animals received and euthanized by animal control dropped 41%. Also, in 1988, four
sterilized pets were licensed for every non-sterilized pet, but in 1992, the number increased
to 6.7 sterilized pets for every non-sterilized pet.
Because of the high licensing fee, few people voluntarily license their pets, thus
requiring increased enforcement. Two officers spend two days a week going door to door
tracking down unlicensed cats. If one is found, the owner is not given a warning ticket, but
is fined for the first violation. Fort Wayne also requires that all animals, including cats,
wear tags and be confined on the owner's property at all times. (Charlotte, N.C., uses a
different approach. It has a nuisance law which requires a cat owner to rectify any problems
caused by his cat. Typically, this means the owner will have to keep his cat inside.)
Fort Wayne handles the stray and wild cat problem by allowing citizen's to rent
a humane trap to catch the strays. Animal Control will pick up any cats that are trapped.
This arrangement saves time for animal control officers but helps insure that trapped
animals will be supervised and reported quickly.
Fort Wayne aggressively advertises the licensing law by putting notices in water
bills, advertising on the radio and producing a newsletter. License tags are easily accessible-
-the license may be purchased from veterinarians. In 1988, 11,379 tags were sold generating
$60,916 in revenue. Of these, 8,604 were for dogs and 2,775 were for cats. In 1992, 13,874
tags were sold generating $80,458. Of these, 10,426 were for dogs and 3,450 were for cats.
5
008
-
-
Steven L. Micas
October 19, 1993
D. Charlotte, N.C.
Charlotte's program has also met with some success, especially in the number of
cats returned to their owners. The requirement that cats wear tags increases the likelihood
that they will be returned to their owners.
E. Montgomery County, Maryland
Other jurisdictions have not had the success that Fort Wayne and Charlotte enjoy.
For example, in Montgomery County, Maryland, a cat licensing law was enacted in 1984.
Montgomery County has a population of approximately 675,000 people. Animal control
estimates that 70,000 households own cats, but only 10,395 cats were licensed in fiscal year
1993. It is estimated that 98,000 dogs live in Montgomery County and 28,105 were licensed
in 1993. As for the stray pet problem, a recently enacted law requires that if a pet is picked
up three times, it will be sterilized at the owner's expense. The license fee for unsterilized
pets will be increased and breeder's permits will be required for pregnant pets.
Montgomery County utilizes a trap system for wild cats, similar to the one used by Fort
Wayne.
According to one of the animal control officers, Paul Hibler, the licensing law has
not been enforced. He cites lack of funds, lack of manpower and ineffective enforcement
tools. Funds are scarce because the county has usurped the revenue that is generated by
licensing for other purposes. Enforcement is all but impossible because cats are not
required to wear tags and they can run at large. Hibler indicated that the compliance
numbers could improve if additional funds were available.
F. Prince Georges County, Maryland
Prince Georges, Maryland has a similar cat licensing requirement which requires
cats to wear a tag. In Prince Georges, 15,125 dogs were licensed in 1992, while only 2,906
cats were licensed. In contrast, 5,287 cats were picked up by animal control and 5,840 dogs
were. The licensing ordinance has not improved cat redemption, only 68 cats were
reclaimed out of 5,287. Prince Georges utilizes a wild cat trap system similar to Fort
Wayne's and also allows license renewals through the mail. Although Prince Georges'
Animal Control officer indicated that it does have a cat rabies problem, the licensing
ordinance has not been effective due to a lack of funding and manpower. In regard to
revenue, the monies receIved year to date from Prince Georges' licensing program, adoption
fees and rabies shots is about $240,000 compared to a 1993 operating budget of $1.4 million.
6
009
Steven L. Micas
October 19, 1993
VI. Reaction of Chesterfield Animal Control EducationaI/ Advisory Committee
One citizen's group, the Chesterfield Animal Control Educationalj Advisory Committee
has studied this issue and has adopted a resolution recommending adoption of a cat
licensing ordinance. The committee also recommended that the licensing fee for dogs and
cats be changed to $10 for unsterilized pets and $3 for sterilized pets. In addition, the
committee has recommended that the County adopt a provision defining certain pets,
including dogs and cats, as companion animals and amending the County zoning ordinance
to allow five companion animals per family. (Presently, in order to keep three or more
dogs, a family must obtain a special exception at a cost of $985 plus $20 per acre. There
is no limit to the number of cats that a family can own.) Finally, the committee has
requested that the County propose legislation permitting Animal Control to sterilize pets
caught running at large for the third time.
VII. Projected Costs and Revenue
In most jurisdictions polled, the number of cats licensed equals about 30% of the
number of dogs licensed. In Chesterfield between November 1, 1992 and September 30,
1993, 10,835 dogs were licensed (between November 1, 1991 and October 31, 1992, 10,791
dogs were licensed); therefore, it is estimated that 3,250 cats will be licensed. Of the dogs
licensed in 1993, 4,521, or 40% of the total, were unsterilized and 6,314, or 60% of the total,
were sterilized.
8
O 1 "
..i;J.
Steven L. Micas
October 19, 1993
-
The following is a breakdown of estimated costs and revenue associated with cat
licensing:
Subsequent
Costs:
Animal Control
Salaries for two new Deputy Wardens
(This includes all associated
equipment)
Administrative Support
(A part-time, 1/2 time, senior clerk
typist/receptionist)
Kennelmaster Support
(A part-time, 1/2 time,
kennelmaster)
Administrative Equipment & Supplies
(A mIcro computer and office
supplies)
Cat Cages (20)
Cat Traps (45)
Building Addition - a 700 to 1,000 square
foot addition (cost estimate provided
by Construction Management Office,
Jerry Duffy)
Subtotal for Animal Control:
Treasurer
Administrative support (1/3 time)
License tags
Commissions to substations
Subtotal for Treasurer:
TOTAL
First Year
Years
$123,000
$62,000
$ 9,500
$ 9,500
$ 8,200
$ 8,200
$ 5,500
$ 500
$ 10,000
$ 400
$ 45,000
$201.600
$80,200
$ 7,000
$ 300
$ 500
$ 7,000
$ 300
$ 500
$ 7.800
$209 .400
$ 7,800
$88,000
9
012
-
Steven L. Micas
October 19, 1993
Revenue
Cat licenses
(Assumes 3,250 cats will be licensed with 40% of the
licenses sold for $5 ($6,500) and 60% sold for $7 ($13,650)
$20,150
Cat adoption fees:
(If instituted at $10; figure reflects 550 cats adopted last
year)
$ 5,500
Cat redemption fees:
(If instituted at $30 for first 24 hours and $12 for each
additional day as is done for dogs)
$ 200
Breeder permits
(If instituted)
$ undetermined
TOTAL
$25.850
It is clear that a considerable financial commitment will be necessary in order to begin an
effective cat licensing program. Over $200,000 will have to be earmarked the first year with
only $25,850 projected as revenue. The costs decrease the second year, but are still
considerably higher than the projected revenue. However, if an effective program is to be
created, experience from other jurisdictions indicates that this type of financial commitment
is crucial.
VIII. Recommendations:
Based on the experiences of other jurisdictions, both Animal Control and the public
must be in favor of a cat licensing ordinance for it to be effective. Because of the expense
of such a program, it should not be considered unless it can be properly funded. Funds
must be earmarked for training, education and enforcement. Cat licensing must be part of
a comprehensive plan designed to educate the public about unwanted pets and the risk of
rabies in unvaccinated cats. The licensing requirement could be promoted as improving
health and safety and as a method by which cat owners can recover their pets. Unless cats
are required to wear collars, they will not be returned to their owners and the ordinance
cannot effectively be enforced.
Additional advertising techniques should be used such as public service announcements
and flyers in order to advise people of the law. Low cost options could be pursued in order
10
01J
Steven L. Micas
October 19, 1993
to keep costs down. This type of advertising could also be used to notify the public of the
availability of pets for adoption. In that regard, Animal Control can encourage the adoption
of cat pairs, a potentially successful approach since cat owners are likely to own more than
one cat. The goals of licensing could be met more effectively by encouraging more
veterinarians to sell licenses, allowing license renewals through the mail, increasing the
license fee for unsterilized cats and charging adoption and redemption fees for cats. A
nuisance law should be considered which would allow Animal Control to take action against
irresponsible cat owners. To help reduce the population of unwanted and feral cats, which
may be more readily exposed to rabies, spay and neuter clinics, breeder's permits and a
rental trap program for wild cats should be considered. However, the program will not be
successful unless it is effectively enforced which will require increased funding, proper
training, additional manpower and additional housing for cats. Without a commitment by
the public and Animal Control and an effective enforcement plan, a cat licensing program
will not succeed.
The County Administrator recommends that the Board take no action to adopt a cat
licensing ordinance.
IX. Cats Cau~bt in Trees
The Board also expressed concern about whether or not the Chesterfield County Fire
Department is sent to rescue cats caught in trees. Both the Fire Department and Animal
Control refuse to send out rescue teams for cats caught in trees. Occasionally, the Fire
Department has released cats caught in other places such as storm sewers. Such rescues
take place rarely, possibly one or two times a year.
Chief Eanes has indicated that the Fire Department has not sent rescue teams for cats
since he joined the department in 1966. He understands that prior to that time, when the
County used an all-volunteer fire department, firefighters attempted to rescue cats.
However, one cat attacked a firefighter and severely scratched his head and another cat
climbed back up the tree after being rescued. These problems illustrate the danger and the
futility associated with rescuing a cat. In addition, Chief Eanes is concerned with sending
out valuable and expensive rescue equipment to rescue a cat and is concerned that a citizen
who is in need of fire service may be deprived if firefighters and engines are tied up with
cats. For these reasons, Chief Eanes is adamantly opposed to sending firefighters to rescue
cats.
Firefighters in Richmond, Hanover and Henrico refuse to rescue cats for the same
reasons cited by Chief Eanes. In Hanover, firefighters used to rescue cats, but an officer
was badly scratched about ten years ago and the practice was discontinued.
11
01'.1
-
Steven L. Micas
October 19, 1993
Don Rose has said that Animal Control does not have the proper equipment to rescue
cats. Rose is also concerned with the danger to Animal Control officers of falling from a
tree or being attacked by a cat. In his experience, a cat will eventually come down from a
tree and he advises citizens to put some food below the tree to entice the cat down.
Animal Control officers in Richmond and Henrico also indicated that they will not
send out officers to rescue cats and they advise citizens to put food out and wait.
The County Administrator recommends that the Board take no action to require
Animal Control or the Fire Department to rescue cats caught in trees.
1000:4752.1(5079.1)
12
015
-
CAT LICENSING
I. 1993 GENERAL ASSEMBLY AUTHORIZED LOCALITIES TO
LICENSE CATS IN THE SAME MANNER AS DOGS
A. PROOF OF RABIES VACCINATION REQUIRED FOR
ISSUANCE OF LICENSE
B, CATS FOUR MONTHS OR OLDER WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO BE LICENSED ANNUALLY
C. STATE STATUTE AUTHORIZES A LICENSING FEE
DIFFERENTIAL OF BETWEEN $1 ,00 AND $10,00
1 . COUNTY ORDINANCE PROVIDES A LICENSE FEE
OF $5,00 FOR STERILIZED DOGS; $7,00 FOR
UNSTERILlZED DOGS
2, DOG LICENSES CAN BE PURCHASED AT
SUBSTATIONS WITHIN THE COUNTY
D. DOGS ARE REQUIRED BY STATUTE TO WEAR
LICENSE; CATS ARE NOT
1 , RICHMOND AND VIRGINIA BEACH REQUIRE
CATS TO WEAR COLLARS BEARING LICENSE
TAGS
2, ORDINANCE WILL BE EASIER TO ENFORCE IF
CATS ARE REQUIRED TO WEAR COLLARS
1000:5266.1 1
-
II. ANIMAL CONTROL POLICIES
A, ANIMAL CONTROL ONLY INVESTIGATES
COMPLAINTS OF CAT BITES; IT DOES NOT
INVESTIGATE OTHER TYPES OF C~)MPLAINTS OR
PICK UP ABANDONED, STRAY OR WILD CATS
B, DOGS ARE PROHIBITED FROM RUNNING AT LARGE,
CATS ARE NOT
C, ANIMAL CONTROL REQUIRES DOG OWNERS TO PAY
A FEE TO OBTAIN THEIR DOG FROM ANIMAL
CONTROL OR TO ADOPT; CAT OWNERS OR
PURCHASERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PAY A FEE
D, ANIMAL CONTROL EUTHANIZES APPROXIMATELY
50% OF THE DOGS AND 68% OF THE CATS THAT
IT HANDLES
1000:5266.1
2
-
III. GOALS OF LEGISLATION
A. REDUCE RABIES IN CATS
1, NATIONWIDE THE CAT HAS SURPASSED THE
DOG AS THE PRIMARY DOMESTIC CARRIER OF
RABIES; EXPERTS CONTEND THAT LICENSING
AND RESTRAINT LAWS HAVE REDUCED THE
NUMBER OF RABID DOGS OVER THE LAST 30
YEARS
2. THREE RABID CATS IN CHESTERFIELD SINCE
1990 - NO RABID DOGS
B, REDUCE NUMBER OF STRAYS AND WILD CATS.
THIS ORDINANCE COULD PROVIDE ANIMAL
CONTROL WITH AUTHORITY TO PICK UP STRAYS
C. ALLOWS ANIMAL CONTROL TO INVESTIGATE CAT
COMPLAINTS
D. ENCOURAGES STERILIZATION THROUGH
DIFFERENTIAL LICENSING FEES
E, IF LICENSE TAGS ARE WORN, ALLOWS MORE CATS
TO BE RETURNED TO OWNERS
F, CAT OWNERS WILL BE CONTRIBUTING TO ANIMAL
CONTROL COSTS AS DOG OWNERS HAVE
TRADITIONALLY DONE
1000:5266.1 3
-
IV. DISADVANTAGES OF CAT LICENSING
A, EXPENSIVE TO IMPLEMENT AND ENFORCE
B. LOW COMPLIANCE RATE; EXPECT 3,250 CATS TO
BE LICENSED OUT OF APPROXIMA TEL Y 40,000 IN
CHESTERFIELD
C, SUCCESS REQUIRES COMMITMENT BY ANIMAL
CONTROL AND CITIZENS
D, INCREASED WORKLOAD FOR ANIMAL CONTROL
E. NEED ADDITIONAL FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND
HOUSING FOR CATS
F. CITIZENS WILL PROTEST THAT ITS DANGEROUS
FOR CATS TO WEAR COLLARS, A CLAIM WHICH
EXPERTS DISPUTE
G, CITIZENS WILL OPPOSE A NEW TAX
H, CITIZENS MA Y BE UNWILLING TO LICENSE AND
VACCINATE "NEIGHBORHOOD" CATS THAT ARE
MOST LIKELY TO BECOME INFECTED WITH RABIES
1000:5266.1
4
-
-
v . CAT LICENSING IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS:
A. WYTHEVILLE
,~
1 . ENACTED DUE TO LARGE NUMBER OF
COMPLAINTS; SINCE ENACTMENT
COMPLAINTS HAVE DECREASED
2, EXCLUDES CATS ON FARMS FROM LICENSING
REQUIREMENTS
3, PROHIBITS UNLICENSED CATS FROM RUNNING
AT LARGE
4, CITIZENS COMPLAINED ABOUT INCREASED
TAX, GOVERNMENT ENTANGLEMENT IN
PRIVATE AFFAIRS, DANGER OF CATS WEARING
COLLARS
B. RICHMOND
1, HIRED ANIMAL CONTROL CONSULTANT TO
STREAMLINE ANIMAL ORDINANCES
2, CONSULTANT EXPECTS REDUCTION IN RABIES
Ar}JD INCREASE IN REVENUE FROM ORDINANCE
WHICH BECOMES EFFECTIVE 1/1/94
3, CATS REQUIRED TO WEAR COLLARS
4, VERY LITTLE CITIZEN OPPOSITION
1000:5266.1 5
,-
-
(cat licensing/other jurisdictions - cont'd)
C. VIRGINIA BEACH
1 , RECENTLY ENACTED A CAT LICENSING
ORDINANCE WHICH TREATS CATS IN THE
SAME MANNER AS DOGS
a, CATS MUST WEAR LICENSE TAGS
b, CATS CANNOT RUN AT LARGE
2, STRONG SPCA SUPPORT FOR CAT LICENSING
ORDINANCE
D. FORT WAYNE, INDIANA
1 , COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ENACTED TO REDUCE
STRAY CAT POPULATION; EMPHASIZES
EDUCATION, ENFORCEMENT AND
STERILlZA TION
2, REDUCED NUMBER OF STRAYS THROUGH
LICENSING DIFFERENTIAL. ($25.00 FOR
U~STERILlZED, $4,00 FOR STERILIZED PETS)
THROUGH SPAY AND NEUTER CLINICS AND
THROUGH BREEDER PERMITS
3, AGGRESSIVE ENFORCEMENT AND EFFECTIVE
ADVERTISING PROGRAMS
4. PETS MUST WEAR LICENSE TAGS AND BE
CONFINED ON OWNERS' PREMISES
1000:5266.1 6
-,
5, CITIZENS CAN RENT TRAPS TO CATCH WILD
CATS
6, 1992: 10,426 DOG LICENSES SOLD,
3,450 CAT LICENSES SOLD
E, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
1 , 28,105 DOGS LICENSED IN 1993
10,395 CATS LICENSED
2, LACK OF FUNDS, MANPOWER AND
ENTHUSIASM HAMPERS ENFORCEMENT
3, CATS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO WEAR TAGS
AND CAN RUN AT LARGE, FURTHER
HAMPERING ENFORCEMENT
4, CITIZENS CAN RENT TRAPS TO CATCH WILD
CATS
5, ANTICIPATED CHANGES: INCREASE LICENSING
DIFFERENTIAL AND INSTITUTE A BREEDER'S
PERMIT SYSTEM
6, R~CENTLY ENACTED LAW ALLOWS ANIMAL
CONTROL TO STERILIZE AT OWNER'S EXPENSE
ANY PET PICKED UP THREE TIMES
1000:5266.1 7
-
F. PRINCE GEORGES, MARYLAND
1 , 15, 125 DOGS LICENSED IN 1992,
2,906 CATS LICENSED
2, LICENSING ORDINANCE INEFFECTIVE DUE TO
LACK OF FUNDS AND MANPOWER
3. ANIMAL CONTROL'S BUDGET WAS 1 .4 MILLION
FOR 1993; IT COLLECTED $240,000 FROM ALL
SOURCES, INCLUDING LICENSES.
4, CITIZENS CAN RENT TRAPS TO CATCH WILD
CATS
1000:5266.1 8
-
-
VI. STAFF REACTION
A. CONCERNED THAT NECESSARY FUNDS WON'T BE
AVAILABLE
B, CONCERNED ABOUT NEED FOR ADDITIONAL
PERSONNEL AND TRAINING TO DEAL WITH CATS
C, CONCERNED WITH DANGER OF CATCHING STRAY
OR WILD CATS
D, CONCERNED ABOUT LACK OF SPACE TO HOUSE
CATS
E, CONCERNED THAT CITIZENS \^JILL RESPOND
NEGATIVELY TO A NEW TAX
1000:5266.1 9
--
-
VII. CHESTERFIELD ANIMAL CONTROL
EDUCA TIONAll ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
A, REQUESTS THAT CAT LICENSING ORDINANCE BE
ADOPTED
B. REQUESTS THAT LICENSING DIFFERENTIAL BE
INCREASED - $3,00 FOR STERILIZED PETS AND
$10,00 FOR UNSTERILlZED PETS
C. REQUESTS THAT ORDINANCE BE ADOPTED TO
ALLOW FAMILIES TO KEEP FIVE COMPANION
ANIMALS AND TO DEFINE COMPANION ANIMALS
TO INCLUDE DOGS AND CATS (PRESENTLY, A
FAMILY MUST OBTAIN A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AT A
COST OF $985 TO KEEP THREE OR MORE DOGS -
NO LIMIT ON CATS)
D. REQUESTS THAT COUNTY PROPOSE LEGISLATION
PERMITTING ANIMAL CONTROL TO STERILIZE ANY
ANIMAL CAUGHT RUNNING AT LARGE FOR THE
THIRD TIME
1000:5266.1
10
.-.
-
VIII. PROJECTED COSTS AND REVENUE
A. THE NUMBER OF CATS LICENSED EQUALS ABOUT
30% OF THE NUMBER OF DOGS LICENSED IN MOST
JURISDICTIONS
B. PROJECTED COSTS FOR THE nRST YEAR -
$ 209,400
PROJECTED COSTS FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS -
$88,000
PROJECTED REVENUE = $25,850
1000:5266.1
11
-
-
IX. RECOMMENDATIONS
A, FOR LICENSING TO BE EFFECTIVE, MUST HAVE
MONETARY COMMITMENT, INCREASED
ADVERTISING AND ENFORCEMENT, AND
ENTHUSIASM FROM ANIMAL CONTROL AND
CITIZENS
B. OTHER MEASURES TO CONSIDER: RENEW LICENSES
THROUGH THE MAIL, ENCOURAGE MORE
VETERINARIANS TO SELL LICENSES, CHARGE
ADOPTION AND REDEMPTION FEES FOR CATS,
OFFER SPAY AND NEUTER CLINICS, REQUIRE
BREEDER'S PERMITS AND UTILIZE A RENTAL TRAP
PROGRAM
C. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOf'/IMENDS THAT
THE BOARD TAKE NO ACTION TO ADOPT A CAT
LICENSING ORDINANCE
D. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECO!~lIMENDS THAT
THE LICENSING FEE FOR UNSTERlllZED PETS BE
INCREASED THROUGH A 1994/95 BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
1000:5266.1
12
(
-
.-
x. CATS CAUGHT IN TREES
A, NEITHER CHESTERFIELD, RICHMOND, HENRICO NOR
HANOVER SEND RESCUE PERSONNEL FOR CATS
CAUGHT IN TREES
B, LOCALITIES THAT ONCE RESCUED CATS HAVE
DISCONTINUED THE SERVICE
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT IS CONCERNED THAT OFFICERS
MAY BE INJURED BY CATS AND THAT CITIZENS
MAY BE DEPRIVED OF FIRE EQUIPMENT IN
EMERGENCIES
D. ANIMAL CONTROL IS CONCERNED 'NITH LACK OF
TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT AND W~TH DANGER TO
PERSONNEL FROM CLIMBING TREES AND CATCHING
CATS
E, CAT OWNERS ARE ADVISED TO PUT FOOD BELOW
TREE AND WAIT - CATS WILL COME DOWN
F, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDS THAT
THE BOARD TAKE NO ACTION TO REQUIRE THE FIRE
DEPAR~MENT OR ANIMAL CONTROL TO RESCUE
CATS
1000:5266.1 13
-,
The following is a breakdown of estimated costs and
revenue associated with cat licensing:
Costs:
Animal Control
Salaries for two new Deputy
Wardens
(This includes all
associated equipment)
Administrative Support
(A part-time, 1/2 time,
senior clerk
typist/receptionist)
Kennelmaster Support
(A part-time, 1/2 time,
kennelmaster)
Administrative Equipment &
Supplies
(A micro computer and
office supplies)
Cat Cages (20)
Cat Traps (45)
Building Addition - a 700 to
1 ,000 square Foot addition;
(cost estimate provided by
Construction Management
Office, Jerry Duffy)
Subtotal for Animal Control:
1000:5266.1
First Year
$123,000
$ 9,500
$ 8,200
$ 5,500
$ 10,000
$ 400
$ 45,000
$201.600
Subsequent
Years
$62,000
$ 9,500
$ 8,200
$ 500
$80.200
14
Treasurer
Cat licenses
(Assumes 3,250 cats will be licensed
with 40 % of the licenses sold for $ 5
($6,500) and 600/0 sold for $7
($13,650)
Cat adoption fees:
(If instituted at $10; figure reflects 550
cats adopted last year)
Cat redemption fees:
(If instituted at $30 for first 24 hours
and $1 2 for each additional day as is
done for dOg]s)
Breeder permits
(if instituted)
TOTAL
1000:5266.1
--
$20,150
$ 5,500
$ 200
undetermined
$25,850
15
./
-,
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page -L of -L
Meeting Date:
october 27, 1993
Item Number:
S.B.
Subject:
Work Session Regarding the Chamber of Commerce's Report on
Richmond Metropolitan Area Potable Water Supply and Demand
Review and the National Resource Defense Council Report on
Drinking Water Quality in the United states
County Administrator's Comments:
County Administrator: ~
Board Action Requested:
Summary of Information:
The utilities Department will comment on the Richmond Metropolitan Area
Potable Water Supply and Demand Review, prepared for the Metropolitan
Richmond Chamber of Commerce, as it relates to the County future water
supply plans.
Information will also be provided on the quality of the County's drinking
water as it relates to the report recently released by the National
Resources Defense Council concerning the quality of the nations drinking
water.
Preparer:
Title:
Director of utilities
Bryant /<(...(
#
OlS I
Attachments:
DYes _NO
.-
-
Z I ~~
:D 00- 0:> 0
OSr-+::r
o ~ ~ 3
'< 000
:D 0 C :J
CD -+."u 0..
"0 :D '"2. s:
o <D'<<D
::l. CQ. 0> ~
o 0 :J 0
:J :J 0..-0
o~og
:::!. 0 <D or
::J 0 3 ::J
;:s:oO>)>
:J "U ~
(Q CD ....J ~
~ 0.. CD
~ a :D 0>
0:> -- CD -u
.-+ 0 < 0
CD :J --r-+
~ CD 0:>
o :E Q:
c CD
0:>
-
--
r-+
'<
o
::T
CD
en
r-+
~o
-. CD
~-o
0.0)
0=:1-
o 3
c CD
o ::J ::J
(") ...... ......
...... '< 0
oOJ-h
c-oe
~ Ol ~
~ =:
J\)o..~
~ 0 CD
.. -h en
--L(J)-o
CD c .,
CD -0 CD
c.u CD en
<: ~
- . ......
en Ol
o ~
., 0
en ::J
~
CD
CD
......
-.
::J
co
-
.-.
~ I! Lt
......-UIJJ
~~:E:E
Bc-l-l
Sl> ::l -U -U
~@OOO
-. '< Sl> Sl> 0
o -0-0
:JJJOlO>:J
o <. Q. Q. 0
-h CD ...... ...... -
...... ~ '< '< C
::J -. (J1 ~ en
CD en CJ1 VJ __
:D::l s: I'\) 0
:E9.G)O::J
-10> O~~
lJ :J CJ1
O~ 0
~r-f- s:
I~
:E ~ 8
-I~
-u~
:D
~ -.
s:u (')
......:T
CD 3
..., 0
(J):J
C C.
:g s:
~~
0> ...,
::J 0
a.-g
-
o;::+:
CD Ol
3 ::J
Ol )>
:J ...,
c.CD
0>
:D-o
CD 0
< ......
-- s:u
CD 0-
:E -
CD
-
c..oao
CD PJ ::r
< ::J JJ CD
CD PJ -1~
-- CD
O:::::b~4.
"3 0 ""0 CO" ()
co:Eoa:o
a 3" ~ :::r :J
""OPJPJQ.
o 0 C/) C
::l- ;:+: '"0 (J)
Q) '< c __
::J ., 0
r-+ ('")
r-+ ::r~
o ll> (J)
CD en. .
('") CD
o c..
::J I\)
o 0
3 c.n
-- 0
('") ~
JJ
~ o.
OJ ::J
m3
~ 0
(f):J
c a.
"O~
~CD
'<~
~
DJ 0
~-c
0.0
-
0;:::+
CD OJ
3 ::J
DJ )>
:J ~
o.re
JJ-u
CD 0
< ~
-- 0)
COcr
~CD
.-
~1
r\)O>cn~~
~ ~ ~. CD a
-- -h ., (0
Oii)r-+o-c
0- () m en ()
-., ::J C
CD CD 0> \J
m (0 --0 0
en ^ ~ -< ::J
mJJ~.-+()
~m<~c
mco (Oen
.-+ :< C/)--
~ 0 \J 0
en -- ":J
-c CD en
-5~ 0..
~= ~
'<:J co
-0 0 :J
m.-+ (')
en CT CD
r-+CD
J
:D
:E 0"
m ::J
CD 3
., 0
(f):J
C 0..
"0 s::
""Q..co
'< ......
.,
Sl) 0
:J-o
0..0
-
o ;:+-
CD OJ
:J
3 )>
Sl) -c
:J CD
0..Sl)
:D-u
CD 0
< ......
-- OJ
~ Q:
CD
-
~~~
(1) Z""C \J --to\ (J)
..c 'CD CD - Q :::T
C::;E 0l0l coO
~.... ;;s\ 5 () ~
en "'J 0.. -. 0 0..
~~ ~ c3 5 3
~ g ~ Q ~. ~.
o '< 0.. Ol 0 ......
---to. 0 , c.. 0.. ~.
(") ::J CD 0..' (l) ::J
Ol Ol -. <
-0 == 0 ~. (l) en
Ol::J ::JO 00
oCD CD:J-03
;:+::;E en ~ 3 CD
'< :::::r 00 () CD CD
(l) 01 0> ::J ><
::J ~ -0 roo+- (")
0.. 0 0> CD
CD ag. ~
3 0'< 0
0> O>::;E 0>..
::J -o::J ""C
a.~CD ~
-- ::J --
...... ......
'< '<
JJ
CD
()
o
3
3
CD
::l
0..
Q.)
.......
--
o
::l
en
JJ
:E -.
0> 0
.......:::J
CD 3
~ 0
(J)::J
co..
:gs:
-co
'<r-+
0> ~
::) 0
0.""8
-
OS:
CD ::)
~)>
::l ~
o..re
JJ-u
CD 0
< r-+
--OJ
CD 0-
~ -
CD
-
-
~ :IJ
--
C)
~ W,li Ij ::J
,.....
OJJ'~~I ~ -U CD 3
c.. 0 - Q.) Q.) CD Q) m ..... 0
CD ::J CD CD ~ CD3 (J)
::J
r-+ 3 ...... ...... - - ...... c
:IJ c a.
~ 0 -f=t8 en :J
3 :J ...... 0 en 0 '7\ CD -0 s:
-- c. CD 3 ::J C CD C) -0
......~
:J Q.) @JJ 0 - CD
CD en r-+ JJ 0 ~
c 5" 3 -. c 3 ,.....
-- .....
CDO- -h< Ol 0
;::; C ::J ::T" C. o CD 3
3- c:: r-+ 3 C) ~ ~ ::J -0
o ~ en CD a. 0
m C) -0 0 :J CD :::J
r-+ -::Jr-+tC ::J -
CD 0 Q.) c. -- -- 0 0 --
3::J ::J Oc a. ,.....
o 3 -jl) C::l- Ol CD Ol
m -- -h CD c. 3 ::J
1:J -- en r-+ ,.....
--
men o-CDO 0- 0 Ol )>
C) en...... CD
-- c ::J
;::+: 0 == I "'C en ::J .....
~ ::J r-+CD C CD C/) a. CD
::J ...... 0 . . Ol
en 0
...... C
r-+ -- ::J :IJ
c o Q.) ...... -c
c. o en CD CD
~ c. 0
CD <
m r-+
-- Ol
en CD
~ c-
-
CD
-
II iI II
(")~JJc...(J)
o ....L _ _ Q) ,......
::J~g.3 ~
~13coa.
~....L en Q)
c 01 0 ~
UO:::J.:D a.
-- a. <- --
:::J s: < co N
(QG)<~ co
IO~~Q;
co ~ co Q) ~_
:::J C ~ ,...... :::J
::! - r-+ -I co CO~
(') =.: ~ ~
ON-CO U
-h co Q) s: Q)
Q) a.""'" Q) :::J
(') 3:::J r-+
=.: 0- co Q)
;::i: co tC
,<-haco
Q 0 3
CD Q) co
-c :::J
Q) r-+
(')
-- "1J
,...... -
'< Q)
:::J
-
:D
CO
()
o
3
3
CO
:J
a.
Sll
r-+
--
o
:J
en
. .
:D
~ -.
D> ()
,-+::T
CD 3
~ 0
(f):J
c a.
:g s:
-co
'< ,.....
Sll ~
:J 0
a.-g
-
0;::;:
CD Sll
3 :J
Sll )>
:J ~
-
.-
S. I :D
CD PJ --
..... ::J C)
8~3JJ
::J <D 0 CD
::J ..... ~
CD .-+ -' (")
000..0
~-PJ PJ 3
00::J
::J ~ 0.. 3
<DICO
< CD
CD ::J ::J
o :::!. 0..
o C) n,
en 0 ~
.-+.-+ r-+
I 0 -.
~:E g
~ 0 en
. ~ ~ ..
~ :E
--
.-+
::r
:E~
Q) (")
r-I-::J
co 3
., 0
(f)::J
C 0..
:g s:
,-<co
r-I-
Q) .,
:::J 0
0.."'0
o
o~
CD Ol
3 :::J
Q) )>
:::J .,
0.. CD
JJQ)
CD lJ
< 0
- . ........
co Q)
:E Q:
CD
100
90
80
~
8 70
:2
.............
o 60
z
~ 50
w
o 40
0:::
W
~ 30
5:
20
1 0
--
.. . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. ..
.. . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . ..
. .. . .. . . .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. ..
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . .. . .. .. . .. I
. .. . . .. . .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. , . .. .. . .. . .. .. . ..
o
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
CAPACITY
TIME (year)
-
MAXDAY (avg x 1.8)
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA
OVERALL WATER DEMANDS
6>CA FC)
WHITMAN, REQUARDT AND ASSOCIATES
II ~l
-
:D ~ :D__ -0 () )>
-- ~ CO 0 -c
g. @o3:J ~ g-g
~ G) 0 C/) n5" 3
::J <D::J g-~
Q.~:Q.ca IS-
~ 0 ~ < ~_ ><
m m <co :D
....... en n> :::J - -
co ....... en en <
~ CD....... co
:E <D~.,
p> :E p> ~
CD~(f)Q)
~ co ....... .......
o ., ~ ~
oOp>)>
::J 0 .......
....... ::J COC
~ ....... ~ .......
Sl> ~ :::r
(") n> () 0
....... Q. 0 ~-
::J .......
.......'<
~
Sl>
(")
.......
()
o
::J
.......
~
Sl>
(")
.......
II
I
--
en
r-+
o
~
'<
o
-h
:D
CD
(Q
--
o
::J
0:>
-
()
o
o
-0
CD
~
Q)
r-+
--
o
::J
-
-,
[1 Ii
~'~ tim
~~ H~ 0
-0 CD ~ c.. --L
-
:J >< W , I\) ,
0 -- Z
PJ ';:!2., :J 0 --
0 -0 :::J
C- CD 0 " 3 ::D
CD , -- ^
, 0 :J
CD -- -- -- 0
..c CD -h (Q -
::::) - ::J
c :J ~ --
-h ~ 0 CO ()
PJ 0 0 PJ :J
.-+ , CD PJ
CD .-+
0 c.. eo '-+-0 ~ ::D
-0 eo , eo CD
c 3 < (J) , 0 OJ CD
--
0- eo 0 c ::; - -a ...... -C
- Dr-a 0 - CD
-- :J CD 0
0 .-+ ~_ -0 -
PJ PJ , ~
0 -
:J -- .-+
eo -- :::I:: 0
0 ::::) 0
.-+ (J) (J) :J CD 0
-- 0 c
0 (J) :J
.-+
CD CD OJ
c.. -
--
0- ......
'<
'<
-
-,
~fj ~
z z z
0 0 0
< < < 0
-- -- --
0 0 0
......
- - -
P> PJ P> --
:J
r-+ r-+ r-+
-- -- --
0 0 0 ~ ()
::J ::J ::J --
en en en ::J ::J
0 0 0 CO CD
-h -h -h en
~
~ 3 en r-+
CD ,....... CD
'"0 0 PJ
0 ::J ::J ......
r-+ -h
:::l. -- c.. CD --
r-+ CD
-- 0 PJ
::J ~ ~ ...... -
to -- c.. C.
::J 0
to en -
~ en
CD C
..c ~
CD P.>
c ..c
-- -
~ c --
CD -- r-+
3 ~ '<
CD
CD 3
::J CD
r-+
en ::J
r-+
en
-
-
j"'" !~ i\t~
,'!V! f.i
:.,::~~ J~,
0 ~ -I m ." s:
~ -
-0 0 Q) :J C 0
ro+ ~ -- :::T en :J
-- :J
3 ~ Q) :::T
-- -- :J r-+
::J -- 0
-- :J :J
N (Q (Q C) ~
s:u CD (Q --
::J
ro+ ~ Cl. -0 (Q
-- CD
0 m
- - ~
:J Q) s:u 0 CD
r-+ rr c.c x ~ ~.
0 --
0 0 ~ C) 0
-h Q) CD
:J ~ Q) ,
C) en m 3 CD r-+
0 r-+ c.. r-+ en
., :::T 0 CD
-- en
., ~
0 ""C , r-+
~ 0
en =E C) CD 0
--
0 -- m ..Q )>
r-+
:J :::T '1:J C C
-- en
(') ~ m ~ Q)
0 CD 0- CD en
3 -
c.a -- --
::J - r-+ C
--
r-+ C r-+ CD '<
., - '< ::J ,
0 m CD
- r-+ r-+
0 en
~
0>
c.a
CD
:J
C)
--
CD
en
-
-
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Item Number:
Page .1:... of~
ADDITION
7.C.13.
Meeting Date:
October 27, 1993
Subject:
Adoption of Resolution Supporting the Richmond Chamber
of commerce's Recommendations in Addressing the
Regional Water Issue
County Administrator's Comments:
/Itfctl~kd ;.~ tl JrkL:)YX/Y1J24~J
'/Jfe1;i; ~l:ei t;~-i-t ~" r
~
.!lMO&}VJ". Mr"cL;'j- .~
County Administrator:
BoardAction Re~uested:
Summary of Information :
staff is requesting the Board adopt a resolution supporting
the Richmond Chamber of Commerce's recommendations in addressing
the regional water issue. See attached.
Preparer:
Title: Clerk to Board of Supervisors
Attachments:
. Yes
D No
1#
I
Theresa M. pitts
-^
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE RICHMOND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE' S
RECOMMENDATIONS IN ADDRESSING THE REGIONAL WATER ISSUE
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Richmond Chamber of Commerce
appointed a committee of technical experts and review committee
of prominent business leaders to assist in solving the
metropolitan water issue; and
WHEREAS, members of the committees gave many hours of their
time in identifying the technical issues and developing
alternatives to address the long-term water needs of the
metropolitan area; and
WHEREAS, the study was conducted in a non-partisan manner to
promote the economic health of the region; and
WHEREAS, regional cooperation is paramount in achieving
economic success in the region; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Richmond Chamber of Commerce
committees have provided an excellent report including specific
recommendations for meeting the metropolitan area water demand.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors
of Chesterfield County, Virginia, does hereby commend the efforts
of the Metropolitan Richmond Chamber of Commerce in addressing
the regional water issue,
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Chesterfield commits to
continue to pursue and find regional solutions for future water
needs.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors
supports the implementation of the committee's recommendations
through the cooperati ve effort of the metropolitan area local
governments.
.II
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page 20f~
Meeting Date: October 27, 1993
Item Number:
6.
DEFEREED
Subject:
APPOINTMENT
Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) Board of
Directors
County Administrator's Comments:
County Administrator:
~
BoardAction Requested:
Summary of I nformation :
At the October 13, 1993 Board meeting, Mr. Barber nominated
Mr. N. W. Henderson, Jr. and Mr. Daniel nominated Mr. Joe Ward to
serve on the Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) Board of
Directors. Formal appointment is necessary at this time and
nominees are voted on in the order in which they are nominated.
Term is effective immediately and will expire at the annual GRTC
stockholders meeting in october, 1994.
- IJI/"- Ju~'lA.
- bJ().>t.~
Attachments:
DYes
. No
Title: Clerk to Board of Supervisors
1# 017 I
Preparer: (}ll)uI1L. 7n. ljJ 1 /;b:1.
Theresa H. pitts
Ul
American Red Cross
r(
, \ () 1:J TOOMS DATE
FAX RANSMISSION
, t~Ci. OF
\ 0 ~ 0 m~F \0', :3 5 !-'Anl ~~
II)' f''1'' ,.. C ("'" ) .
(, . \ f'Y\ .._ [ (L C ~ [)
L.OCAIION (,k.u~ i e...lc! Lv.
fAX NlIlvlHI-H 1'1 B - 303 ~
If-I f 1'llONI- MJMHI',H
FII()M
.....10 ~. lJ)a..( d
L(JCA"rIClN
FAX NUtv1BEn D l "")
'1 ~O . ;),?, '0 .:J
TELErHONF NlIlv1AFIl 150 - a ~ L, t(
(:(J~. 1Mf NT~;
.' ,
I ,-
". III
'. u '.
IJ"':':I
(.) II f)
I () (.!
,,t ~.. (\
?
.,/ r /' /,,:-,,-
G,,)F,-\ _.~/
)' /-, /./.....
",""'..,../""
,/,"
r, : l
'"1 Ii
;. '~\
( .j"
~ ';:.
:', J
s. Joseph Ward
Retired
'7 9 if-- - G G ;1. tJ.
Vice President, Corporate COll1111Unications
Signet Banking Corporation
Mr. Ward was bonl in Savannah, Georgia. He graduated from Annstrong College, Georgia
Institute of Technology and the Industrial College of the Amled Forces. Mr. Ward has been
active in public and civic affairs since his discharge from active duty with the V,S. Air Force
in 1953.
His business experience in Savannahj Atlanta and Richnlond includes personneL sales trainingj
sales promotion, marketingj industrial development, as well as public and financial relations.
He joined Signet in 1972.
Among his current activities, he is a membcr of the Board of Directors and past Chainnan of
the Urban League of Greater Richmond; Director, }{obert E, Lee Councilj Boy Scouts of
America; Advisor, Mathematics and Science Center; Tmstee; Georgia Tech National Alumni
Associationj Virginia Council Economic Education, and the Presbyterian School of Christian
Education; Advisor, Continuing Education Departmcntj Georgia Institute Technology; Elder,
Presbyterian Church, and, member of the Bull & Bear Club; Colonel in the United States Air
Force Reserves.
Some of his past activities include serving as Commanding Officer of the Richmond Selective
Service Systcm Reserve Unit; chairman, Communications Committee, Association of Bank
Holding Companies; Vice President-Operations and Membership, Robert E. Lee Council, Boy
Scouts of America; Chairman, National Conference on Religious Freedom; Chaimlan,
Communications Committee and Director of the Metro Richmond Chamber of Conunerce and
organizer and moderator of its TV talk show "Chamber Fomm", ChaiInlan, Public
Information and Marketing Committee; Chaionauj Bank Marketing Association's
Communications Council; Presidcntj Georgia Chapter, American Society of Training and
Development; President, Georgia T'ech Alumni Association of Richmond, Virginia and
Savannah, Georgia; Director, United Way; Dircctorj Virginia Bankers Association; Chaimlan
of VilA Public Relations and Marketing Committee and VBA Group II; member Govcmor's
Advisory Conmliu.cc on Quality Education; Ambassador. Metropolitan Economic
Development Council; School Board mcmber, Savannah & Chatham County Public Schools;
Organizing Coordinator, Richmond Public Schools Adopt-A-School Program.
Mr. Ward is the recipient of natjonal, state and local awards including the Jaycees, Chamber
of Commercej Boy Scouts, Bank Marketing Association, Virginia Bankers Association,
Virginia Public Relat.ions Association, Richmond and Virginia Public Schools, United WaYj
Intemational Association of Business Communicators, U.S.Air Force and tlle Selective Service
System. He is listed in "Who's Who" in Finance & Industry, in Public Relations and in the
South and Southwest.
He and his wife, the former Sue McDuffee of Savannah, Georgia, reside in Midlothian,
Virginia and are the parents of six sons, five grandsons, and one granddaughter.
~~
3/93
-
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page ,Lof-L
Meeting Date:
(){'fonpr 17 1 QQ1
,
Item Number:
7.A,
Subject:
Appoint Three Member Advisory Board to Advise the County with Respect to Motor Vehicle
Towing Service Contracts
County Administrator's Comments:
County Administrator:
~
BoardAction Requested:
Appointment of a three-member advisory board ..4
t{)tdt~ cA rp;~~ :
Summary of Information:
Part of the General Assembly's legislative amendments for 1993 included a mandate that local
governments create an advisory board consisting of a member of the towing industry, police officers
and members of the public to advise the locality on the terms of towing contracts entered into
between the County and towing operators.
Each year, the police department contracts with approximately 20 towing companies who are used
on an as-needed basis to tow abandoned or inoperable vehicles. The current set of contracts will
expire on December 31, 1993. Before new contracts can be entered into, the new law requires the
Board to appoint a Towing Advisory Board to review and advise the County on the terms of future
contracts.
Staff recommends that Lt. David Hope of the Chesterfield County Police Department who
supervises the towing services, and Raymond Hevener, owner of Hevener's Exxon in Chester and
former president of the local wreckers service association be appointed as two of the members of
the Advisory Board representing the police and towing industry. Staff requests that the Board of
Supervisors appoint a third member from the general public to sit on the Adivosry Board. Staff
recommends that the Advisory Board review the existing contracts, and suggest any changes and
send th~ommenda1ions ttte G~ief of Police by December 15, 1993.
Preparer: t^--I(,.,,~ A. I~ Title: County Attorney
Steven L. ~licas 0603:5078.1
Attachments:
DYes
.
No
1#
O ' ,'")
.J.t)
-.
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page .4.. of~
Meeting Date:
October 27, 1993
Item Number:
7.B.
Subject:
Streetlight Installation Cost Approvals
County Administrator's Comments:
County Administrator:
~(
BoardAction Requested:
This item requests Board approval of various Streetlight Installation Cost Approvals presented by
Magisterial District.
Summary ofInformation:
Streetlight requests from individual CItIzens or civic groups are received in the Department of
Environmental Engineering. Staff requests cost quotations from Virginia Power for each request
received. When the quotation is received, staff re-examines each request and presents them at the next
available regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors for consideration. Staff provides the Board with
an evaluation of each request based on the following criteria:
1. Streetlights should be located at intersections;
2. There should be a minimum average of 600 vehicles per day (VPD) passing the requested
location if it is an intersection, or 400 VPD if the requested location is not an intersection;
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
Preparer:
Title:
Director
Environmental Engineering
Attachments:
. Yes
D No
1#
OlS
-
C\.i..
~
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
i
I
I
Page.!.. od.1
I
Summary of Information: (Continued)
3. Petitions are required and should include 75% of residents within 200 feet of the requested
location and if at an intersection, a majority of those residents immediately adjacent to the
intersection.
Cost quotations from Virginia Power are valid for a period of 60 days. The Board, upon presentation
of the cost quotation, may approve, defer, or deny the expenditure of funds for the streetlight installation.
If the expenditure is approved, staff authorizes Virginia Power to install the streetlight. A denial will
cancel the project and staff will so notify the requestor. A deferral will be brought before the Board
again when specified.
BERMUDA DISTRICT:
* Chester Road and Old Cheshire Drive, on the existing pole.
Cost to install light: $ 0.00
Meets minimum criteria,
Bermuda Streetlight Funds Status (unaudited):
Balance Forward
Requested
Expenditure
Effective
Balance Remaining
$12,319.00
$ 0.00
$12,319.00
DALE DISTRICT:
* Telestar Drive and Thorington Road, on the existing pole.
Cost to install light: $ 0.00
Does not meet minimum criterion for petition.
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
"
.,
020 r,
.
1#
-
~
~
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page ~ 0('3
i
I
!
Summary of Information:. (Continued)
DALE DISTRICT (Cont'd,):
Dale Streetlight Funds Status (unaudited):
Balance Forward
Requested
Expenditure
Effective
Balance Remaining
$26,042.00
$ 0.00
$26,042.00
MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT:
* Corner Rock Road, vicinity of 2400, on existing pole
Cost to install light: $ 0.00
Does not meet minimum criterion for intersection.
Midlothian Streetlight Funds (unaudited)
Balance Forward
Requested
Expenditure
Effective
Balance Remaining
I
~
,
i
i
1
i
$29,326.00
$ 0.00
$29,326.00
I # 021 f
STREETLIGHT REQUEST -
Bermuda District
REQUEST
RECEIVED: September 20, 1993
ESTIMATE
REQUESTED: September 21, 1993
ESTIMATE
RECEIVED: October 4, 1993
DAYS ESTIMATE
OUTSTANDING: 13
COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: $0.00
NAME OF REQUESTOR: Audrey Sober
ADDRESS: 4007 Old Cheshire Drive, Chester, VA 23831
PHONE NUMBER: HOME - 796-6208
WORK -
o
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
Chester Road and Old Cheshire Drive, pole #EM 28
c==J REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATION IS
o A POLE ALREADY EXISTS AT THIS LOCATION
POLICY CRITERIA:
INTERSECTION:
VEHICLES PER DAY:
PETITION:
Qualified
Qualified
Qualified
COMMENTS: Requestor states: "Old Cheshire Drive is not visible at night.
Middle school children meet the bus there at 6:50 a.m. and it is dark
at certain times of the year at that time, This is extremely danger-
ous. This section of Chester Road has a 55 MPH speed limit."
Attachments? No
022
-
STREETLIGHT REQUEST
-"
Dale District
REQUEST
RECEIVED: March 12, 1992
ESTIMATE
REQUESTED: March 12, 1992
ESTIMATE
RECEIVED: October 13, 1993
DAYS ESTIMATE
OUTSTANDING: 580
COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: $0.00
NAME OF REQUESTOR: Robert S. Jones
ADDRESS: 9505 Telstar Drive, Richmond, VA 23237
PHONE NUMBER: HOME - 768-1285
WORK - 275-0055
o
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
Telstar Drive and Thorington Road
c==J REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION, REQUESTED LOCATION IS
o A POLE ALREADY EXISTS AT THIS LOCATION
POLICY CRITERIA:
INTERSECTION:
VEHICLES PER DAY:
PETITION:
Qualified
Qualified
Not Qualified, less than 75% of residents
within 200 feet
COMMENTS: Requestor states: "Lighting at this intersection would greatly
reduce all chances for accidents."
Attachments? No
023
STREETLIGHT REQUEST --
Midlothian District
REQUEST
RECEIVED: July 20, 1993
ESTIMATE
REQUESTED: July 21, 1993
ESTIMATE
RECEIVED: October 12, 1993
DAYS ESTIMATE
OUTSTANDING: 83
COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: $0,00
NAME OF REQUESTOR: Gay Capps, President
ADDRESS: Roxshire Civic Association, 2541 Swanhurst Drive
Midlothian, VA 23113
PHONE NUMBER: HOME - 379-3796 WORK -
D
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
o
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATION IS
Corner Rock Road, vicinity of 2400, on pole VE01
o A POLE ALREADY EXISTS AT THIS LOCATION.
POLICY CRITERIA:
INTERSECTION:
VEHICLES PER DAY:
PETITION:
Not Qualified, location not an intersection
Qualified
Qualified
COMMENTS: Requestor states: "We are requesting this streetlight for
various reasons as follows: 1.) Parental concern as to the darkness
during the school year at the bus stop approximately 75 feet from this
location. 2,) Increase vandalism at Civic Association maintained gar-
den area near this location. 3,) Increased incidents of vandalism to
the County owned water tower at this location, 4,) Increased visibil-
ity for a very dark busy intersection near this location,"
Attachments? No
O~.
~q
~
~
"J~!lQ.".~-"
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
October 27, 1993 AGENDA
Pa{Je 1 of 1
b --
Meeting Date:
I tern Number:
7.C.1.
Subj ect:
Acceptance of Deeds of Trust for Mortgage Downpayment and closing Cost
Assistance Program Loans.
County Administrator's Comments:
RfZ-~ Aff'-G~
County Administrator: ~
BoardAction Requested:
The Board ot supervisors is
Administrator to accept Deeds
Downpayment and closing Cost
participants listed below.
requested
of Trust
Assistance
to authorize the County
as security for Mortgage
Program loans for the
Summary ofInformation:
The Mortgage Downpayment and closing Cost Assistance Program ("MDCCA")
is funded through the Community Development Block Grant. The Program,
administered through the Housing Department, provides deferred loans to
low and moderate income first time home buyers in Chesterfield County.
The loan amount equals fifty percent of the amount required for a down
payment and closing costs. The Program requires the County to secure
and guarantee the repayment of all loans with a second Deed of Trust on
the property. Before the Deeds of Trust are valid and binding, they
must be accepted by the County. The Board is asked to accept Deeds of
Trust for the following Program participants:
Lunette Goodson
Melisa Green Crew
Donna Myers
Cathy Mackenzie
5114 W. Hundred Rd.
20908 Truth Dr.
6502 W. Banes ct.
3222 Mill Race Rd.
$1,114.56
$1,857.45
$1,285.17
$2,000.00
prepare~q~k
Rober L, Masden--
Title:
Deputy County Administrator
Attachments:
DYes
. No
I #
026
--
...-.
~m
~ ~r.//
".!ijQf~4'
October
CHES1;'ERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
27 1993 AGENDA
,
Page ..Lof~
l'Vleeting Date:
Item Number:
7.C.2.
Subj ect:
Consideration of an application for a three year Federal
Police Hiring Supplement Program Grant for Law Enforcement
Agencies,
County Administrator's Comments:
Re~ ,4tt>>0(h7{
County Administrator:
~
BoardAction Requested:
The Police Department requests permission to apply for a federal
grant which would provide funding for 10 new Patrol Officer
positions and 1 Crime Prevention Officer.
Summary of Information:
In order to maintain the effectiveness of law enforcement for the
citizens of Chesterfield County, the Police Department will require
8 additional Patrol Officers beginning FY1994-95. This requirement
is based on a ratio of one Patrol Officer for every 812 Calls and
Assignments. Additionally, two Patrol Officers and 1 Crime
Prevention Officer will be needed as the nucleus for the
implementation of a community oriented policing program required of
the grant. This program will be initiated in a section of the
county identified as a high crime area.
The total cost for salary and benefits of these 11 positions is
$1,077,000. The County's 25% match is $269,300. In addition to
the matching funds, the County will have an outlay of $465,200 over
a three year period to cover training, operating and one time
capital costs related to these positions not funded under the
grant. Approval of this grant would represent a savings of
approximately $692,200 to the County over the same three year
period. The grant requires a 25% match in funding by our
jurisdiction, should it be approved.
Preparer: ~~tman, Jr.
Title:
O1.ief of Police
Attachments:
. Yes
o No
I #
026
CHESTERFIELD COUNTI
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page 2- 01:2.
Summary of Information: (Continued)
Budget and Management Comments:
The Budget office will attempt to identify the source of funding for the county
match and other required funds during the FY95 budget process.
r
\ '''")J ~--
....~'h-N.<.J V.~ - . .~~
James J.1r: Stegmaier, DIrector
I # 027 I
--
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page LofL
Meeting Date:
October 27, 1993
Item Number:
3
Subject:
Agreement with Tredegar Industries, Inc, Providing for the Widening
of Coalfield Road
County Administrator's Comments: . . '-
n . . ( 4-~Ar~ _YMJ;. lVL()6;,t. tw--? h.evn ."v~1
K € C c/TJVrl\ e..filC-- ,;- c - r
{~';it\ (JV-~ ~~~~~ S>eve/Q~~ . .... v -.f-.MAU.f- trn-
~ wcJoo
~.
.1)'.h"UL
County Administrator: [ M.
BoardAction Reguested:
The Board is requested to authorize the County Administrator to
enter into agreements and transfer funds to provide for the
widening of Coalfield Road.
Summary of Information:
BACKGROUND: Tredegar Industries, Inc. has indicated an interest in
purchasing property in Chesterfield County known as IlWaterfordll
(see Attachment 'A'). A Tredegar decision to purchase Waterford
will be a catalyst in the commercial development of the property
surrounding the Powhite Parkway/Route 288 interchange area and will
aid the County's economic development efforts. zoning conditions
exist on Water ford which prevent further development of the
property unless certain improvements are made to adjoining public
roads. Tredegar needs assurances that the road improvements will
be provided before they purchase the property. To induce Tredegar
to purchase the property, staff is proposing that the County
participate with Tredegar to widen Coalfield Road from the existing
four lane section near Genito Road to the existing four lane
section near centerpointe Parkway (see Attachment 'A').
Preparer: -f /It U
,J, McCracken
Director of Transportation
-
Title:
Attachments:
. Yes
D No
1# 028
-
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page -L oL2..
~mary of Information: (Continued)
Major elements of a draft Tredegar/County agreement are as follows:
. The County agrees to use its best efforts to commence the
Coalfield Road widening by September, 1994, and to complete
the widening by December, 1995. This widening is expected to
cost approximately $1.24 million. Funding for the widening
can be provided from the Industrial Access Road Account.
. Tredegar agrees to pay the County up to $310,000 for the
Coalfield Road widening, Tredegar will pay $155,000 of the
$310,000 when the Coalfield Road widening commences and the
remainder within two years of the completion of the widening.
.
Tredegar agrees to dedicate to the
14 acres of property for the
Parkway/Coalfield Road interchange.
County approximately
proposed powhi te
. The zoning conditions imposed on the Water ford property remain
in force. The County agrees that the Coalfield Road widening
will allow Tredegar to develop 640,000 square feet of office
in addition to the 310 apartments, 47,000 square feet of
office, 45,000 square feet of research and development, and
120,000 square feet of retail currently approved for Phase I
of Waterford.
RECOMMENDATION: staff recommends that the Board; 1) authorize the
County Administrator to enter into a Coalfield Road widening
agreement with Tredegar substantially in accordance with the
attached draft agreement and.acceptable to the county Attorney,
~) transfer $1.24 million from the Industrial Access Road Account
for the Coalfield Road widening with the understanding that
Tredegar's payments to the County will be used to reimburse the
Industrial Access Account, and 3) authorize the County
Administrator to enter into county/VDOT/consultant Coalfield Road
widening design agreements, acceptable to the County Attorney, and
request construction bids,
DISTRICT: Clover Hill and Matoaca
1#
029
......
o
-1
-~
.... .,..
" ...................11....'. ~
. .
: :
. .
. .
. .
!: i
. .
. .
: :
: .
: / ,.. "'
;. .......,...... "- ..,,,,..,,.- l' \
I
I
,..."\1........'... .
\
, \
I
, \
I
I
(il
~
\a
:"
r
i
i\
~ \
~
1
:r.f
ftJ
Ol
IJl
N
~
ATTACHMENT
A
030
-
---
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, dated as of the day of , 1993,
between the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia (the "County"), and TREDEGAR INDUSTRIES, INC., a Virginia
corporation ("Tredegar"), recites and provides:
RECITALS:
Tredegar has indicated an interest in purchasing certain property located in the
County of Chesterfield, Virginia, and known as "Waterford" (the "Property"). Certain zoning
conditions exist on the Property which prevent development on the Property unless certain
improvements are made to the public roads in the vicinity of the Property. To induce
Tredegar to purchase the Property and recognizing the need for such improvements, the
County has agreed to make certain improvements and Tredegar has agreed to contribute
a portion of the funds required for such improvements, all as set forth herein.
AGREEMENT:
FOR and in consideration of the sum of $10.00 cash in hand paid and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereto hereby agree as follows:
ARTICLE I Definitions
The following terms shall have the indicated meanings:
"B-! Parcel" shall mean that certain parcel of real estate (being a portion of the
Property) located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Coalfield Road and the
Powhite Parkway, containing approximately 24 acres, and as more particularly shown on the
03J&
......,
Plan.
"Coalfield Road Widening" shall mean the widening of the existing Coalfield Road
from two lanes to four lanes between Waterford Lake Drive and the Powhite Parkway
(Route 76), including dual left turn lanes along westbound Powhite Parkway and necessary
signal modifications required by such improvements, but expressly excluding any
improvements to or widening of Coalfield Road north of the Powhite Parkway.
"Code" shall mean the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
"County Code" shall mean the Chesterfield County Code of Ordinances, as amended
from time to time.
"Powhite Parkway /Coalfield Road Interchange" shall mean the proposed split grade
interchange at the intersection of the Powhite Parkway and Coalfield Road in Chesterfield
County, Virginia, currently anticipated to be constructed by elevating Coalfield Road and
providing entrance and exit ramps connecting such roads.
"Powhite Parkway/Route 288 Interchange" shall mean the proposed loop and ramp
at the intersection of the Powhite Parkway and Route 288 to allow vehicular traffic traveling
east on the Powhite Parkway to enter onto Route 288 southbound and to allow vehicular
traffic traveling north on Route 288 to enter onto the Powhite Parkway westbound.
"Property" shall mean the real estate and improvements thereon located in the
County of Chesterfield, Virginia, commonly known as "Waterford at Brandermill" and
depicted on the plat attached hereto as Exhibit A.
"Public Roadway Costs" shall mean the costs and expenses required in order to
complete the Public Roadway Improvements.
0603:3825.1
- 2 -
032
-
-
"Public Roadway Improvements" shall mean collectively the Coalfield Road
Widening, the Powhite Parkway /Coalfield Road Interchange and the Powhite
Parkway/Route 288 Interchange.
"Right-of-Way Dedication" shall mean the dedication by Tredegar to the County of
approximately 14 acres of the Property (more particularly shown on the Exhibit A) for the
purpose of constructing Coalfield Road Widening and the Powhite Parkway/Coalfield Road
Interchange.
"Phase I _ Waterford" shall mean the maximum density approved by the County for
Phase I of the Waterford development, such density being 310 apartments, 47,000 square
feet of general office, 45,000 square feet of research and development, and 120,000 square
feet of retail, or equivalent traffic generation.
"Phase II _ Waterford" shall mean the maximum density approved by the County for
Phase II of the Waterford development, such density being the approved Phase I-Waterford
plus 640,000 square feet of general office, or equivalent traffic generation.
ARTICLE II Performance by the County
Section 2.1 Cooperation in Processing and Issuance of Permits and Approvals. The
parties hereto agree to cooperate with each other in carrying out the agreements set forth
herein in order to fully effectuate the intent of this Agreement.
Section 2.2 Coalfield Road Widening. The County agrees to use its best efforts to
commence the Coalfield Road Widening not later than September 30, 1994 and to complete
the Coalfield Road Widening not later than December 31, 1995.
Section 2.3 Powhite Parkway/Coalfield Road Interchange. The County and
0603:3825.1
- 3 -
033
.-
.-
Tredegar agree that the Property's transportation conditions imposed at zoning will not be
affected by this Agreement and will remain in full force and effect. Provided the maximum
density of the Waterford development does not exceed Phase II-Waterford, the County's
commitment to construct, and Tredegar's commitment to fund the Coalfield Road Widening
will satisfy the conditions of zoning with respect to transportation, and Tredegar shall not
be required to construct or finance any Public Road Improvements other than as set forth
in Section 3.1. The County and Tredegar agree that the County has already approved in
accordance with the Property's zoning conditions Phase I-Waterford.
Section 2.4 Powhite Parkway/Route 288 Interchange. The parties acknowledge that
the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is currently constructing the Powhite
Parkway /Route 288 Interchange, and that the completion of the interchange is expected by
February 1, 1994. Tredegar shall have no responsibility for the construction or funding of
the Powhite Parkway/Route 288 Interchange.
Section 2.5 Control of Waterford Lake Drive. The County agrees that, until such
time as the Property is developed, Tredegar shall have the right to place a gate fence or
other barrier on Waterford Lake Drive at any place beyond the point labelled "Control
Point" on Exhibit A.
ARTICLE III Performance by Tredeaar
Section 3.1 Coalfield Road Widening. With respect to the Coalfield Road
Widening, Tredegar agrees to pay to the County the lesser of (a) one-half of the cost to
complete the Coalfield Road Widening, or (b) $310,000.00. Tredegar shall pay $155,000 of
such sum to the County upon the commencement of the Coalfield Road Widening. The
0603:3825.1
- 4 -
034
-
-
remainder of Tredegar's funding obligation under this Section 3.1 shall be due and payable
on the date that is two (2) years after the date on which the Coalfield Road Widening is
completed and open to the public.
Section 3.2 Powhite Parkway /Coalfield Road Interchange. Tredegar shall effect the
Right-of-Way Dedication, without compensation to Tredegar, within 60 days from the date
of this Agreement. If any area so dedicated later is determined by the County to be
unnecessary for Public Roadway Improvements, such property shall be reconveyed to
Tredegar at no cost of Tredegar. Except for the Right-of-Way Dedication, Tredegar shall
have no obligation for the construction or funding of the Powhite Parkway jCoalfield Road
Interchange with Phase II-Waterford.
Section 3.3 Powhite Parkway/Route 288 Interchange. The County hereby agrees
that provided development stays within the densitites approved for Phase 11- Waterford,
Tredegar shall have no obligation (i) for the construction or funding of the Powhite
Parkway jRoute 288 Interchange or (ii) for the dedication of any real estate other than the
Right-of-Way Dedication.
ARTICLE IV Representations and Warranties
Section 4.1 Presentations of the County. The County represents the following:
(a) The County is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia duly
organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth.
(b) Under the provisions of the Code and the County Code, the County has the
power to enter into this Agreement, to be bound hereby, to consummate the
transactions contemplated hereby and to perform its obligations hereunder.
(c) As required by the Code and the County Code, the County has taken all
actions and obtained all consents necessary to enable the County to enter into
0603:3825.1 - 5 -
035
-
this Agreement, to be bound hereby, to consummate the transactions
contemplated hereby and to perform its obligations hereunder.
(d) The person executing this Agreement on behalf of the County has been duly
authorized and empowered to do so.
(e) The execution of this Agreement on behalf of the County will bind and
obligate the County to the extent provided by the terms hereof.
Section 4.2 Presentations of Tredegar. Tredegar represents and warrants the
following:
(a) Tredegar is duly incorporated, validly existing and in good standing under the
laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
(b) Tredegar is empowered to enter into this Agreement, to be bound hereby, to
consummate the transactions contemplated hereby and to perform is
obligations hereunder.
(c) Tredegar has taken any and all actions necessary to enable Tredegar to enter
into this Agreement, to be bound hereby, to consummate the transactions
contemplated hereby and to perform its obligations hereunder.
(d) The person executing this Agreement on behalf of Tredegar has been duly
authorized and empowered to do so.
(e) The execution of this Agreement on behalf of Tredegar will bind and obligate
Tredegar to the extent provided by the terms hereof.
(f) There exists no litigation pending or threatened against Tredegar which, if
determined adversely, would materially and adversely affect the ability of
Tredegar to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby or perform its
obligations hereunder.
ARTICLE V Miscellaneous
Section 5.1 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed, construed and
interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Section 5.2 Interpretation. Whenever the context hereof shall so require, the
0603:3825.1 - 6 -
036
-
singular shall include the plural, the male gender shall include the female gender and the
neuter, and vice versa.
Section 5.3 Counterparts. This Agreement, which includes the Exhibits attached
hereto as incorporated herein, may be executed in counterparts, and if executed in
counterparts, each such counterpart shall constitute one and the same instrument.
Section 5.4 Representatives Not Individually Liable. No member, supervisor,
commissioner, trustee, officer, official, representative, employee of director of the County
or Tredegar shall be personally liable under the terms of this Agreement.
Section 5.5 Non-Waiver. No party hereto shall be deemed to have waived the
exercise of any right hereunder unless such waiver is made expressly and in writing, and no
such waiver of any such right in anyone instance shall be deemed a waiver as to any other
instance of any other right.
Section 5.6 No Third Party Beneficiaries. The warranties, representations and
covenants contained herein and the rights and obligations created thereby shall not give rise
to any third-party beneficiary rights in any persons, but shall be for the exclusive benefit of,
and enforceable, by the parties hereto, their successors and assigns.
Section 5.7 Notices. Any notice, request, demand, approval, consent, obligation or
other communication ("notices") given or required to be given under this Agreement shall
be in writing shall be deemed to have been given when hand-delivered, mailed by United
States registered or certified mail, postage pre-paid, return receipt requested, or when sent
by Federal Express or other comparable overnight delivery service to the other party at the
address stated below or at the last address given by the parties to be notified as hereinafter
0603:3825.1
- 7 -
03'7
specified.
The address for notice to the County shall be as follows:
County Administrator
Chesterfield County
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
and
County Attorney
Chesterfield County
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
The address for notices to Tredegar shall be as follows:
Tredegar Industries, Inc.
1100 Boulders Parkway
Richmond, Virginia 23225
Attention: Manager, Corporate Real Estate
With a copy to:
Hunton & Williams
Riverfront Plaza, East Tower
951 East Byrd Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219-4074
Attention: William A. Walsh, Jr.
Section 5.8 Incorporation of Exhibits. All of the Exhibits attached hereto are
hereby incorporated into this Agreement and made a part hereof.
Section 5.9 Headings. The headings in this Agreement are for purposes of
convenience only and shall not modify or enlarge the interpretation of the text of this
Agreement. The words "herein", "hereof' and "hereunder" and other words of similar import
shall refer to this Agreement as a whole and not to a particular Article, Section, Subsection
0603:3825.1
- 8 -
038
or Paragraph.
Section 5.10 Completeness; Modification. This Agreement constitutes the entire
agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby
and supersedes all prior discussions, understandings, agreements and negotiations between
the parties hereto. This Agreement may be modified only by a written instrument duly
executed by the p~rties hereto.
Section 5.11 Severability. If any term, covenant or condition of this Agreement, or
the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall to any extent by invalid or
unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such term, covenant
or conditions to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby, and each
term, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest
extent permitted by law.
Section 5.12 No Partnership. This Agreement does not and shall not be construed
to create a partnership, joint venture or any other relationship between the pflrties hereto
except the relationship specifically established hereby.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and Tredegar have caused this Agreement
to be executed as of the day and year first above written by their duly authorized
representatives.
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA
By:
Lane B. Ramsey
County Administrator
0603:3825.1
- 9 -
039
Approved as to form:
Assistant County Attorney
0603:3825.1
TREDEGAR INDUSTRIES, INC., a Virginia
Corporation
By:
Its:
- 10 -
o <-'l 0
EXHIBIT A
[PLAT OF PROPERTY SHOWING AREA OF
DEDICATIONS, POTENTIAL ACCESS POINTS TO B-1
P ARCELAND CONTROL POINT ON W ATERFORD LAKE
DRIVE]
0603:3825.1
- 11 -
O AI .
I_~ 1
EXHIBIT B
[LETIER FROM VDOT]
0603 :3825.1
- 12 -
042
,-
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Meeting Date:
Octnher 27) 1991
Item Number:
Page ...L of-l.
REI?LACEMENT
7.C.4.
Subject:
Set a public hearing to consider amendments to Section 19.1-8 of the Code of the County of
Chesterfield relating to taxicab fares
County Administrator's Comments:
R~J ~. 1-3 ("'" ~ kw1.
County Administrator:
~
BoardAction Re~uested:
Set a public hearing for November 23, 1993
Summary of Information:
The Richmond Regional Planning District Commission met on October 14 and voted to adopt the
taxicab meter rate changes recommended by the Capital Region Taxicab Advisory Board's
Operations and Rates Committee. The Committee conducted extensive research and had many
meetings with industry representatives regarding the appropriate meter rates. Due to increased
operating costs associated with, among other factors, insurance and fuel, the Committee
recommended that the following changes be made to the taxicab ordinance:
1. Impose a $1.00 charge for additional passengers over six years old;
2. Increase the surcharge for trips beginning between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. from
$.50 to $1.00; and
3. Restore the $.30 delay charge while the cab is stopped or moving at a speed less than ten
miles per hour.
The Board of Supervisors has been ~ed by the RRPDC to set a public hearing to consider the
proposed(Cl\anges. i If'
Preparer: .2ifl ..,.' ~ ~\.l)V (.j....'~ Title: County Attorney
Steven L. Micas 0600:5223.1(5220.1)
Attachments:
. Yes
D
No
1#
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING
AND REENACTING SECTION 19.1-8 RELATING TO
TAXICABS AND OTHER VEHICLES FOR HIRE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County:
(1) That Section 19.1-8 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended,
is amended and reenacted to read as follows:
Sec. 19.1-8. Same--Enumerated: special discount for elderly passengers and disabled
passengers.
(a) The rates to be charged passengers by certificate holders or drivers of taxicabs
shall be as follows, and it shall be unlawful for a certificate holder to permit or a driver to
make any greater or lesser charge for the transportation of passengers and baggage:
For the first one-fifth mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . .. $1.50
For each succeeding one-fifth mile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.30
For each one minute of waiting time .............................. 0.30
For each additional passenger over one (1) ........................ 1.00
Provided, that children six (6) years of age or younger, when accompanying a fare-
paying passenger, shall not be deemed additional passengers for the assessment of
such additional charges.
Waiting time shall include the time consumed while the taxicab is stopped or moving at a
speed less than fifteen (15) miles per hour. and the time consumed while the taxicab is
waiting for a passenger beginning five (5) minutes after the time of arrival at the place to
which it has been called and the time consumed while it is standing at the direction of the
passenger. Waiting time shall not include, and no charge shall be made for, the time lost on
account of inefficiency of the taxicab, or its operation, or time consumed by premature
response to a call. No charge shall be made for mileage while waiting time is being charged.
(b) For a trip originating between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the day
following, in addition to the charges registered on the meter, a surcharge of fifty cents
($0.50) one dollar ($1.00) per trip shall be added to compute the fare for such trip.
( c) The owner of any taxicab may, upon receipt of satisfactpry proof that a person
is sixty-five (65) years of age or older, or disabled, issue to any such e:igible person a coupon
0600:5220.1
- 1 -
book or script entitling may charge such person ffi for transportation and services of 1! the
value of five dollars ($5.00) for a consideration of not less than four dollars ($4.00). For
purposes of eligibility under this chapter, disabled persons include individuals who are
physically, hearing, mentally, or visually impaired. The following identification may serve as
satisfactory proof of age or disability: a valid driver's license; a valid GRTC Senior Citizens
ID or Medicare Card; a valid GRTC Handicapped or Disabled Identification Card; or a
valid identification card issued by a public transportation provider to meet the requirements
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
(d) The owner of any taxicab may enter into written contracts with organizations and
companies to provide taxicab services on a negotiated basis. The owner of any taxicab may
enter into written contracts with individuals to provide, on a rregotiated basis, regular
service, as defined in section 19.1-1. All such contracts must be kept and preserved in the
main offices of the taxicab company during the terms of the contract and for twelve (12)
months after termination of the contract. The rates to be charged for such services under
written contract shall not be fixed, prescribed, or established by the board of supervisors.
As required by section 19.1-6, taximeters shall be in operation at all times during the
transportation of passengers; however, the charge for such services shall be governed by the
written contract, and not the taximeter.
(2) This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
0600:5220.1 - 2 -
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page L of..,L
Meeting Date:
(){'tnhpr 17, 1 QQi
Item Number:
7.C.5.
Subject:
Cancellation of public hearing to amend ~ 8-13.3 of the County Code, relating to personal
property taxes assessed on motor vehicles owned by members of the volunteer rescue squad,
fire departments and auxiliary police officers.
County Administrator's Comments:
~Lcn?1/YN4i J (~u.eM~
County Administrator:
~
BoardAction Requested:
Staff recommends that the Board remove this item from the public hearing schedule.
Summary of Information:
During its 1993 session, the General Assembly enacted legislation, effective July 1, 1993,
which permits localities to adopt an ordinance allowing one vehicle used by auxiliary volunteer
fire departments or rescue squad members to be classified separately for tangible personal
property tax purposes. The effect is to allow a reduction in the tax rate.
At its June 9, 1993 work session, the Board directed staff to set a public hearing to
consider amending the Chesterfield County Code to adopt an ordinance consistent with the
enabling legislation. Under the amendment to the state Code, one motor vehicle owned by
auxiliary members of a volunteer rescue squad or volunteer fire department which is regularly
used by the member may be specially classified. However, if a volunteer rescue squad or fire
department member and an auxiliary member are members of the same household, the
household shall be allowed only one special classification.
Continued
Preparer:
("{I.. ~,. (
"--' , .:7" - - t' I',
i"'!" J''' l' --,>
~ "U .L--.. \; I ?: U"/)
Steven L. Micas
Title:
County Attorney
Attachments:
DYes
. No
1#
890>.6161.1 I
046
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page LoLL
Summary of Information: (Continued)
Under the County's structure, our "auxiliary" members are actually members of the squads
themselves. The County Code, as drafted, currently permits vehicles owned by members of a
volunteer rescue squad, members of a volunteer fire department or persons appointed to serve
as auxiliary police officers to constitute a separate classification for tangible personal property
taxation.
Since some households have more than one person who serves as a member of a rescue
squad or volunteer fire department, the County Code permits a per member exemption. Since
the legislation enacted by the General Assembly only permits one vehicle per household to
qualify for the separate classification for tangible personal property taxation, any amendment
to the County Code would, in effect, diminish existing benefits of the volunteers. There are
approximately 27 volunteer households that would be negatively affected by the proposed
amendment.
0905:5181.1
I # 0 4'f
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Meeting Date: October 27, 1993
Subj ect:
State Road Acceptance
County Administrator's Comments:
R~~J Aift~
County Administrator: ~
BoardAction Requested:
Summary of! nformation:
CLOVER HILL:
Brandon - Section G
Newbys BridQe Extended
Preparer. ~L"~
lC ard M. cElfish
Attachments:
. Yes
D No
Page ...LofL
Item Number:
7.C.6.
Title:
Director
Environmental Engineering
1# 048
L----
-.
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Environmental Engineering
SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance - Brandon, Section G
MEETING DATE: October 27, 1993
Spring Mill Road
Corryville Road
Corryville Circle
BRANDON
SEC.ZON G
\ ---
RR ~.
~
\ '(") \:~
\ \> \ ......~
\)\> :'l ...,
~ACADE'M>" \ ......~ o~~ . ~
DR \ :0 r- z: 0 Z
: > '::i:
~o~ ,(") ~
''3~~
)-
PROVIDENCE
~
I
048
BRANDON
E:CTION '.G'.
\
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE:
........
Board of Supervisors
Environmental Engineering
State Road Acceptance - Newbys Bridge Extended
October 27, 1993
Newbys Bridge Road
NEWBVS BRIDGE EXTENDED
Y/ON'/TY 'vAP
.fC4LE" /~'2,c1:Z)
05u
-
Meeting Date:
October
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
27, 1993AGENDA
Page -2.. of-=-
Item Number:
7.C.7.
Subject:
Street Name Changes
County Administrator's Comments:
k~'YJU24'-(.i )~W7Yf
County Administrator: ,~
BoardAction Req u es ted:
Due to the relocation of Robious Road, the Board is requested to
rename a portion of existing Robious Road,
Summary ofInformation:
In conjunction with the construction of the James River High School
and Bettie Weaver Elementary School, Robious Road had to be relocated
to the North, Thirty-four lots will no longer have direct access to
Robious Road. Therefore, in order to provide for the health, safety
and welfare of our citizens, as well as the ability of locating their
homes by the general traveling public, it is necessary to rename
portions of oid Robious Road. Twenty-nine homeowners will be
affected, Due to the configuration of the connector roads and cul-de-
sacs, it is necessary to have three distinct names,
The Department of Environmental Engineering sent letters to all
affected citizens and asked for their input over a period of 30 days.
We asked to receive their responses by sections and by priority. All
suggestions were verified through the Richmond Regional Planning
District and the Department of Environmental Engineering. The
citizens were then notified of the outcome and the recommendation that
would be made to the Board of Supervisors. They were also given the
date of the Board meeting.
Preparer. ~bJ C.~~41-&h
Attachments: . Yes D No
Title:
Director
Environmental Engineering
1#
051
-
-
~
w
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
2 2
Page _ of.....:.
Summary of Information: (Continued)
All base numbers will remain the same, only the street name will
change.
DISTRICT: Midlothian
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the following:
1, Section I to be changed to "Two Team Lane.
2, Section II to be changed to "Powderham Lane".
3. Section III to be changed to "Gray Oaks Lane",
1#
052
-
-
~
l~
i.~
l!
il
~~
!
~
~ ... ...
~.i ....
i i i
~ ~
f'-2,S J 1 1 I
~ ~
~~ . . . ~ l
f'-21
a
E~ a
" 8 c::i
... I ~
~ ~
i II
l~ l
...
~~ 0
r:S
~ ~ ~
~
8
I
~,------ ..... -....'-
._~
-~
053
-..--..-..--
- .-....-.-
IT----~
-
.-
Road Name 1,eeded Due to Robious 1.\..000 Relocation
This map is a copyrighted product of
the Chesterfield County GIS Office.
Scale:
054
1" - 400 feet
-
Road Name ... .eeded Due to Robious R~cMl Relocation
.
Road Section 2
This map is a copyrighted product of
the Chesterjieltl County GIS Office.
Scale:
IN
0511-.'
325 feet
-
-
Road Name J../eeded Due to Robious i.\.oad Relocation
. Road Section 3
This map is a copyrighted product of
the Cheste1field County GIS Office.
Scale: 1" - 200 feet
055
-
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE~DA
Pag~ ~of1
Meeting Date:
n~tnhpr 77, lqq~
I tern Number:
7.C.8.
Subj ect:
Agreements for Maintenance of a Stormwater Drainage System and Best
Management Practice Facility.
County Administrator's Comments:
R~J A-ptJJt~
County Administrator:
~
BoardAction Requested:
This item requests Board of Supervisors' authorization for the County
Administrator to execute various maintenance agreements presented by
Magisterial Districts.
Summary ofInformation:
Stormwater runoff from developing areas poses two concerns:
a) development tends to change the hydrologic characteristics of a
given watershed, affecting the volume and runoff rate which, if not
managed, can cause considerable downstream damage
b) evidence indicates that this runoff may be harmful to state waters
Stormwater management facilities combined with Best Management Practices
(BMP's) are utilized to lessen the water quality and quantity impact
caused by stormwater runoff. Best management Practices refer to those
controls that have been proven in the past to be effective and may
include structural (ponds and lakes) and non-structural facilities such
as maintenance operations and procedures, management techniques and
reduction of paved surfaces.
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
Preparer:
Title:
Director
Rnvirnnm~nt~l ~ngiRccring
P.E.
1#
056
Attachments:
. Yes
o No
-
e
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
i
Page ~ oiL !
Summary of' fnfonnation: (Continued)
..
Stormwater Management Facilities (Structural BMP's) are commonly used t
attenuate the peak runoff rate of stormwater and provide for precipitatio
of suspended particles or sediment. This is accomplished through the USI
of three general types of facilities: detention, retention, 0
inf:i 1 t rat ion.
1. A detention facility detains stormwater for a given period of time
in order to release it at a rate that will not exceed any
downstream capacities or otherwise cause erosion. These facilities
are normally dry except during rain events and shortly thereafter.
2. A retention facility serves the same purpose as a detention
facility except that there is a permanent pooling of water (lake or I
pond). I,
i
.3. An infiltration facility allows storrnwater facilities to soak into
the ground and thus, requires specific sandy soil types that are
normally found in the eastern portions of the County.
The County's involvement in the stormwater management is driven by a
variety of forces, among which are: state erosion, sediment control
requirements and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA), the EPA
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) mandates, the
Flood Plain Management Ordinance and Upper Swift Creek Ordinance.
Ultimately, the purpose of this involvement is to prevent loss of life
or property and deterioration of water quality within, around, and
downstream of development.
A large majority of all ponds and lakes constructed in both commercial
and residential settings over the last fifteen (15+) years are designed
for either water quantity and/or water quality control. We currently
have one hundred and three (10~) approved and constructed structural
Best Management Facilities.
BACKGROUND:
The maintenance agreement consists primarily of a final inspection
report, preventative maintenance inspections every three years and an
indemnification agreement for the County. The responsibility for the
integrity of the facility falls with the owners. T~2 County's only
involvement is the assurance that the matl~enance agreement is to be
followed by the owner.
t
.
J
i
Once the agreement has been fully executed, it will be recorded in the
Clerk ut the Courts Office.
05 'i' r !
.. ",
1*
-
e
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
i
i
,
Page L of.:3..1
Summary of'Information:. (Continued)
BERMUDA DISTRICT:
Commercial
Owner/Developer
Purpose
Type
Erni Components
E'rni Component s
Qual it Y
& Quantity
Retention
f.I." ,f..
058 ...
1#
:~~t
~ .i";~.'::':: ~
'. Wl~'i~.
.~
.'~ .
, '~~.,~
Ll~t '~~"...
If... .~,......
~ ;:S~ ~<,~.
. ~-~- ,.......~
= ~l! '~.,~
I ~&:! ~.,
~~~ .~~~
. . 1 .J..CZ' l
~M ,~!. f.,J1bl..:,
I 1111 j I j :1I'J~.;jj: 1~*
'~ ~ OJf! :.~-;.:,.;~;';
.: =.1 f'! 1 'I! \ tIll fl \~1~:~!':'
I. ~ , ~ 'i,f I ,- .'\ .<
. I ~ fl' .~..,..',:
;,.5 . J. : .~il;:;:
. ,..-059 . '~"'~"'"
. j ,'\l)~r
.-. : ~.
.h :.~. '
\:.~~,~:~,~. : ~
~.'"::: I!'I
'. .....:
. ::..:~.
..' .
:-.
-
.....
.......
. ",
. ',:>.
. '.
....
. I
;~~!..:~ .
:~):;..:.:
,v'.':::
:r.ri~
~t.~
'~1,' .'
f?/
..~~~:.~~..~
?:':~T
..: "t.:'~,,::
~:S~:.::
.1
/'
.', .-.
~
. ,,~-.
\..... 1
, , r ' . ; ~
I iii illl .m ~ liil Jj
I I'I'! I jl: 11; I
I IiI I: i Ii I Iii' i I
I 1" I i 1.111f I
1III III I .
: I. I'. II ili I
" I I J I I
II i i i II I
IftNI COMPONENTS ~I t
.. 1lIYUl" ...
..,.... .,... ----.. ~~ I
I
.,....
~;.;:;)
":' ....
. '.:.:
1~~
'::"i":;':.:
;:~'J';.~'~~;
:~j;,~
.~:: ~ ~ ~~:
;:~.::~~J
, ".:
..: .:~
.. .. ~
t. . ~.
::~/. ~::
.,', '_t.;:
~
I
~ .~
II ~.
; ,
I ~
!~rr i .
_ I oi. _
.. .........-.
./:> ,.'
.' '::';
....1
-
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page -L of ~
Meeting Date:
October 27, 1993
Item Number: 7 . C . 9 .
Subject:
Request to enter into a License Agreement permi tting Mark
Botset to Encroach within a 10' Drainage Easement
County Administrator's Comments:
R a,C47IV)~ A-;-r~
County Admini~trator: ~
Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors
grant Mr. Mark Botset permission to have a privacy fence encroach on an
existing 10' drainage easement in Brandon Subdivision Section G; subject
to the execution of a license agreement.
Summary of Information: Mark Botset has requested permission for a
privacy fence to encroach on an existing 10' drainage easement on lot 14,
Brandon Subdivision. This request has been reviewed and approved by
staff, provided Mr. Botset cut 2" off the bottom of the fence to allow
proper drainage.
preparer~ -J ~"-~
John W. Harmon
Title:
Riqht of Way Manaqer
1# OBU
Attachments:
. Yes DNO
9---
, ~
VICINITY SKETCH
REQUEST TD ENTER INTO A LICENSE AGREEMENT PERMITTING MARK BOTSET
TO E~CROACH WITHIN A 10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
~:gEXBURY ~ I
~"'~, SEE GRIO BJ J \
'-~ ",'" 1 WEOGEMONT OR N
1 MANSFiElD CROSSIN TERR
J MANSFiElD CROSSING IT
~op..O~
,(IJO
N
,
I
I
MAYFAIR
ESrf'TES
'i)
()
061
.DIII'"",-.,-~_._,;;.-
r--n
-
'It~ ~
'~.'..I~: ~
.". !~ ~
ilJ:. ~
:'.~~"'~ ~
.: " III "'~ '
. ~ ~
:.~u~
Uil ~
I~~ ~ i:~g
, ~I~ ~ ~~~
s~~ ""'J ~~'i
:ii l!-
! !;!~f i
~, l ~~!=> r;,tli
t~ ...~
~ ~ ~I~ :'l
~ '+~~ ~ ~
a &~~~ ~
I~ 8ij; ~
~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~
~ !!:~.
~!q
~ ~
.. ...,
; j i ~ i a~
!II( -,...: ~i~~U; t~(U ~
! :;~; ;:i; !!~Sil; ~ii ~I ~
I ii~ ai~1 !~!i ~~ ~:~ h ~
I i: a~ ,illlll!!1 ~fti Ii. f.l
I Ii liC '~"I"~ EI. i5 ~
, i~ !;i i:!!lU ' i! U! ~
. . J !: '!I .1~i!.1 ;i II
II! 'II Iii I'" ·
I rllll . · J~
~;q!Jh . };:I!!imi~ \
. ~ai,'i'i'Ii)I~1
~ii!~~~ltb;i't ;11
it!~, ~ ' ":::':, ~~~
t~~:1 ~~.:. .. ~~
'~:l11ll1 ~;w:lm~'?(,'
'. ,';'fL: .<.;,: Ir8ll~':;':
'..::,,"~~., !,~~f~::':!;:";"~ ." /)
~Jil;~t.2.":..;:E:::'"", ,/
~
~~~ .-'
l.II~):.."""" \
~~~ '
!!llXl~
. ~
~
).
~
~
l::J
'>J
~
~
i::
~
.....
C)
G
:g
~
).
:::J'
Sl
<
-
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
<
1~"'1l'..f>:~"""J
~'J,
<..
'"
U>
~
"'~
~
l::<:
i::Ro
~
r-
~
-.:
-lOClI""",au..lA
I:t. ::t: ::t:
~H~ijHH;
~t~~~~'t "t~
',... f'9'I fit
tlS H U~ ~
~~ &.~ ~<t~
t~~E~lqll~~
~2"q~~~~,,~~
~
~ lil ~ ~!: .....
~~ l$.!1t..
~gic-~rOll~!i
~~~i~:J~~~
lSl::~P~~l:all
~~~~~,,::t~t.i\
;;~j$l!;:~jiiIU '"'1
~~~~'l.~::t'tl;
1;;
U>
~~
~I"r\-
~ ~
~~<:
~ 3::R-
i~
r-
~
-.:
tIl
111 III
()::Q
:::I~
oz
;ZC
o
~z
I
\;;
~~
"U>
~0
$
Vl\)
~-
Fi~
-. ...,
II' -<
'"
2s::
qp
\J
~~
8'.11
~
~
---..-/
..
062
fr!.6fC:)I::J---fr;?\jJ.'J\~f..( . Kt;IH6V/fL c\r-~ J;t!('rtcr; /-!{j;,.{/y 77tc-
7]()T77.:/J1 6F mE Fglc6" Ie' E'ITtA//) 77-11::- FO LL
.::a.:C;TH 0/- -rJf3 FB1CE. 77-1/S tV/LL /ticau.) 7)/C/;2/N/!0-f:--=
v;../vE/1. 'T7IG FEiVC!:i.
/'
~~.~~~J'~
I ! !
I " \
i I :
\1 ' I
I \.....
\ ~
I ~
..(
\
\
\
\
\
I
I
t
\
2 '- -
, /MeltZ> <:
....=-,- I
;::; ~ r r - "
,I
I
/
------}'
\
\
,
'"
\
\
\
V
~ ;-~c;;;
-
,_ ,..__~/(tl1.N.A!ifS___ ,. ,_ n
e1'SbMeJT
f6
, \
I
I
\
i
,
~
"
.I
,.
.I
!. CJT /1
I
\
,
,
I
I
\
1
I
IV
!
I
l
J
I
(OI7RYVILLE 170fT-i)
063
.-
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page -L of -L
Meeting Date:
October 27, 1993
Item Number:
7.C.lO.
Subiect:
Change Order No. 2 James River Trunk Sewer, Additional
Inspection Services
County Administrator's Comments:
/{e,C07J//TJW1td A-p~~
County Administrator: ~
Board Action Requested: Approval of Change Order No.2, in the amount of
$28,720.00, J. K. Timmons and Associates, P.C. for additional inspection
services required for construction of the James River Trunk Sewer
Proj ect. Funds are available in the Department of Utili ties Capital
Improvement Budget.
Summary of Information:
James River Trunk, phase II $14,720.00
Additional inspection services and project management required due to
extension of the contract caused by excessive wet weather during the
winter at 1993. Construction was delayed 120 days. However inspection
was required during this delay period to ensure continued compliance with
State, Local and Federal Environmental permit Requirements, and address
citizens' concerns.
Michaux Creek Pump Station $10,420.00
Addi tional inspection services and proj ect management required due to
extension of the contract causeq by excessive wet weather during the
winter of l;~~~ny ~~iO meetings with property owners.
Preparer: 1/ ~~~ b- r- I Title: Assistant Director of Utilities
~. Edward Beck, Jr.
#
064
Attachments:
. Yes UNO
.-
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page~of~
Meeting Date:
October 27, 1993
Item Number:
Subject:
Summary of Information: (Continued):
Odor Control Facilitv $3,580.00
Additional inspection services and project management required due to
access problems created during school road construction and an eight
month delay in obtaining permanent power to the building
End of Summary
1#
OGj I
-,
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page i of -L
Meeting Date:
October 27, 1993
Item Number:
7.C.ll.a.
Subject:
Authorization to Exercise Eminent Domain for the Acquisition of
a 10' Temporary Construction Easement for the Buford Road
Watermain Extension Project.
County Administrator's Comments:
Re.CP?JVYI~ A-~~
County Administrator: ~
Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors
authorize the County Attorney to proceed with eminent domain on an
emergency basis and exercise immediate right of entry pursuant to Section
15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virqinia, and that the County Administrator be
instructed to notify the owner by certified mail on October 28, 1993, of
the County's intention to take possession of the easement.
Summary of Information:
On July 15, 1993, an offer of $1,156.00 was made by the Right of Way
Section to The Sherwin-Williams Development Corporation, Tax Map #18-
15(1)44 for the purchase of a 10' wide temporary construction easement
for the Buford Road Watermain Extension Project. Since this offer has
not been accepted and no counteroffer has been made and since the
contract for the installation of the waterline has been awarded, it is
necessary to proceed with eminent domain on an emergency basis for the
health and safety of the public. Staff will continue to negotiate with
the owner in an effort to reach a settlement.
preparer--~J ~,.,
John W. Harmon
Title:
Riqht of Way Manaqer
Attachments:
. Yes ONO
1#
06',.'
--
-
VICINITY SKETCH
AUTHORIZATION TO EXERCISE EMINENT DOMAIN FOR THE ACQUISITION OF
A 10' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT FOR THE BUFORD ROAD WATEru.~IN
EXTENSION PROJECT THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
N
USh
MICHAEl A. SMITH. Trustee
O.B. 1740. P. 1045
z
o
:0
-\
:r::.
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \- -
" E ---/-\\
N ~O. ~~.~;._..-;:;.~\ \ 1;0.00 '\.
..-..-;', \ .43 ~ q ~'8Q.'oo-j~E
-8\ -- \~
\ g ~XlsrlNC 20\ ~~
\ ~ ~~~~S& \ VI
. ft'\ EASEMENT ~ --'"
\ C\N~
Z- \ DE VEE~~~~~~-~6~~M~~ T I ON ~~ \ ~vl_
\ "'.... \ . 0
c;', O.B. 1601, P. 328 ~'i O~
~ \ 18-15-( ( 1 ) J-44 iii 0 \ ~1
o. ~~~
AMERICAN REAL ESTATE -0'1-
H~DINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP \\ 0 \ \ ~ - \ ' ~
D.B. 1880. P. T64 ~ '\ \ ' J:>
PROPOSED 10' TEIoIPORARY -, \.... "'\ .
\ ~ ~ \ CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ....~ cO
\ \ \ 2291 sa. FT. a 0.05 Ao. ~ \ N vJ_
\ ~~ \ 3 \~
\~\ \ S\~
\ o. \ \ ~~ \ N
\ \ \ ~~
\ \ _~ EXISTING INORESS & .- ~ " ~
\ ~ I EGRESS EASEMENT \.-, ~
\ \ \ EXISTINe CIi ,<rye:),
\ \ \ SIGN EASEMENT -0<~0) ':'~
\ \ \ _.._..-;-.' ",0) ~'V
\ \ \ ..-..-" ,A <3 . 0' "
L---1 ~"-"-O I 00 rI ~
_________ -" S 8000
\)
:0
~S2.
Q-
:00
~~
()
ftl
TURNPIKE
MIOLOTHI.AN
US.RTE.60
(/60' R/W)
:0
o
)>
o
TEMPORARY
EASEMENT FOR 20" WATER
TRANSMISSION MAIN
PROPERTY OF
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
WHJTMAN, REQUAROT & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
MJDLOTHIAN OISTRICT
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY. VIRGINIA
SCALE: 1" = 50' APRIL 19. 1993
REV. JUNE 17. 1993
1-
oes
-
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page -L of --L
Meeting Date:
October 27, 1993
Item Number: 7. C . 11. b .
Subject:
Authorization to Exercise Eminent Domain for the Acquisition of
a 10' Temporary Construction Easement for the Buford Road
Watermain Extension Project.
County Administrator's Comments:
R~~J A-ff'~
County Administrator: ~
Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors
authorize the County Attorney to proceed with eminent domain on an
emergency basis and exercise immediate right of entry pursuant to Section
15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virqinia, and that the County Administrator be
instructed to notify the owner by certified mail on October 28, 1993, of
the County's intention to take possession of the easement.
Summary of Information:
On October 13, 1993, an offer of $756.00 was made by the Right of Way
Section to Michael A. Smith, Trustee, Tax Map #18-15(1)45 for the
purchase of a 10' wide temporary construction easement for the Buford
Road Watermain Extension Project. Since this offer has not been accepted
and no counteroffer has been made and since the contract for the
installation of the waterline has been awarded, it is necessary to
proceed with eminent domain on an emergency basis for the health and
safety of the public. Staff will continue to negotiate with the owner in
an effort to reach a settlement.
Prepar~ ~ ~~.,.
~ John W. Harmon
Title:
Riqht of Way Manaqer
1# O';'U
Attachments:
. Yes UNO
-
VICINITY SKETCH
AUTHORIZATION TO EXERCISE EMINENT DOMAIN FOR THE ACQUISITION OF
A 10' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT FOR THE BUFORD ROAD WATERMAIN
EXTENSION PROJECT - MICHAEL A SMITH TRUSTEE
N
071
\
\ \
, . \
0" E- ,58 :~"-Ij'. \
a' 0 ..- L \' ~\ '\3"
N ~?~,,-"-"- EY.lSll~~ ' li.s::i \gJ
..-"- SII>" E~sE,.E. ~
\ ~B\~
\ MICHAEL A. SMITH. Trustee g'S \ & IJl
7- \ O.B. 1740. P. 1045 ';.1' \ N .>
.> \ 18-15-(( 1 ) )-45 ~"., N q
o ~ . ~ N
. \ PRoPOSED 10' TEtolPORARY <J.l
o . CONSTRUCTION EASEIlENT~' -
0_ \ 1819 SO. FT. = 0.04 Ac.! 8
<6 . c \ '-=.
"\ ? r'
~ \ ~ B:l \\~
\ ~~ t'f\~ ...>
r,.~~.... . U'
-;;, \ HISTlNC 20' 1.":. ~ 'S \ If'
~ \ INCRESS & ~o_ ~~a \ . .>
. . EGRESS .>
~_'\ EASEIlENT ~ -
AIlERICAN REAL ESTATE v~
HlX-OINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
O.B. lB80. P. 164 \ " ,,' _ \ \... ""\
. '00 ... _..~ -- ,~'"
\ S 80. 00 .._..-" N 7- \ 1;0 . OOL~
\ -"- 43' 0 \ "-'~ " ~
..-,. ",. g~ts eo: 00 'J
-8\--- \\
i_ \\ ~~~~
- ~~4~
~ ~';',- -::.
'fa ~1, ':
'iG~~
\%~~
~~l\
~?~:1
~'::.~~
.,,1\ Ii\
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,..,
'"
I ~
~
I "
I ~
..
I 0
w
I 0-
~
I on
~
I =
I '"
~
I >
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CURVE DATA
@ R=15.00' L=14.03'
<ID R =5 1 4 . 7 8 ' L =2 2 . 95 '
RG8ERT E. SH1RO
0.8. 198G. P. 86
SHERWIN-WILL lAMS
OEVELOPIoEHT CORPORAT ION
D.B. 160'. P. '28
:z:.
o
:0
-\
I
\)
:0
~S2.
Q-
::00
~~
()
\Tl
:0
o
)>
o
TEMPORARY
EASEMENT FOR 20" WATER
TRANSMISSION MAIN
PROPERTY OF
MICHAEL A. SMITH. Trustee
MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY. VIRGINIA
SCALE: 1" = 50' APRIL 19. 1992
REV. JUNE 17. 1993
WHITMAN. REOUARDT A ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS
RICHMOND. VIRGINIA
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O~2
I
I
I
_________________J
-
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page i of -L
Meeting Date:
October 27, 1993
Item Number: 7.C.12.a.
Subject:
Acceptance of a Parcel of Land along Boisseau Street and Second
Avenue from Virginia State University Federal Credit Union.
County Administrator's Comments:
R~ J~~
County Administrator: ~
Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors
accept the conveyance of a 15' parcel of land containing 0.14 acres along
Boisseau Street and Second Avenue from Virginia State Federal Credit
Union, and to authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary
deed.
Summary of Information:
It is the policy of the County to acquire right of way whenever possible
through development to meet the ultimate road width as shown on the
County Thoroughfare Plan. The dedication of this parcel conforms to that
plan, and will decrease the right of way costs for road improvements when
constructed.
preparer~~.CYfL-
John W. Harmon
Title:
Riqht of Way Manaqer
1* 0"'" ,
'U
Attachments:
. Yes UNo
-
VICINITY SKETCH
ACCEPTANCE OF A PARCEL OF LAND ALONG BOISSEAU STREET AND SECOND
AVENUE FROM VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
N
01'" i'
J i
... ' j
-
BOISSEAU, STREET
N 3611412.799 30 R/W
E \1796379.296
N 5104:3 ' 23"E
199.85
184.74'
- S 5104:3 2:3
)-~
~p
~ry ~
~8~z
,-
Q:88:
<:( I I
~~~
<:( C\J cci
(jJ~Cj
Uj~
:i'-'
~
-
15 'STRIP
0.14 ACRE
,
!~ LLI
(\j - l'-
_ ro '" t\l
mlOl'-m
vai.t
o "'v't
;jt\lt\l~
z (f)
I
NIF
VIRGINIA 5rATE UNIVERSITY
FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
182-10::'(i)8
.....
..
ATTN.
o
-4i-
w
i-
:J
o
0:::
W
I-:: .,
<!
~~
0::
I _
w2
:J
z
w
~
o
z
o
W
(f)
N3611351.I03
15.00 E '1796702.536
-S5ro43 'w
CO N/F
. T.M~~~~~~~-r1JZc1/J~b~~~
PLAT
Of
15' STRIP TO BE DEDICATED
TO CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
MATOACA DISTRICT
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 1 V I RGINIA
SCALE I I" = 40' JUNE 14 ,1993
CHARLES C. TOWNES 8 ASSOCIATES, P. C.
CIVIL ENGINEERS- P LMl'lERS-LANO SIJWEYORS
9842 LORI ROA D, SUITE 201
CHESTERfiELD, VIRGINIA 23832
DRAWN BY RTTI,\/l fB
APPROVED BY;1JI.)'"
Ot""" .'
.\.)
!.....
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page -L of -L
Meeting Date:
October 27, 1993
Item Number: 7 .C.12 .b.
Subject:
Acceptance of a Parcel of Land along Branchway Road from Donald
J. Balzer, Jr. and Robert V. Katherman
County Administrator's Comments:
R~d ).~~
County Administrator: ~
Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors
accept the conveyance of a 15' parcel of land containing 0.086 acres
along Branchway Road from Donald J. Balzer, Jr. and Robert V. Katherman,
and to authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed.
Summary of Information:
It is the policy of the County to acquire right of way whenever possible
through development to meet the ultimate road width as shown on the
County Thoroughfare Plan. The dedication of this parcel conforms to that
plan, and will decrease the right of way costs for road improvements when
constructed.
prepareJL' -JdO--r>4
John W. Harmon
Title:
Riqht of Way Manaqer
#
O/~6
Attachments:
. Yes UNO
-
VICINITY SKETCH
ACCEPTANCE OF A PARCEL OF LAND ALONG BRANCHWAY ROAD FROM
DONALD J. BALZER, JR. AND ROBERT V. KATHEIDiAN
N
0) r.., I)
. {
--
-
cl'u; ,
o!J ...""'....-1'
Y V'L"'.4-ftP ~......... f.
. -fre "oL4r
'y
(j
~
o
~O
f)
,C)
.~
~
frj ,
LJOf'./ALO v. BAtZEtf,Jf/.t
/?o8F1lT V. f(ArIlMMAN
D.O. R 3 I'? fJG. 93
T.M Mo. 17.1:3(1)-/;;
~\ ~
'It' ~ \'
,~C) ~
~. 0
~J?
/b,4r.rr.
U'E~""-4
,Cl.8.R?c EJ"-v?--
i! .p...9 7'/ 7'
'"
IS'srIUP
.., HI7'.:J8 '/!a'if' !
/7t?-st_ -IVI5'.:J8'f'1Y 16.5.17'
~ ~ nu &~
.6~h ~ O.08G. ,'Ie. .'
<.J/l4 Q.ee 1~.6'(; 58 00 .
QI C' 85" I., "",
--- K/C/ 'fo"'W _#/7"3820 yv
. '-N/S-.:J8 2'1 I/~Y ~nrt.o
tJ~~/'ICHA.J'-...J .....-~
"'...J 8o'eld
~
.~
""''-
~C\i
l:'-~
--~
~
-i.-
l.
Date: /0'6--:'93
Scale: /'-4cXY
Job No.: -/y///2
'P/af Show./nQ A
WArEA' AtYO S$WEIi' ,E/lS',EM,!'#T
ANO,4 o.OBG. Acre .o,tfRCEI.. TO EJ5 '
DELl/CArEL) TO CIIE'STEI1F/EL/) COV#TY
/Y/Ol-o.7/1/A# O/ST/(IC7
CII/:,sTE.f'F1ELO COVlfTY, . VI/1GI,(/IA
,
5i\LZEQ
-
RCF-l.E:C'TING TO.....(:U..,..(,v..
,
076
· PLANNERS. ARCHITECTS. ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS.
501 Branchway Road. Suile 100 . Richmond, Virginia 23236. 794-0571 . Fax 794-2635
1514 East Parham Road. Richmond, Virginia 23228 . 262-6046 . Fax 264-3037
-
[
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page -L of -L
Meeting Date:
October 27, 1993
Item Number: 7 . C . 12 . c .
Subiect:
Acceptance of a Parcel of Land along perrymont Road from
Asphalt Maintenance, Inc.
County Administrator's Comments:
R.9-~)ll0td /J/~~
County Administrator: ~
Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors
accept the conveyance of a 15' parcel of land along perrymont Road from
Asphalt Maintenance, Inc., and to authorize the County Administrator to
execute the necessary deed.
Summary of Information:
It is the policy of the County to acquire right of way whenever possible
through development to meet the ultimate road width as shown on the
County Thoroughfare Plan. The dedication of this parcel conforms to that
plan.
Preparer~ ~ 0. ~trt7
~John W. Harmon
Title:
Riqht of Way Manaqer
#
OJ.., tf'
i .'
.
Attachments:
. Yes UNO
-
VICINITY SKETCH
ACCEPT~NCE OF A PARCEL OF LAND ALONG PERRYMONT ROAD FROM
ASPHALT MAINTENANCE, INC.
;R
leek
+
...=--
1:
t:;
~
030
327999
-
A1/F PRINCE GEORGE. SER.VICe coRP-
C/o EARNeSt w. HAR.R.ISON
c;5~O S. CRATER ROAD
pe.re.R.S[3(..IRG, VA e.380!7
,AX' MAP NO." 8/-4('1) /5
OlEeD BOO;< 1,979,,RG. 1,348
~
'< t--\g
e: "',
i\ ~~~
,l:; t-J"
~ In 'rlfl'
. ,~.....~
)>($ Il;)IN
-':11( ~ '; -..:-
......~ ,~~
(/)~~ ~
~~~~il\
:J:~ ~ ~ ()
..jll) V x\!J
~~&~~
K
~
S 1"-~~'-59"E~ Iq~.'27"
ASPHA L T MAINTeNANCe.) INC.
85~5 PER.RYMONT ROAD
TAX' MAP NO.: 81-4(f) Ico
DE eo. BOOK 'Z, 1[04 . [rE. 1,G08
"
~
%t-..
IT)
~~
~
~j
~~
\9t'
....'
IT)....
<lU
"
~
~,
tn,
,
~
.5 I'" ~'2 '- 5'2" e- 199,97'
-tJ (". ~'2 ~S'2" W' /19.97'
k~
~~
~.,
It!-
':'"
.
\It
~
~
I f
,
\h~
\;\....
~t'.
~....
,....
~~'
Illt--
ttl..........
....
~I\l
P~RRYNfONT ROAD (ST:4.T€ ROUTE. uaes)
- /'lAD 1"83
PLAT S/-IOWING A
SURVeY OF A /5 I WIOE STRIP
OF LAND ACROSS A PARCeL
LOCATED ON TI-IE EASrl;.RN
LINe OF PERRYMONT ROAD
~ERMl-/DA D/STR fer
CHESTSRFIEE '-0 CO,) VIRGINIA
TO BE DE-OICA/ED To THE
COUNTY OF CI-lESTGRFIE/..D
IJ
HARVEY L. PARKSb INC.
4508 W. HUNDRED R .
CHESTER, VA.
748-8641 748-0515
DATE-25..JUNE. 1993 SCALE: 1" - 4-0'
DRAWN BY- Ot:H
CHECKED BY. we c
F.BK.- 2Z'Z PG.' 7"Z.
NOTE: No IMP/<OVEME::.NTG
/-lAve 8E::E.N SJ-Io WN.
Rev. f JUL Y' 199~
081
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
October 27, 1993
Item Number:
Page ..l of-1..
ADDITION
7.C.14.
Meeting Date:
Subject:
Initiate Application to the Board of Zoning Appeals requesting a
variance for property at 1514 and 1516 Irvenway Lane
County Administrator's Comments:
County Administrator:
~
BoardAction Requested:
Authorize the Board of Supervisors to initiate an application to the
Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance at 1514 and 1516 Irvenway Lane.
Summary of Information:
Mr. McHale wishes to initiate and application for variances to correct
zoning violations, as a result of a parcel split, at 1514 and 1516
Irvenway Lane. On November 4, 1964, a use permit was issued for an
addition to an existing dwelling to construct a duplex. The duplex has
since been separated and a property split through the middle of the
structure resulted in two (2) dwellings. This created two (2) dwellings
approximately four (4) feet apart. The zoning ordinance requires
fifteen (15) foot side yard setbacks for both dwellings. The separation
of the dwelling and parcel split were done without knowledge of the
County, therefore, no County error has been discovered.
Preparer: ~ c>~
Thomas E. co so
Title:
Director of Planning
iUCTL")!~:Af~A~/YUk
I
Attachments:
DYes
.NO
,-
-
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page 1 of 1
Meeting Date:
October 27, 1993
Item Number:
9.A.
Report On:
Developer Water and Sewer Contracts
Back2round:
The Board of Supervisors has authorized the County Administrator to
execute water and/or sewer contracts between the County and the Developer
in which no County funds are involved.
The report is submitted to the Board members as information.
Summary of Information:
The following water and sewer contracts were executed by the County
Administrator:
1.
Contract Number:
Project Name:
89-0437
Sleepy Hollow Section D
Developer:
Clover Associates
Contractor:
Coastal Utilities, Inc.
Contract Amount:
Water -
$13,333.20
District:
Matoaca
Prepared By:
County Administrator:
~
Attachments:
DYes _No
1#
082
Agenda Item
October 27, 1993
Page 2
2.
Contract Number:
Project Name:
Developer:
Contractor:
Contract Amount:
District:
3.
Contract Number:
Project Name:
Developer:
Contractor:
Contract Amount:
District:
.........
93-0047
Golden Corral at South Providence Road
L B E Incorporated
Brians Water Tap Service
Water -
Sewer -
$9,057.50
$1,261.25
Clover Hill
93-0085
Branches Trace - Phase IV
Lori I Ltd. Partnership
Excalibur Construction Corporation
Water -
Sewer -
$30,297.50
$28,055.00
Dale
083
-
-
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
REPORTS
Page .1:...- of...l..
Item Number:
9.B.
Meeting Date: October 27, 1993
Report On:
status of General Fund Balance, Reserve for Future
Capital Projects, District Road and street Light Funds,
Lease Purchases
County Administrator:
Attachments:
. Yes
.~
D No
1#
08l!
-
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
GENERAL FUND BALANCE
October 27, 1993
Board
Meeting
Date
Description
Amount
Balance
07/01/93
FY94 Budgeted Beginning
Fund Balance*
$20,309,400
07/01/93
Repayment of Advance for
Shrink Swell Soil
125,000
20,434,400
06/09/93
Loss of revenues from
Sanitation fees and (1,222,900)
increase in expenditures
19,211,500
07/28/93
Funds to cover loss of
revenue and pay for
expenses related to
fall ball program
15,000)
19,196,500
09/22/93
Creation of six fire-
fighter positions
to assist volunteer
staffing.
195,000)
19,001,500
* The beginning fund balance figure will be adjusted after
completion of audit. 085
Board
Meeting
Date
11/22/89
12/13/89
06/30/90
06/13/90
06/27/90
06/27/90
-
-
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
RESERVE FOR FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS
TRADITIONALLY FUNDED BY DEBT
October 27, 1993
Description
Amount
FY89 Excess revenue
$2,119,900
FY90 Budgeted addition
1,881,500
Designation from June 30, 1989
Fund Balance
1,500,000
Purchase of land-Cogbill Road 630,000)
Purchase building at 6701 West
Krause Road 400,000)
Budgeted addition of excess
revenue 2,100,000
Purchase medical building for
future library site 735,000)
Funds to purchase land for park
on Lake Chesdin 600,000)
Budgeted but not appropriated funds
to purchase land for school
and park sites (2,000,000)
12/12/90
FOR FISCAL YEAR '91 BEGINNING JULY 1, 1990
06/30/91
Fill dirt for cover repair at Fort
Darling Landfill 180,000)
Budgeted addition from FY91
revenues 4,000,000
Designated but not appropriated
funds to cover construction
contract for MH/MR/SA building
if bonds are not sold in
fall, 1991 (1,806,800)
FOR FISCAL YEAR '92 BEGINNING JULY 1, 1991
03/13/91
07/01/91
rfcip
Regional Jail Authority as
approved in the FY92 Adopted
Budget (which will be reim-
bursed)
(1,000,000)
Balance
$2,119,900
4,001,400
5,501,400
4,871,400
4,471,400
6,571,400
5,836,400
5,236,400
3,236,400
3,056,400
7,056,400
5,249,600
086
4,249,600
08/28/91
08/28/91
08/28/91
11/27/91
03/27/92
03/27/92
04/08/92
-
-
Provide funding for improve-
ments at Northern Area Landfill
to allow reallocation of
General Fund dollars to
recycling programs 315,000)
Additional funding for Bon Air
Library expansion 275,500)
Add back MH/MR building funds
which were previously deducted
for construction 1,806,800
Appropriated funds for T.V.
arraignment equipment but holding
in reserve account until prices
and all costs are confirmed 115,000)
Add back funds previously deducted
to purchase land for school
and park sites 2,000,000
Funds designated for interest
costs in FY94 due to acceler-
ated 1988 School bond issue (1,400,000)
Designated but not appropriated
funds for Centre pointe Fire
station construction in FY95 (2,314,800)
FOR FISCAL YEAR '93 BEGINNING JULY 1, 1992
04/08/92
04/08/92
04/08/92
04/08/92
05/13/92
07/22/92
07/22/92
rfcip
FY93 budgeted addition
2,600,000
FY93 Capital Projects (revenue
sharing roads $500,000; indus-
trial access $300,000; drainage
$200,000)
(1,000,000)
Funds to convert Meadowdale
Boulevard building into Hopkins
Road Library
(1,386,500)
Funds to construct lights along
portions of Jefferson Davis Hwy
500,000)
Funding for emergency access for
Millside subdivision contingent
upon necessary right-of-way
acquisition
80,000)
Funding for design phase of Jail
Annex
( 500,000)
( 315,000)
Funds to purchase Castlewood
3,934,600
3,659,100
5,465,900
5,350,900
7,350,900
5,950,900
3,636,100
6,236,100
5,236,100
3,849,600
3,349,600
3,269,600
2,769,600
2,454,600
08'1
08/31/92
09/09/92
09/09/92
09/09/92
11/12/92
11/24/92
12/09/92
12/09/92
12/09/92
12/09/92
06/30/93
06/30/93
-
-
Budget Change Request to fund
wetland study of property on
Cogbill Road
14,000)
Supplement to finish improvements
to intersection of River and
Walkes Quarter roads
13,400)
Funds for Charter Colony Parkway
140,000)
Sidewalk at Enon Library
20,000)
Designated and appropriated, if
needed, funds to cover shortfall
in construction of Public Safety
Academic/Training Building
326,000)
Increase from FY92 Results of
Operations
661,550
Unappropriated funding for TV
arraignment
115,000
Appropriated $1,941,200 balance plus
$661,550 addition from FY92 ending
fund balance and use of funds pre-
viously appropriated for TV arraign-
ment $115,000 for Jail Annex
(2,717,750)
Unappropriated funds from 11/12/92
appropriation for construction
of Public Safety Academic/Training
Building 139,980
Appropriated to cover shortfall
in construction Jail Annex 139,980)
Enon Library Sidewalk -
project complete 13,401
Funds which were not needed for the
public safety academic building.
Interest on the bonds were
sufficient to cover this appro-
priation. 186,020
05/12/93
FOR FISCAL YEAR '94 BEGINNING JULY 1, 1993
07/01/93
07/01/93
rfcip
Appropriated FY94 funds for Cedar Springs
Rural Road addition (FY94
Secondary Road Improvement) 35,000)
FY94 Budgeted Addition
3,500,000
FY94 Capital Projects
2,793,000)
2,440,600
2,427,200
2,287,200
2,267,200
1,941,200
2,602,750
2,717,750
o
139,980
o
13,401
199,421
164,421
3,664,421
871,421
088
-
-
07/28/93 Appropriated funds to cover entire 80,700) 790,721
cost of Keithwood/Hylton Park
Drainage project.
08/25/93 Supplemental revenue sharing match 200,000) 590,721
for FY93 to fund Ledo Road
09/08/93 Supplemental appropriation. for 91,000) 499,721
Charter Colony Parkway
10/20/93 Transfer for Northern Area 370,000) 129,721
Landfill
rfcip
089
-
0
0
lr"
C,) (<';
u ......
Q ......
CO
c; ~
~ ...... '
.r::~
.Ql.o CJ.)
.......~
00 0 N "<!" 0 ~ 'S: ~
N N 'Cl
N~ oo~ 0 "-~ ......
(<'; t"- -i" Q.o ~
III "0 -CO ......
"0 .r::
en Q C,) ~C .Ql
III
:l ;:l
~ o c:: .......
I- ~ "-
:c Q.~ Q
~~ ......
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 ~q,
Ir, Ir, l.t) l.t) lr" l.t) ~c: 8
..J Q t'1~ M (i"~ (<';~ (<'; (<';~
,S ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... .~ ~ 0
... ~
"'" co
'C: ......
I- 0'1 e: ~ .r::
>< c..
0 .Ql
w ~ .... Q.~
c.. CI) CJ.) .......
w c.. ......
<: ~ ~ CJ.)
a: ~
C/) .c::~ ....
CI)
0 l- t"- 0 0'1 N 0 0 .~ i ~
"<!" "<!" N t"- o
Z en III 0 t- 'Cl N~ oo~ }cl:
::J .... N~ Ir~ 0 ...... 0'1 a
co I * ...... ......
u. C,) -~
>< .... .... ....
.... C,) Q) '... ~
I- .... .... ;> C\J 'S:
0 a 0
:c 'C ,PI
~~ CJ.)
C!' ~ ~
::iC't) CI)
-8s .9
I-~
w~ ~-c c::
w,... ,~ a ~
a: ,," .......
~o ~
I-C\I 0 -e-t=5 -c
C/) .... C,) ~ ~ ~
o Q) z u
Q
z.c co c::
::J c; $. Q:t ~
<~ u. ~ '\oJ -ci3
z ~
00 .~ ~ ~
......
< 0 0 0 0 0 ...... ~ t:: :t ~
~ 0 0 0 0 '<'t ~ ~
< Ir" 0 o~ lr" N~ ~!:1) 8
III ...... ~ ,:s.
"0 'io;j
"0 CJ.) ~
0 Q C,) \to... 0
I- III 0 00 ~
:l ;:l -<
() a: ~ c:: c:: ......
-- .m~
z ,Q ..c:::
a: o+.,j ~.Ea .~
~ I- ~ .0- .......
0 0 0 0 0 ~~ ......
Q 0 0 0 0 0 ~ CJ.)
Z 'Cl~ 'Cl 'Cl~ 'Cl~ 'Cl
0 ,S Ir, .r. l.t) l.t) v-) '... -c ~ ID
UJ ... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 0 c:: c:: .... ,:s.
"'" co (,) CI) ~
0'1 'C ,c:: ~ ......0
() >< c.. .9 Ol ,~ CJ.)
~ 0 CJ.) ~
.... ~ t5 ~'G
c.. .0 '_
W c.. z ~CS ,~ ~
<: .~ o~
w -g ,Ql c::
III t'1 00 t'1 0'1 0 ........:.:::: ~-9
a: .... 0 l.t) 0 0 0 CI) ~ ~ ~8
'Cl~ "'1:. t- 'Cl l.t)
co I * v:i r:;:) .r. e:
C,) t- o
J: >< .... .... ..... t'1 ...... ~:x:
.... C,) ~ CJ.)\to...
I- .... .... ;> -< CI)\to... ~o
0 a 0 -- CI)
'C: Z ~ g:s 0 (,)
~ -g~ ~' ~
c:: ~I
<lC <lC Q) .m E~ C"")
oj( oj( '"C ~ -.;; (,) ~!:1) ~
<lC C ;: &5~ ~"? ~
CI:l :E oj( ct:l .~
t) '"C ~ en
:J \- oj( () .c ~ CJ.).Ea 88 .....
oj( CI:l - Q)
'c E Q) 0 0 c ~ ~ .S: 090 Q)
1;) \- ~ Q) 1Ti :Q :J +c '-
r.s Q) n; 0 f.;;;: 'Ie 'Ie ~
co () Cl ::E ::E () 'Ie 'Ie 'Ie ()
Date
Beqan
10/87
12/88
03/89
12/89
10/92
10/92
10/92
09/93
-
Prepared by
Accounting Department
September 30, 1993
SCHEDULE OF CAPITALIZED LEASE PURCHASES
Description
APPROVED AND EXECUTED
Jail Addition
Data Processing
Human Services
Courts Building
Total
Airport state Police
Hangar Additions
County Warehouse
Total
Geographic Information
System ("GIS") -
Automated Mapping
System
Data Processing Equipment
School Copier
School Copier
School Copier
School Copier
TOTAL APPROVED
AND EXECUTED
Original
Amount
245,385
1,839,219
4,489,377
16,796.019
23,370,000
128,800
331,200
460,000
3,095,000
2,015,570
22,797
23,322
18,750
36.605
$29,042,044
PENDING APPROVAL AND/OR EXECUTION
None
Date
Ends
12/01
12/00
1/98
1/95
9/97
10/97
10/97
8/98
outstanding
Balance
9/30/93
170,835
1,280,449
3,125,467
11.693,249
16,270,000
93,227
239,725
332,952
2,205,000
296,967
18,976
20,062
16,150
36.605
$19.196.712
081
-
-
.........
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
REPORTS
Page ~ o~
Meeting Date: October 27, 1993
Item Number:
9.C.
Report On:
Roads Accepted into the state Secondary System
County Administrator: ~
Attachments:
. Yes D No
1#
092 1
-
-
Chesterfield Coun\)
Assistant County
Administrator
Bradford 5, H()r'
Oate Received:
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RAY D. PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
October 7, 1993
-
Secondary System
Additions
Chesterfield County
" \ ni, I.. t:
14' >".. ..'
-~~. ~ T'~-
Board of Supervisors
County of Chesterfield
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, VA 23832
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD:
As requested in your resolution dated August 25, 1993, the following
additions to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County are hereby approved,
effective October 5, 1993.
ADDITIONS LENGTH
AMSTEL BLUFF, SECTION A
Route 3015 (Amstel Bluff Way) - From Route 631 to 0.25 mile West
Route 631 0.25 Mi
Route 3935 (Amstel Bluff Terrace) - From Route 3015 to 0.33 mile
Southeast Route 3015 0.33 Mi
Sincerely,
rp~ b. RfklJ
Ray D. Pethtel
Commissioner
09~
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
-
Chesterfieid COUll~
.Assistant COURty
Adlt<1i~~s't!r<8t"or
Bradfor'tll S. 'l4a'ilr.l!iTf~r
Date R-eceived:
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RAY D. PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND,23219
October 12, 1993
'-..~.,~,,,;:;.~.~:~..,,.
.. ...,..~,~",...~~..,....-,-,,",:~.'::"''1!r~.
__--~.=~.--.'I......."""'--..-
Secondary System
Additions
Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors
County of Chesterfield
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, VA 23832
.;~.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD:
As requested in your resolution dated September 8, 1993, the following
additions to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County are hereby approved,
effective October 8, 1993.
ADDITIONS
LENGTH
REDINGTON, SECTION 1
Route 2070 (Redington Drive) - From 0.13 mile Northwest Route 2598
to Route 3834 0.02 Mi
Route 3834 (Redington Court) - From Route 2070 to 0.07 mile South-
west Route 2070 0.07 Mi
Sincerely,
fJWj D.ltIh-M
Ray D. Pethtel
Commissioner
084
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
-
'4':';nt;::.: ./ '...~:d....nlJ
Assisl:i'it County
P.drninistrztor
Bradford S, H{'"
Oate Received:
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RAY D. PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND,23219
October 8, 1993
Secondary System
Additions
Chesterfield County
-t~.__
lei J?! l~'~~. ---
Board of Supervisors
County of Chesterfield
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, VA 23832
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD:
As requested in your resolution dated June 23, 1993 the following additions
to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County are hereby approved, effective
October 8, 1993.
ADDITIONS
LENGTH
WALTON PARK - SECTION S
Route 4145 (Ho1lypark Drive) - From Route 1385 to Route 4146
0.15 Mi
Route 4146 (Walton Ridge Lane) - From Route 1385 to 0.22 mile
West Route 1385
0.22 Mi
Route 4147 (Dannyhill Court) - From Route 4158 to 0.04 mile
South Route 4158
0.04 Mi
Route 4157 (Shadyglen Court) - From Route 1385 to 0.09 mile
Southwest Route 1385
0.09 Mi
Route 4158 (Dannyhill Road) - From Route 1385 to 0.17 mile
Southwest Route 1385
0.17 Mi
~nceK l~ ttctJ
R~D. Pethtel
Commissioner
080
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
-
(("'hesterlield counW
v ~ ntv
Assistant GOU .
Administrator.~ ~ ~
Bradford S. \-\arrt,"'"'
'late Received:
-------
-..--------.'.-
----~.~"...........-----
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RAY D. PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND,23219
October 13, 1993
----
~: ,,--.--....-----
------
",..__,........k
----
"""----
Secondary System
Addition
Chesterfield County
~~~=
Board of Supervisors
County of Chesterfield
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, VA 23832
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD:
As requested in your resolution dated August 25, 1993, the following
addition to the Secondary System of Chesterfield County is hereby approved,
effective October 13, 1993.
ADDITION
LENGTH
ARBOR LANDING. SECTION 4
Route 4800 (Bent Tree Place) - From Route 1569 to 0.07 mile South-
east Route 1569 0.07 Mi
Sincerely,
Q~o.~
Ray D. Pethtel
Commissioner
OOti
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
-
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page -Lofl
Meeting Date: October 27, 1993
Item Number:
10.
Subject:
DINNER MEETING
County Administrator's Comments:
County Administrator:
~
BoardAction Relluested:
Summary ofInformation:
County Volunteer Fire Chiefs will meet with the Board for
dinner. There will be a brief presentation regarding the Fire
Department's budget.
Preparer: i.JhkUv In. YJLU4-
Theresa M. Pitts
Title: Clerk to Board of Supervisors
Attachments:
DYes
. No
I # 0 9,
Company 1
Company 3
Company 4
Company 5
Company 6
Company 7
Company 10
Company 11
Com pany 12
Company 13
-
FIRE COMPANIES AND DISTRICT CHIEFS
(Chester)
Chief James Reid
(Bensley)
Chief F. R. Clopton
(Bon Air)
Chief John T. Honaker
(Midlothian)
Chief F. A. Miller, 111**
(Enon)
Chief Bruce V. Vecchioni*
(Assistant Chief Danny Jones)
(Clover Hill)
Chief Joel Ruslander
(Wagstaff)
Chief H. H. Goins
(Dale)
Chief Harry Shaw
(Ettrick)
Chief David Jolly
(Phillips)
Chief Jack K. Eggleston
* Chairman of District Chiefs' Association
** Spokesman
distchfs/ggh
-
-
DISTRICT CHIEFS ANNUAL MEETING
WITH
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ROOM 502
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
OCTOBER 27, 1993
--
-
VOLUNTEER OPERATIONS -- 1992
FIRE RESPONSE
Total Man Hours 17,048
Total Individuals 25,878
Total Unit Responses 3,845
Manpower per call
To Scene 3.1
To Station 2.6
Total per call 5.7
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE
Response
Co. #6 138 calls
Co. #13 56 calls
Average call takes 29.5 minutes to complete
Certifications
60 Emergency Medical Techs- A
29 Emergency Medical Techs- Defibulation
13 First Responders
SAFETY PERFORMANCE
Personal Injuries
Department had a 22\ decrease
Volunteer injuries 67\ decrease
Department injuries per 100 alarms is .26, 35\
decrease
Vehicle Accidents
Accident frequency lowest in 13 years
Accidents per 100,000 miles was 3.09, 8.3\
decrease
Fire apparatus traveled 259,012 miles
....
ISSUES AND REQUEST
These items have been prioritized and unanimously agreed
upon by the District Chiefs for presentation to the Board of
Supervisors. They are important to the volunteer contingent as
well as the entire fire department. Your approval will continue
progress, and deliver superior emergency services.
I, Tanker Unit Replacement
Request funding for replacement of the 3 CF Mack Model 1,500
Gal. tankers, currently stationed at Wagstaff Circle, Phillips,
and Enon. The new vehicles would provide increased crew safety
through fully enclosed crew cabs, and greatly improved braking
and stability. Fire suppression operations would be more
effective in non-hydrant areas, due to improved mobile water
supply capability. The existing units are operating with reduced
water loads of 1,000 gallons to compensate for their braking and
driving characteristics.
II. Improve Radio System
Request that funds be approved for completion of a radio
tower site and related equipment for the southwest quadrant of
the county. Terrain and distance cause "holes" in the existing
radio coverage area. The funds for this project are requested in
the Capital Improvement Program for next year.
III. Apparatus Replacement
Request that funds be appropriated to accelerate fire
apparatus replacement. The fire department adopted a IS-year
replacement schedule years ago but has fallen behind due to
inability to replace according to schedule.
a. Currently 26 units or 50% of the fleet is 10 years or
older.
b. 18 units or 35% of the fleet are 15 years old or older
by F.Y. 94-95.
c. Replacement actually will be behind 18 units by F.Y.
94-95.
d. Apparatus actually replaced 1989-1993
Units scheduled -- 19
Actually replaced -- 6