The URL can be used to link to this page

07-26-1995 PacketMeeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNT: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26. 1995 Item Number: Page 1 of 1 2oC~ Subject: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS Introduction of Social Services Director County Administrator's Comments: C°untyAdministrat°r: ~ BoardAction Requested: Acknowledge introduction of recently appointed Social Services Director, Sarah Snead. Summary of Information: Ms. Lynne Cooper, Chairperson, Chesterfield/Colonial Heights Social Senrices Board will be present to introduce Sarah Snead as our new Director of the Department of Social Services. Attacl.nents: [~ Yes No Title: Deputy County Administrator 004 Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26, 1995 Item Number: Page i of ~ Subject: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS County Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: uested: ,Summary of Information: Ms. Mary C. Payne, Executive Director of Capital Area Agency on Aging, will be present to present the Agency's Plan for Aging Services for fiscal years 1996-99. Preparer: ~~/i ~"3. ?l~r~A~ Theresa M. Pitts Attachments: ~-~ Yes Title: No Clerk to Board of Supervisors 003 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA 1995 Item Number: 2.A. Meeting Date: July 26, Subject: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS Count}' Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: BoardAction Requested: Summary of Information: Mr. Joseph K. Aversano, Director of Community Planning and Development Division for the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will be present to address the Board regarding HUD ' s recently announced National Homeownership Strategy and the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Programs. See attached. Preparer: ~,..~-,O/~f~c~J ~/F~. b0~L Title: Clerk to Board ~f Supervisors Theresa M. Pitts 00~ Attachments: / Yes ~ No U. S. Department ot using and Urban Development Richmond Field Office, Region III P.O. BOX 90331 3600 W. Broad Street Richmond, VA 23230-0331 Mr. Lane B. Ramsey County Manager Chesterfield County P.O. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832 July 7, 1995 Dear Mr. Ramsey: Per discussions with Lewis Wendell of your staff, I am writing to request the opportunity to speak at the public hearing during the Board of Supervisors meeting on July 26, 1995. I plan to briefly discuss HUD's recently announced National Homeownership Strategy, which proposes to create 8 million new homeowners over the next five years through a partnership between government, private industry and nonprofit organization~ I also plan to briefly discuss the Community Development Block Grant and HOME programs and their impact on the quality of life for low- and moderate-income residents of Chesterfield County. I do not propose the adoption of a related resolution. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the Board of Supervisors and county residents about these important initiatives and programs. I understand your office will contact me regarding the meeting agenda. If you need additional information in the interim, please call me at (804) 278-4503. Very sincerely yours, /J?.seph K. Aversano ~Director, Community Planning and Development Division 00; Meeting Date: July 26, 1995 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Item Number: Page 2oDo lo fi Subject: County Administrator's Comments County Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator:~ BoardAction Requested: Summary oflnformation: The Government Finance Officer Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) awarded Chesterfield County the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the June 30, 1994 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and financial reporting a government can achieve. This is the fourteenth consecutive year Chesterfield County received this award. Bradford S. Hammer Attachments: [-~ Yes No Deputy County Administrator # 0015 I~Ieeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTy BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA d'ul¥ 26, 1995 Item Number: Page i of.~_~ s.c.7: Subject: Aw~d Contract for Fire Suppression System Installation in Eppington House, Authorize the County Administrator to Execute Grant Agreement and Deed of Easement, and transfer funds from the Reserve for Capital Projects. County Administrator's Comments: CountyAdmtnistmtor: BoardAcfion Requested: The Board of Supervisors is requested to: (1) award contract for fire suppression system installation at Eppington House to Williams Fire Sprinkler Co. Inc. in the amount of $111,531, (2) authorize the County Administrator to enter into an agreement with the State Division of Historic Resources to accept Grant Funds in the amount of $50,000 to be allocated towards this project and execute a Deed of Easement on house and curtilage and (3) transfer $25,000 from the Reserve for Capital Projects. Summaryoflnformation: A fire study was performed as part of the overall Master Plan for Eppington Plantation. This study revealed the need for a fire suppression system to protect this valuable county resource. The County has received approval of $50,000 from the State Department of Historic Resources to fund a portion of this project. Execution of a Grant Agreement and Deed of Easement is required prior to expenditure of these funds. Preparer: ~ Title: Michael S. Golden Attachments: Yes Director Parks and Recreation CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meetin~ Date: Jul~ 26, 1995 Item Number: Budget and Management Comments: In FY95, $50,000 was allocated from the General Fund to install the subject suppression system. In addition, a $50,000 grant from the State Division of Historic Resources was also approved for this project. System design costs were approximately $13,500 and the construction cost is $111,531. This leaves a funding shortfall of approximately $25,000. Funds are available in the Reserve for Capital Projects. If utilized, the balance in the Reserve will be $433,982, (this assumes approval of the Coalboro/Otterdale Connector Road item utilizing $200,000 from the Reserve). J~e'~ J.//. Stegmaier Director, Budget and Management 10S CHESTERFIELD COUNTY TEL :804-796-1753 Jul 19'95 9:12 No.O05 P.O1 Dea~l~. Ch~gnau~I ~ed. Z w~11 b~ 914d Co Work with ~h= county in do~ormin£ng appropriate bound~c. Le~ £oL' the easemer'~, 221 Govetaor SUe~ 225-4261 109 £HESTERFIELD COUNTY TEL :804-796-1755 3u! :19'95 9:12 Nc).005 P.02 ?, 002 WH]{:RI~, Chll~'r 22, Title 10.1 of the Code of VL,~nia of 1950, ~ amendS, ~m ~ to a~ ~:p~on ~d p~t~ of ~c Commonw~ of V~ma's ~~t ~ic, ~i~, ~~, ~d ~1~ m~, ~ ul~ d~ ~'d of ~s~rlc si~, md to ~ e ~ md ~m~t~ in ~ss or mhez in~e~rs ;. ~o~ for ~ 1~, M ~~, ~ ~ ~ ~e l~ for ~stO~c and o~er p~t~; and )t ~e ~t ~ ~ pubiC; ~d aa & perlllalient ml~eum 110 CHESTERFIELD CI]UNTY TEL:804-796-1753 3ul 19'95 9:13 No.005 P.03 and W~, S~:~ion of the l}r~ by p~l~t~ 9(~ of the 1994 Acts of Asaet~bly, Item ~ tl~ p~:o~ de~,ribe~ i. Section 10.1-2213 of thc Ccal~ of¥ir~inia: O, 1-Z213 ~B) (4) co{~litions t{lc &waJll o1 mc,~ funds ~J flu: pio~ccdo,~ fl euammt relictions matis~ to the Orantee in order to ,~rty which led it its dmigllation as a historic llmdmark; arid ~S, bud, u EPPINOTON and Se pr( on suc~ {t~istcrs: NOW ~l~ in ~g~fion of ~e for~s ~ in ~d~ratio~ ~f the ~um of T~ ~m ~10.~ ~fl ~lcr v~l¢ ~li~, thc r~ipt of wMch i~ her~y ~~, ~e U~ d~,~y S~t ~ ~nvey w mc Or~ mi ~mcnt in ~$ Tho fe~icl~mm he the poficy of the Commo of the Codc of Virsi~ia historic ~andmark~. Thea c O:~ntor and thc Grantoc desire to cnsurc tho preservation of ~ of the histOriC <d arclliteClUral fgaparcs t~at led it to bc placed a:by iml~$Od on tl~ u~ of thc ~.~ment Property ars ~ a~rd w~ tw~ of V~, u ~ ~; tn Ch~=ra 22 ~d 17 of Ti~ 10.1 ff 19~0, u ~, ~ p~ ~e C'o~ouw~'s d~~ ~ w~c~ ~e ~r ~m~ ~ do and n~ to do u~n ~e ~m~t ~ ~ch ~e O~ h h~y ~fitled to ~fo~, ~all ~ ~ follows: TM~ panics II~c tital UI~ phOtOgraphs of tl~ 'P.a,w, az~t Pm~rty of ~ ~m~( of ~c ~~ ~ Au~st 19, 1~ ~ ncgadve numb~ 13,830 ~ 13.831 ~~ d~um~t ~e ~~ ~ ~ndifion of ~ ~on df ~ ~b~ ofV~. He~r, ~e ~ment ~y, inclu~g No bu~g or $~ cm~ ~ be b& ~ m~n~ on ~e ~ment ~o~y ~~ ~{h ~~ ~ or ~~ inv~aHon ~ ~t ~t ~ as a toUriSt ~ ~fi~{ f~ility, ~le o~r hou~ ~ n~ M d~moUsh~ or ~o~ ~m thc ~ncnt Page 2 111 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY TEL :804-796-1755 Jul 19'95 9:1:3 No.O05 P.04 T£L:~O~ ,~" 4~1 P, 004 1 re, norton, or ~t~msio~ I~ve ~ mub~tl~l ~o t~e Or~ for revl~ ~d ~mmem ~lo~ly t~t d~it~ or ~ ~ ~ ~m~l ~ ~ not ~flo~ly ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ by or ~ ~ su~isi~ of apm~ssion~ly ~~ ~ ~ ~ f~ ~w ~ ~mme~l prior to ~y grou~is~i~g Grading sad earl r~moval glali nolc al~gr the topoplphic aspect of ~ Ea~¢nt Propesty, ~eept a., tequlred in lhe. mnstnzctfnn of permitted buildingt trod sll'tlctures, ,jr for lac r~o~s~,,a~ ~ of i'ds~)fic 1~ fumrm. 'rl~ .~a~ Pre m'ty stmJ) ~ot t~e o~de~, su~livi~, or conveyed LD ~ o~,a unto ~ a si~le uaa. Th, Or'anle~ ~ad i; ~~v~ may rorer tho prol~rCy ~f~~ o~ ~ ~ of ~ ~t ~ ~ ~! J~ ~~ ~ ~ ~r, a ~.81e ~ or s~n, not e~g ~o ~t, ~y ~o ~t, ~tch ~ ~ ~e of ~e ~ ~ ~vi~ ~ ~ Or~ owns / l:~e 3 CNESTERFTELD COUNTY TEL :804-796-1753 Jul 19'95 9:14 No.OO5 P.O5 l~,b:ltlJ~t Z~,,4Zbl P, OD5 Accel~ce ~ e~c by ~ction 10,1-220~ of ~1 aeflt in gro~$ ~ bert~t tile public in tl~ ways r~ciM(l above, notlling convey ,a right to tl~ public of acc~s to or ur~ of the pmtxal-y, and '~lusive r~ht to such acci..ss and oM, .q,hja-.t rmly to the provisions vir&inia Doar~l of Historic ResoUr~l or ~s oonvcyan~ is aumortze~ Code of V'uldnta of 1950, u a~e~dcd. the fulluwlt~ ~igl~ a~aJ re, Il; COUNTY OF CIiF-.~F. RFIELD Plg~4 113 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY TEL :804-79B-1755 Jul 19'95 9:14 No.OO5 P.06 {uu',uuq /~ozbi P, 006 of The ~oin$ b My commj,sdm e~L.~: _ STATR of VIROINIA CITY of ItIOIB~OND The fore$ot~ll ~ ,, , IG~ Rewuroes, on bohitlf of ~! ) ) To wit: Not~7 Public ) ) To wit: av~mowledg;cd bed'om mc ~ day of , u~ bol~f ur tl~ County o"ff~c:~tcrfield, .slrumem was acknowledged before me thiA ~ nf tS, by :Il. ~r Wi~e, Yr., Director, Departm~U~of H/~ofi~ Virgiaill ~ of Hiltoric Rc~ourr, cs, th~ Grante~ therein. Public. My comm_l~l~n e~l~ _~ 114 Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26, 1995 Item Number: Page 1 of ~- Subject: Resolution of The Board Of Supervisors of Chesterfield County Virginia recognizing Lilly M. Boggs on the Occasion of her Retirement for her Service to Chesterfield County Wednesday, July 26, 1995. County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: BoardAction Requested: Request approval of the attached resolution honoring Mrs. Boggs. Summary of Information: Mrs. Lilly M. Boggs provided over 26 years of service to Chesterfield County in the Building Inspection Department. She will be retiring on August 1, 1995. Preparer:.~~f~Q/~~~/~Title: - LWilliam D. Dup~ Attachments: Yes ~] No B~iilding OfficLdl/la~ °o6I RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA ON THE OCCASION OF HER RETIREMENT FOR HER SERVICE TO CHESTERFIELD COUNTY WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 1995 WltEREAS, Lilly M. Boggs will retire on August 1, 1995, after providing over 26 years of dedicated and faithful service to Chesterfield County; and WlqEREAS, Mrs. Boggs began her service on February 10, 1969, as a clerk typist in a four-person Building Inspection Department; and WItEREAS, Mrs. Boggs has held various positions within the department in her 26 years, such as Office Manager, Customer Service Supervisor, and, finally Administrative Officer for a department of 60 staff members; and WlqEREAS, Mrs. Boggs' willingness to meet the needs of our clients, both internal and external has been recognized as an integral and stabilizing fome within Building Inspection, as many organizational and technological changes have taken place. The Department of Building Inspection has relied on her knowledge, and consistent ability to meet the needs of the public and her fellow employees; and Wi:IE~S, Mrs. Boggs displayed a caring attitude toward her fellow employees and demonstrated her dedication to the County by being a team player in assisting others when possible; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Boggs has supported and served the Christmas Mother Program and United Way Campaign as department coordinator, and personally supported indMdual Building Inspection staff' members and Chesterfield County employees who found themselves in crisis situations; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Boggs has been recognized through a meritorious service increment recommendation in 1975 by the Building Official (Dave Cloer), and Assistant County Administrator (Jeffrey Muzzy), and as Employee of the Year for the Building Inspection Department in 1989; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Mrs. Lilly M. Boggs and extends their appreciation for over 26 years of dedicated service to the County, their congratulations upon her retirement, and their best wishes for a long and happy life. BE IT FURTl~R RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors make this a permanent record in its files. 007 Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26, 1995 Item Number: Page 1 ..... of 2..~._ 5oSo Subject: Resolution Recognizing John W. Layne Upon His Retirement County Administrator's Comments,.'. County Administrator: BoardAction Requested: ,S,u mmary ofI n for marion: WHEREAS, John W. Layne will retire from the Chesterfield County Police Department on July 31, 1995; and WHEREAS, John W. Layne, has provided over 30 years of quality service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, John W. Layne has faithfully served the County in the capacity of Patrol Officer, and Sergeant; and WHEREAS, John W. Layne has significantly impacted the safety of the community by overseeing the training and operations of the Police Canine Unit; and WHEREAS, John W. Layne has provided the Chesterfield County Police Department with many years of loyal and dedicated service; and el J. E. Pittma~)r. Attachments: ~--~ Yes No Title: Chief of Police OO8 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Summary of Information: (Continued) WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors will miss John W. Layne's diligent service. NOW, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that this Board of Supervisors publicly recognized John W. Layne, and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for his service to the County. AND, Be It Further Resolved,~that a copy of this Resolution be presented to John W. Layne and that this Resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County. O09 Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26, 1995 Item Number: Page 5oCo ,,of 2 Subject: Resolution Recognizing William F. Showalter Upon His Retirement County Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: ,B, ,gardAction Requested: ,S,u mmary of Information: WHEREAS, William F. Showalter retired from the Chesterfield County Police Department on July 1, 1995; and WHEREAS, William F. Showalter, has provided over 22 years of quality service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, William F. Showalter has served the County with courage and expertise in the capacity of Patrol Officer, and Detective; and WHEREAS, William F. Showalter has significantly impacted the safety of the community by arresting numerous criminals in his role as Detective; and WHEREAS, William F. Showalter has provided the Chesterfield County Police Department with many years of loyal and dedicated service; and Preparer: ~el J. E. Pittman, Attachments: ~ Yes Title: No Chief of Police 010 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Summary of Information: (Continued) WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors will miss William F. Showalter's diligent service. NOW, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that this Board of Supervisors publicly recognized William F. Showalter, and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for his service to the County. AND, Be It Further Resolved,.that a copy of this Resolution be presented to William F. Showalter and that this Resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County. # 011 Meeting Date: July 26, 1995 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Item Number: Page z f z O~ Subject: Resolution recognizing Benjamin K. Armstrong upon receipt of the 1995 Richmond Times-Dispatch Metropolitan Richmond Sports Backers Male Scholar-Athlete Award Count}, Administrator's Comments: BoardAction Requested: Mr. McHale requested a resolution honoring Mr. Armstrong. Summary of Information: Mr. Armstrong has excelled as a scholar-athlete at Thomas Dale High School. See attached resolution. Preparer: ~P._~ Fh/x Title: Kenneth N. Perrotte Yes [--] No Attachments: Director, Public Affair] # Resolution OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA, RECOGNIZING BENJAMIN K. ARMSTRONG UPON RECEIVING THE 1995 RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH METROPOLITAN RICHMOND SPORTS BACKERS MALE SCHOLAR-ATHLETE AWARD WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 1995 WHEREAS, Benjamin K. (Ben)Armstrong, a 1995 graduate of Thomas Dale High School, has received the Richmond Times-Dispatch Metropolitan Richmond Sports Backers Scholar-Athlete Award; and, WHEREAS, he has excelled in athletics and received numerous school, district, region, metro and state awards and honors in soccer, basketball, football and tennis, including The Thomas Dale Athlete of the Year Award, Boys Basketball Coaches Award, Boys Soccer Most Outstanding Award and Wendy's High School Heisman Regional Award to name a few; and, WHEREAS, he is a three-year letterman in football and soccer and two-year letterman in basketball; and, WHEREAS, he also participated in extracurricular activities, having served as president of the Key Club, a member of the Symphonic, Jazz and Concert bands, a member of the French Club, and was active in the Parent, Teacher, Student Association and other clubs and organizations; and, WHEREAS, Benjamin did all this while maintaining a grade point average that resulted in membership in the National Honor Society; and, WHEREAS, Benjamin K. Armstrong sets an example as a superior scholar and athlete that other young people should strive to follow and is the type of student of which Chesterfield County and its residents are most proud; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Benjamin K. Armstrong upon receipt of the Richmond Times-Dispatch Metropolitan Rict-anond Sports Backers Scholar-Athlete Award, expresses congratulations and wishes him continued success at Randolph Macon College and in the years ahead. RECOGNIZING MS. THERESA M. PITTS FOR SERVING AS CLERK TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHEREAS, the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors provides quality support and timely assistance to the Board of Supervisors through secretarial and records management functions, as the Board addresses the concerns of County citizens; and WHEREAS, Ms. Theresa M. Pitts has diligently and faithfully served the County for approximately ten years, while serving as Clerk to the Board of Supervisors since January, 1992; and WHEREAS, Ms. Pitts has served the Board of Supervisors in the capacity of Assistant Deputy Clerk, Deputy Clerk, and Clerk; and WHEREAS, Ms. Pitts has effectively worked with elected representatives, officials from surrounding localities, co-workers, and most importantly, the citizens of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Ms. Pitts will end her service as Clerk to the Board of Supervisors to accept the position of Records Administrator in the Department of General Services on July 31, 1995; and WHEREAS, Ms. Pitts has been a dedicated, hard working employee who has performed her duties to the highest degree of professionalism; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors will miss Ms. Pitts dedicated and loyal service. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Ms. Theresa M. Pitts for her dedicated service to the Board of Supervisors and extends their best wishes in her new position as Records Administrator in the Department of General Services. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to Ms. Pitts and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26, 1995 Item Number: Page 1 oft__ Subject: DEFERRED Report on County Enforcement Policy for violations of the Uniform Statewide Building Code. Count}, Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: BoardAction Requested: Summary of Information: At the June 28, 1995 meeting the Board deferred consideration of changing County enforcement policy to require immediate sending of "Notices of Violation." County policy enforcing the Uniform Statewide Building Code CUSBC") for completed structures is to first send a letter to the responsible party identifying a Code deficiency and requesting the appropriate correction. If that letter is ineffective, Court action is initiated by sending a "Notice of Violation." Mr. Barber has requested a change in County policy to enforce the USBC by initiating court action with a "Notice of Violation'' to the responsible party immediately upon identification of a Code deficiency. The attached report explains state and County experience relating to enforcement of the USBC and the sending of "Netices of Violation" after the two year statute of limitations has expired. Preparer: , C ~ Title: Steven L. Micas Attachments: Yes ~-~ No County Attorney 08~:1~92.1 BUILDING CODE NOTICE OF VIOLATION POLICY REPORT TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JULY 26, 1995 I. Introduction Since the adoption of the Building Code in 1974 the County has achieved correction of violations by first using administrative measures to notify the violator of deficiencies and giving him time to correct those deficiencies. If the administrative measures fail, "Notices of Violations" are the required first step initiating criminal prosecution to achieve compliance. This multi-step process is used by at least 41 local building officials in the State. The Board has asked staff to present a report to assist it in determining whether the policy should be changed to require immediate initiation of criminal process by serving Notices of Violation in all cases. A. Important Terms: 1. Three separate housing related Codes enforcement. ao co require some form of New Construction Code (USBC Volume I) Building Maintenance Code (USBC Volume II) Fire Prevention Code (Maintenance Code only) [See Chart] 0505:10873.1 -1- 013 Enforcement activities for the New Construction Code occur in three separate time periods: a. b. After issuance expiration of statute of limitations During construction of o two separate time periods: a. After issuance expiration of statute of limitations. certificate of occupancy but before c. After expiration of statute of limitations Enforcement activities for the Building Maintenance Code occur in of certificate of occupancy but before b. After expiration of statute of limitations. 4. Enforcement activities for the Fire Prevention Code are not constrained by the statute of limitations because each day that a Fire Prevention Code violation exists is a separate offense. B. Background: The philosophy behind using administrative measures is that citizens, customers and businesses should be given a fair opportunity to comply with government regulations before initiating time-consuming and expensive litigation. This administrative approach is consistently used not only for Building Code violations but for sign compliance, zoning obligations, business license taxes, real and personal property taxes, County decals, erosion and sediment control obligations, debris manifest regulations, animal control issues, dog licenses, bingo and raffle regulations, music festival permits, utility fees, and 0505:10873.1 - 2 - 014 weed and junk regulations. Generally, the enforcement process begins when the County becomes aware of a potential violation of County regulations from either citizen complaints or scheduled inspections. A letter is then sent documenting violations and requiring repairs or changes in conduct. These letters are permanent documents available to citizens or other state regulatory bodies. If the initial notice is ineffective, then the County begins the court process by issuing a "Notice of Violation." If there is inadequate response from that notice, then a summons is issued. All stages of the enforcement process are written public records and the State Code allows the use of all the documentation before any state regulatory body. In those instances where the County notifies a citizen of a violation, the vast majority of citizens comply with the regulation without a "Notice of Violation" being issued. This enforcement process is more efficient, involving less cost to the County as well as the citizens and is generally considered a fairer approach than resorting immediately to legal action. In the event of noncompliance, courts are always available. In most instances, the availability of a judicial remedy is more persuasive than the judicial remedy itself. C. Statewide Practice. 1. Training from State Department of Housing and Community Development ("DHCD"). The State DHCD promhlgates and administers the Building Code. For many years, the DHCD has trained all local building department personnel to enforce the Building Code without servicing "Notices of Violation" whenever possible. [See letter from Roxanna Rickman, Chief of Training, DHCD] 0505:10873.1 - 3 - 2. Interpretation of BOCA International. The state Building Code "Notice of Violation" provision is substantively identical to the "Notice of Violation" provision in the model building code promulgated by BOCA International. BOCA interprets the model code provision consistently with current County policy to use administrative enforcement before initiating the criminal process through issuance of a "Notice of Violation." [See letter from Paul K. Heilstedt, CEO, BOCA International] 3. Interpretation of Virginia Building Code Officials Association CVBCOA"). The VBCOA is the professional organization of all building officials within the State of Virginia. The VBCOA interprets the Building Code as being consistent with County enforcement policy. Earlier this month, the VBCOA asked the State Building Code Technical Review Board ("TRB") to issue a formal interpretation of the Building Code that would be consistent with current County policy. [See VBCOA submission to TRB] If the TRB accepts the VBCO/~/s recommendation, it will have the force of law and will be binding on all Virginia building officials regardless of any change in County policy. 4. Practices of Other Virginia Localities. Staff has polled all Virginia localities regarding their BOCA enforcement policy. 49 responses to the poll have been received. 41 localities, representing 84% of the sample, have the same policy as the current County policy of using administrative enforcement before resorting to the criminal process. The following localities issue "Notices of Violation" immediately: Hanover, Nottoway, Richmond, Suffolk, Winchester, Isle of Wight, Hopewell and Dumfries. 0505:10873.1 - 4 - 016 5. Court rulings. The TRB and Chesterfield Circuit Court have determined that the New Construction Code (USBC Volume I) required that a "Notice of Violation" be served immediately for a Code deficiency discovered in the Karnes' home. Jack Proctor has indicated that the TRB decision would only apply to the circumstances of that case and is not legally binding on the Building Official in other cases because it is not a formal TRB interpretation. Nor does the decision have any applicability to the Building Maintenance Code (USBC Volume II) or the Fire Prevention Code, according to Mr. Proctor..This ruling is on appeal to the Virginia Court of Appeals. The County's initial brief is due in early September. A decision is anticipated in early 1996. D. Effectiveness of Current Policy 1. The Current Policy has been Effective in Achieving Timely Code Compliance at the Least Cost to the Builder and Consumer. Over the past three years, the County has achieved compliance with the Building Code in 89% of the cases in which it has employed progressive enforcement methods. In the remaining 11% of the cases where Court action is required beginning with "Notices of Violation", the County has achieved compliance in 9% of the remaining 11%. 2. The Current Policy has been Effective in Achieving Code Compliance Promptly. The average amount of time needed to achieve compliance in Chesterfield under the administrative enforcement policy is 45-60 days from the date that the violation is discovered. No jurisdiction has had a policy of serving Notices 0505:10873.1 - 5 - 017 immediately for a long enough period of time to obtain any data on time needed to achieve compliance under such a policy. [See letter from Hanover Building Official] 3. Delays Caused by Le~,al Responses to Notices of Violation. "Notices of Violation" are universally accepted as the first step in a criminal enforcement action. Generally, when Notices are served, the recipient retains legal counsel who will focus on legal issues raised by the Notice instead of prompt compliance with the Building Code. Notice recipients frequently assert very technical defenses such as the fact that certain requested repairs are related to "quality" issues versus Code requirements and, therefore, a builder will refuse to make those repairs upon being confronted with a "Notice of Violation." The lawyer to earn his fee must fight to obtain either a concession or some delay. Accordingly enforcement is often delayed with reduced enforcement compliance. [See letter regarding Luebkert case] Another source of delay, not applicable to administrative enforcement action is that "Notices of Violation" can be appealed to the Board of Building Code Appeals. Such appeals delay compliance. [See Tomac appeal] 4. Serving "Notices of Violation" immediately is more likely to hurt homeowners than to help them. Once a "Notice of Violation" is served, the violator is at risk of criminal prosecution without any further notice from the County. For this reason, individuals who receive Notices are more likely to challenge any possible weakness in the claim that a violation exists in order to protect themselves against the risk of a prosecution. In situations where administrative compliance is sought, the violator is more likely to respond cooperatively to the request for corrective action by 0505:10873.1 - 6 - the Building Official, in order to avoid escalating the County's response to a litigation posture. Two examples illustrate how this can hurt homeowners. In one case of a violation discovered after the statute of limitations had expired, the violator had responded to administrative enforcement measures by agreeing to repair the violation. However, the homeowner wanted a "Notice of Violation" to be served and appealed to the local Board of Building Code Appeals. The local Board required a Notice to be served. After it was served, the violator, for the first time, took the position that the violation was not his responsibility but, instead, had been created by the homeowner after he moved into the house. The violation still has not been corrected [See Gundlach letter] In another case, several violations were discovered in a home by its owner, but the date of discovery was uncertain, and the statute of limitations may have expired before the violations were discovered. Using administrative enforcement measures, the Building Official had obtained the builder's agreement to repair the violations. While the repair was taking place, the homeowner insisted that a "Notice of Violation" be served. When the Notice was served, the builder stopped the repairs and for the first time, raised the statute of limitations defense. [See letter regarding Luebkert case] The Building Official has now been forced to take out a criminal summons to attempt to gain compliance. If the builder wins the statute of limitations defense, the repairs will probably never be completed. 5. Inefficiencies Within Process Caused by Mandatory. Notices. a_ Overlaooin~ Jurisdiction of New Construction Code, Building, Maintenance Code and Fire Prevention Code. The Fire Prevention Code provides for 0505:10873.1 - 7 - 019 greater penalties and a more flexible statute of limitations than either Volume I or Volume II of the Building Code. Therefore it is a more effective enforcement method. For example, in the case of penetrations to the draft stops in the Old Buckingham Apartments, the statute of limitations for a Building Code prosecution has expired because the violations were not discovered within one year after the certificate of occupancy was issued. Under the Fire Prevention Code, each day the violation continues is a separate offense, and the statute never expires. However, if a violation is being enforced through a Building Code prosecution, a Fire Prevention Code prosecution could not be initiated for the same violation. [See Chart] b. Ineffective Enforcement Action. Homes with violations can be up to 21 years old. (The Building Code was first effective in Chesterfield in 1974.) With violations found in older homes, it is frequently impossible to determine when the violation occurred, who the violator is, and whether the violator even exists any more. In such a circumstance, no Court enforcement is legally possible. In those cases, serving Notices of Violation does not accomplish any constructive result. However, the Notices divert resources from cases where corrective action can be taken, by requiring staff to identify and locate a violator, discuss and explain the violation with the violator or his attorney, and defend any appeal of the Notice by the violator to the Board of Building Code Appeals. 6. The Current Administrative Enforcement Policy is the Most Helpful Policy to County Homeowners. Under the current policy, Code compliance is promptly achieved in the vast majority of cases, and the more time consuming and less certain 0505:10873.1 = 8 = legal process is reserved for those few cases that truly merit it. In this fashion, the County has effectively assisted homeowners for many years. Any current perception on the part of some homeowners that the administrative enforcement policy is not beneficial to them or somehow favors the homebuilder is belied by Chesterfield's experience, and the experience of the vast majority of other localities. E. Recommendations [~,: ~.Z~.~.,,~.~:~.,. ,m:,,,-,~ h~, ,h~ Building Offici~~ ~-e ?-~- ' er the builder '~?"'~ to m~ka a ~r~itt~n r~mmltm~nt ~ the ~ou~' com~!la2ce ....................... Offio,~l +~ ~no +h ..... 1-+ ...... Notice of Buf!dlng ___~_~ .... ~p~ ..... i .... ~}the Building Official will serve a violation r ~ ~--- '~ ~- +hl.{y ~ after determination of a violation by the Building Official. 2. Prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, in accordance with normal practice, a "Notice of Violation" will be served as provided by Item 1. The appeal to the Virginia Court of Appeals to determine whether Notices of Violation must be sent after the statute of limitations has run, will continue pending a decision by the State Technical Review Jeard on the questions raised by the VBCOA. 3. Renew County efforts to amend the State Code at the 1996 General Assembly session to: a. Chan~ the statute ef limitations to discover a Building CeQe violation from one year to two years, or, for foundation-related violations, from one year to five years; after a certificate of occupancy is issued. 0505:10873.1 - 9 - b. Allow use of civil penalties for Building Code violations in the amount of the cost of repair in addition to existing criminal penalties. o5o5:~o~3.~ - 10 - BUILDING CODE ENFORCEM-ENT USBC VOLUME I [NEW CONSTRUCTION] Applicability Statute of Limitations Penalties New construction, alterations and repair of all buildings. Must discover within one year of C.O. and prosecute within two years of discovery. Maximum fine of $2,500; no jail time. No minimum fine except for multiple offenses for unsafe conditions. II. USBC VOLUME II [BUILDING MAINTENANCE] Applicability Statute of Limitations Penalties Maintenance of all buildings such as heating and plumbing, structural soundness, etc. Must discover within one year of C.O. and prosecute within two years of discovery. Maximum fine of $2,500; no jail time. No minimum fine except for multiple offenses for unsafe conditions. III. FIRE PREVENTION CODE [BUILDING MAINTENANCE] Applicability Statute of Limitations Penalties Maintenance of fire prevention features for commercial, industrial and multi-family structures. Must prosecute within one year of commission of offense, but each day violation continues is separate offense. Possible jail term of up to twelve months and/or maximum fine of $2,500. No minimum penalty. 0505:10884.1 ,~o ~--- O0 >- z ~ o~ '0 0'~ 0 0 oO Governor COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjINIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT July 13, 1995 Rofleff T. Skunda C~mmerce and Trade David L Caprara Mr. William Dupler Building Official County of Chesterfield P, O. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Bill: The week-long core module of the Virginia Building Code Academy provides participants the educational foundation concerning the content, intent, and application of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Co~(USBC). One module in the program of instruction covers issuing Notices of Violation. Participants are taught to first try and achieve compliance with the USBC through education and with a positive attitude, Participants are encouraged to explain the code violation(s) with the individual responsible for the construction, alteration, extension, repair, removal, demolition or use of the building; explain how it can be corrected, and give the individual a reasonable time frame in which to correct the violation. Section 103.4 of the USBC states that the Building Official shall keep records of applications received, permits, certificates issued, reports of inspections, notices and orders issued... The key phrase here is reports of inso. ection.5 (emphasis added, mine). Section 110.5 states.,.The building official shall approve the work in writing or give wri~;te_n not[ce_of defective w0.rk (emphasis added, mine) to the permit holder or the agent in charge of the work. Such defects shall be corrected and reinspected before any work proceeds that would conceal them. If the defective work is not correcmd, participants are instructed to then issue a Notice of Violation. The Department, and the Division believes, and teaches, that code enforcement personnel should have a positive attitude, be customer service oriented and that construction of safe buildings should be a team effort between the design professional, contractor, and owner. Code compliance is best achieved through education, not a "we" - "they" attitude. Another module of the week-tong Core Academy is "Legal Aspects of Code 501 North Second Street, The Jackson Center, Richrnonal, VA 23819-1321 · (804) 371-7000 · FAX (804) 371.7090 · TTP (804) 371-708~ "Revitalizing Virginia'~ Inner Uiti~s and Burat Cornrnun£ti~s'; 02~ Enforcement", taught by an attorney. The attorney instructing this module cites real cases and issues when discussing various sections of the USBC. Sectior~ 1 12.2 of the USBC, Notice of Violation., is taught in terms of issuing notices of violation within the statute of limitations. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information on the Virginia Building Code A~de_~_y_curriculum. Sincerel , Progra~ 026 BUILD[ .G OFFIC]ALS & CODE/ .)MINISTRATORS INTERNATIONAL,, INC. a0$1 WEST FLO$SMOOR ROAD COUNTRY CLUB HILLS, ILLINOIS 60478-5795 TeJephone 708/799-2300 Facsimile 708/799-4981 April 12, 1994 :nJCtlon & 2evmoamem Manager :. Ohio . ~fa~l Tre~surer ~PH A. C:~ICLO, nq oJ ~ho~e :~na die~a P~m. M~w Jersey RD OF ~IRECTOR$ 3ELVAL Eudding inscec:or nos;er, Z.~nnec:Fal 'IE'I A. ng & Zoning Cll~er g Meacaws. 'llJaois ~Y [ ng Comm~ioner ~T F. ~r~or 7m~nsmo New ~ersey iR MOUOE ~g He~gnls. M~igan ~i~r cf ~micing ~r, Oeca~enr o~ Bm~ing ~CUS~n~ ~n at Wes; Chester. P~nnsy~ama ~. PtNKSTAFF, ~ntor~ment OUter III ~Y a. RCaGE~S on C~umv virgmm HURY ~,~g :nsD~or Officer HE!LSTEDT, p._c. Mr. William D. Dupler Building Official P.O. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832 Dear Mr. Dupler: TNs [emer is in response to your recent te!evhone inquir,¢ mgm-ding the role of notice of violation in the building code en~brcement proc=ss. I appr~iate the opportunity to respond to your question, because one of BOCA's primary activities is to se,we state and local building code officials by rendering advice and code inte.,Tretations in the ar ~eas of building code enforcement and administration. As BOCA's Chief Executive Officer, I mm routinely involved in discussions about enforcement and inm.':vremtion of the BOCA National Building Code ("L he BOCA Code") and o~her state building codes such as the Viruinia Uniform State'vide-Building Code (the "VUSEC"), including discussions a%out how state and local officios inte,"vret and aooiy code enforcement provisions. .Thererbre, I am familiar with ',Jae'building ~de enforcement proc=ss and how · e enforcement provision of ouilding codes are in[erpreted and avolied in Virginia and elsewhere in Se nation. As you know, the treatment of violations of the building code is addressed in Section 112.0 of the VUSBC which is substantively identical to Section 117.0 oi die 1990 Edition of the BOCA Code. Avoarentty, the drafters of the VUSBC · utilized Section 117.0 ofthe BOCA Code ~ their model for dev.e!oping S~tion I12.0 of the VU$BC. The ih'st sentence of Secdcn II7.2 of the BOCA Code provides that "the code official sh~I serve a notic= of violation or order on the ~erson resvonsible for" the code violation. The purpose of this provision is to r~quire the'code official to notify the responsible pemon of the code violations, of which the code official h~ '.,mowledge, without vrescNbing the exact form and conmnt of such notice. I inte~ret the code ~ f~ilowing b~oad latitude to the code official in determining when, or if, to smwe formal notices of violation. Absent corr~--.tive ac:ion to resoive the revoned violations, the notice of violation is essential in order to prosecute the '~iolator in court. ~EC:ONAL OFFIC~ 5592 Cartmrale Orive, Su,te ;07 ·C=iumbus. CH 432314987 · 5;a/890-;06a * Fa~imile 6141B90-97:2 7owne Con{re Com0iex. 10830 E. 45ih 5(., Suite 200 ·Tuisa, OK 74146.3809 ' 918/664-~34 · Fa~/miie 9181664-J435 Three Neshaminy Interpiex. 5ui{e 301 ' trevose. PA 19053-6939 · 215/638~554 ' Facsimile 215~45-4705 Se~fng Government and Industry Since 7 975 Mr. William D. Dupler Aorit 12, I99~ Page 2 The vast majority of building code violations do not result in court orosecutions bemuse most violations are co,octet o,r abated volunta~2y by the pe~on r~onsi'ble for the violation ur)on r,fe initial notification of the deficiency. For this reason, when code officials discover buiic~ing code violations, it is their normnl practice to notify the contractor of the violation and ask him [o correct or abate the violation. ~'m me-,hod used for notifying the cont"actor of the vioiation may or may not constitute an adequate demonstration of 'se:',~ice of a notice of violation' under [he BGCA Code, but in any case, code officials are eot necessarily requirer to demonsu'ate the se.vice of a notice of violation unless the code violation persists and remains unabated. Clearly, .[he ~oaL is code comr>tiance and that goal is oes,, and most fr~uently, reached by voluntary compliance with correction notices. For example, the receipt of a formal notice of violation may Mit/ate a response in preparation for Iegal act/on rather than focusing attention on the ¥iolat[on. ~'m corr~tive act/on may be delayed as the facts and Iegalkies of the circumstances are investigated and resolved. In conclusion, while code officials must ,u~ke some action to notify pe.,"mit applicants of code violations, code officials have broad discm~on to determine the most efficient and effective means for achie~dng prompt correction or abatement./"ne BOCA Code does not require the code official to ser,,e formal notices of violation on contractors when another means for achieving compliance wiuh the building code Mil be more off, five. indeed, the overwhe!ming majority of violation notices given are informal. A cede official must use his best judgement on a case by case basis to determine what enforcement approach is necessary to produce code compliance. [ trust that this letter answers your question about the role of notices of violation in the building code enforcement process. Ve~ truly yours, Paul K. I-'2eiist~t, P.E. Chief Executive Officer PKI-TJkb 8uiiding Off~c.;-',ls & Code Administrators International. inc. · ~GS; ~,V~ Flossm~or .~oad, C~un:ry C~uo Hills. ~llinois 60478-57?5 · 7081799-2200 · ~a~in,,ie Frlg-79g~981 ~E~ONAL OF~IC~ Three N~haminy In~erp/ex, Suite 301 · Qevose. PA 19053-6939 · 215/658~55a · ~aCsimfie 215/~45-~705 5erring Government and Industry Since 7975 028 TI:',i22HONE ($04) 643-1~91 TELECOPIER ($04) 793-6456 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: (804) 753-6481 WILLIAMS, MULLEN, CH Sr & Do ms ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW A PROF~IONAL CORPORATION CENTRAL FIDEliTY BANK BUILDINO TWO SAMF_~ CENTER 10~1 EAST CARY STREET P.O. BOX 1320 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA Z3210-1320 OFFICE~ IN.' RICHMOND WA$1ONOTON, D.C. AFFIliATE OFFICE: LONDON July 11, 1995 BY EAND John B. Purcell, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Commerce and Trade Department Office of the Attorney General 900 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Re: Notices of Violation - USBC, Vol. I Dear John: Enclosed for your information is a Request for Interpretation to the Technical Review Board filed by Ronald Miller, Building Commissioner in Roanoke on behalf of the VBCOA. Also enclosed is a position statement in connection with such. would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you. I SHF: rt Enclosures cc: Ronald H. Miller, CPCA Sincerely, Sarah Hopkins Finley 0194201.01 029 Virginia Building and Code Officials Association 13 East Franklin, P.O. Box 12164 Richmond, Virginia 23241 Telephone 804-649-8471 Fax 804-343-3758 July 10, 1995 Norman R. Crumpton, CPCA Secretary, State Building Code Technical Review Board State Building Code Office 501 North Second Street Richmond, Virginia 23219-1321 Re: InterDretation Reques~ - No~ices of Violation Dear Mr. Crumpton: Enclosed please find a request for interpretation in connection with the issuance of notices of violation under Section 112.2 of Volume I of the USBC. Even though the Technical Review Board's July, 1994 decision in CounCy of Chesterfield v. Karnes has no precedential value beyond that case, reflection on that case has created indecision among many building officials regarding the appropriate handling of notices of violation. This indecision has been heightened by the continuous media attention some building officials have received on the proper role of Section 112.2. Most recently three citizens in Chesterfield County and a citizen of James City County requested the Board of Housing and Community Development to take the unprecedented step of de-certifying the building official in their locality, in essence because the building official adhered to longstanding practice and teaching regarding when to file notices of violation under Volume I. As a consequence, many building officials are uncertain as to what direction they should take. Should they follow the teaching of the Code Academy administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development which instills the philosophy of only issuing notices of violation as a last resort, or must they always issue a notice of violation despite the stage of the construction or the time which has passed since the issuance of the certificate of occupancy? While we recognize that the Board of Housing and Community Development is considering an amendment to the "Notice of Violation. section which will hopefully clarify this area, any changes in this regard are not likely to become effective until March, 1996. Building officials need authoritative direction on this issue now. Thus I request an interpretation of the 080 Norman R. Crumpton, CPCA July 10, 1995 Page 2 following attached questions. A VBCOA position paper is also enclosed. Hopefully it will assist the Board in its deliberation in this matter. If the VBCOA can be of any assistance in getting this issue before the Technical Review Board, please do not hesitate to call me or Sarah Hopkins Finley. Mrs. Finley can be reached at 783- 6481. Sincerely, Ronald H. Miller RHM: rt Enclosure cc: Sarah Hopkins Finley, Esquire 019310S.01 To: From: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION Office of the State Building Code Technical Review Board c/o State Building Code Office 501 North Second Street Richmond, Virginia 23219-1321 Ronald H. Miller President Virginia Building and Code Official Association 13 East Franklin Street P. O. Box 12164 Richmond, VA 23241 and Building Commissioner/Zoning Administrator City of Roanoke 215 Church Avenue, $.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2221 Code: USBC, Volume I Section: 112.2, 110.5 Edition: 1993 Date: July 10, 1995 Is a building official required to issue a notice of violation authorized by Section 112.2 of Volume I of the USBC for every USBC violation he discovers or has brought to his attention regardless of when it is discovered.'? If the answer to number 1 is yes, what is the purpose of the written notice of defective work provided pursuant to Section 110.57 Must such notice always be provided in the form and served in the manner required for Section 112.2 notices of violation? 0:.12 o If the answer to number I is yes, does Section 112.2 of the,,USBC require that a violation notice be issued to the person responsible for the use" (occupancy) of the building if the person responsible for the construction is no longer available.9 If the answer to number 1 is yes, what is the role of Volume II? Proposed Response No. A building official is not required to issue a notice of violation after the statute of limitations set forth in Section 19.2-8 of the Code of Virginia has run. Issuance of a notice of violation is within the building official's discretion. Issuance of a notice of violation under Section 112.2 is only mandated to the extent the building official seeks to pursue criminal prosecution. Under such circumstance, Section 112.2 mandates certain due process. It requires specific notice of the violation to be given and the opportunity to cure the violation. Section 112.2 also establishes how the notice must be served. Answer not required. Answer not required. Answer not required. 0193618.01 -2- Virginia Building an , Code Officials Association 13 East Franklin, P.O. Box 12164 Richmond, Virginia 23241 Telephone 804-649-8471 Fax 804-343-3758 VIRGINIA BUTLDING AND CODE OFFICIAL ASSOCIATION POSITION STATEMENT Subject: Notices of Violation Code: USBC, Volume I Section: Chapter 1 Edition: 1993 Date: July 10, 1995 Problem Statement As discussed below, it has long been the practice of local building officials to only issue notices of violation under Section 112.2 of Volume I of the Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) as a last resort to obtaining compliance with the USBC. Also, while the building official, in his discretion, may issue notices of violation in connection with new construction at any time,he is not required to if there is no legal authority to compel compliance. This would be the case when a violation is discovered after one year of the initial occupancy of the building or issuance of the certificate of occupancy, whichever is later, because the statute of limitations can be raised as a defense to any prosecution pursued after this time. Va. Code § 19.2-8 (1995 Supp.). The legality of this practice was questioned following a July 22, 1994 case decision by the Technical Review Board in Chesterfield C0un .ty v. Robert G. Kaxne.~ (App. No. 94-4). In that case, the Chesterfield County building official determined that a USBC violation existed where the water and sewer pipes entered Mr. Kames' home. The building official did not send a notice of violation because the County lacked the legal authority to compel correction of the violation. Instead, the building official sent a letter to the builder noting the violation and requesting compliance. The responsible contractor agreed to correct the violation and Mr. Kames was so notified. Mr. Kames appealed this approach to the Chesterfield County Board of Building Code Appeals and the Board ruled that Section 112.2 of Volume I of the USBC~ lsection 112.2 states: 112.2. Notice of violation. The building official shall serve a notice of violation on the person responsible for the construction, alteration, extension, repair, removal, demolition or use of a building in violation of the provisions of the USBC, or in violation of plans and specifications approved thereunder, or in violation of a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of the USBC. Such O~er shall reference the code section that serves as the basis for the violation and .direct the discontinuance and abatement of the violation. Such notice of violation shall be in writing, and be served by either delivering a copy of the notice to such person by mail to the 034 required the building official to serve notice of the violation even though the time period under the statute for criminal prosecution of the violation had passed. On appeal, the Technical Review Board upheld the local code appeals board because if found the local board was "within the discretion conferred upon them by the USBC.' On appeal, the Circuit Court of the County of Chesterfield upheld the Technical Review Board's decision. This case is now on appeal to the Court of Appeals. Although the decision in the Chesterfield County case is limited to the case which was before the Technical Review Board, the Virginia Building and Code Officials Association (VBCOA) is concerned about the impact this case decision is having, and can have, on several issues which building officials encounter daily in their administration of the USBC. For example, must a building official always issue a notice of violation under Section 112.2 regardless of when it is discovered? If notices of violation mu~t always be issued when a violation of the USBC is discovered, what is the purpose of the notice of defective work given by the building official following an inspection as provided in Section 110.57 If a violation is discovered but the contractor who constructed the building cannot be found or has gone out of business, does Section 112.2 require the building official to issue a notice of violation on the person using the building? If notices of violation can and must be issued under Section 112.2 regardless of when they are discovered, what is the role of Volume II? If the Technical Review Board believes that Section 112.2, read in the context of the entire USBC, requires a building official to serve a notice of violation on the individual responsible for a violation whenever it is discovered, is it thus requiring the Department of Housing and Community Development to change the philosophy espoused in its training programs and by staff from one of trying to achieve compliance in an amicable manner without the issuance of a notice of violation, ff possible. The VBCOA believes it is important for the Technical Review Board to consider these questions and provide a definitive ruling as to whether and/or when a building official is required to issue a notice of violation under Section 112.2. Below axe some thoughts we believe are relevant to this issue. F41ucati0n of Code Officials Since 1972, the Department of Housing and Community Development has delivered local, regional and statewide training programs to educate building and code officials on the proper administration and enforcement of building regulations. All local building officials are required to attend the Virginia Building Code Academy as part of receiving professional certification. last known address, delivering the notice in person or by delivering it to and leaving it in the possession of any person in charge of the premises, or by posting the notice in a conspicuous place at the entrance door or accessway if such person cannot be found on the premises. -2- 0:15 The purpose of the Code Academy is to educate the building and code official community on the USBC and to enhance uniformity of its application. The classes encourage code officials to be ever mindful of the purpose of the USBC. The purpose is to ensure safety to life and property from all hazards incident to building design, construction, use, repair, removal or demolition at the least possible cost consistent with nationally recognized standards for health and safety. (Section 100.3). The Academy teaches the philosophy that constructing a safe building should be a team effort between the architect, engineer, contractor, owner and the building official. Strong emphasis is placed on trying to achieve compliance in an amicable manner. The text for the Core Module (Vol. I) states on page 9: Very often, the inspector's attitude is the most important part of gaining compliance .... IT]he Virginia BCA tries to encourage attitudes in inspectors of educating their clients, working with their clients to gain compliance at the lowest possible cost, saving drastic legal measures to be used only as a last resort. Building officials are encouraged to avoid legal proceedings if possible. "Educate, beg, plead, embarrass, threaten (in that order) before you take legal action.' Core Module (Vol. I), page 11. Building Code Academy attenders are also provided a chart that gives a suggested process to make a decision whether or not to write a violation. A copy is attached as Exhibit 1. Relationship of USBC Provisions Section 112.2 of Volume I states that the "building official shall serve a notice of violation on the person responsible for the construction,.., or use of a building in violation of the USBC." Despite the apparent' clarity of these words, read in the context of the entire USBC and the statutes, "shall" cannot mean that a building official must always issue a notice of violation when a USBC violation is discovered. If it did, it would render other provisions of the USBC meaningless. First, despite its plain language, Section 112.2 does not apply to violations unrelated to new construction. Volume I only relates to new construction; USBC violations of existing buildings must be cited under Volume II. An example of the distinction between Volume I and Volume II is illustrated by considering the regulation of unsafe buildings. Unsafe buildings are structures which constitute a f'tre hazard or are otherwise dangerous to human life or the public welfare. If a building which is "under construction" becomes an unsafe building, Section 119.1 of Volume I requires the building official to make it safe through compliance with the USBC or take it down, as the building official may deem necessary. Section 119.2 makes it clear, however, that if the building becomes unsafe after construction has been completed and a certificate of occupancy issued or the building occupied, Volume I does not apply. Any action taken must be under Volume II. The building official may only take enforcement action -3- 036 under Volume II if authorized by the local governing body pursuant to Section 36-105 of the Code of Virginia. Based on this and other sections which can be cited, the VBCOA believes it clear that Section 112.2 does not authorize violation notices for matters under the jurisdiction of Volume li even though the "clear" language of Section 112.2 does not note this distinction. Even with regard to Volume I violations, the VBCOA does not believe that Section 112.2 mandates the issuance of a notice of violation in every, instance where a violation occurs. If this were so, what is the purpose of Section 110.5 which authorizes the building official to provide a written notice of defective work when an inspector discovers construction not in compliance with the USBC? While a notice of defective work and notice of violation are similar, they are clearly not the same. The notice of defective work can be less adversarial in approach and does not have the same service requirements. To read Section 112.2 as requiring a notice of violation whenever a violation is discovered would render the Section 110.5 notice of defective work meaningless. If it is appropriate to provide a "notice of defective work" prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, would it not be appropriate to issue such notices after issuance of the certificate of occupancy? This enables all parties to remedy defective work prior to issuance of any violations. Also, local building officials are asked daffy to issue temporary certificates of occupancy so that owners or tenants can occupy a new structure without enduring the hardship of eviction from rental properties with 'no place to go." These temporary C.O.s always include a list of items which must be completed to assure full compliance with the USBC. If notices of defective work cannot be issued after occupancy is granted, then must the "notices of defective work" be converted into violation notices prior to issuing a temporary certificate of occupancy? In practice, VBCOA members are issuing "notices of defective work" prior to issuing any notice of violation. A basic rule of statutory construction is to assume that all provisions have meaning and they should be interpreted, if reasonably possible, so as to reconcile any conflict. When interpreting statutes or regulations, one must look to the object of the statute and the purpose to be accomplished. As discussed above, the purpose of the USBC is not penal in nature; the purpose is to have safe buildings and structures. The building official has a duty to seek this goal. In meeting this duty, the building official has a great deal of discretion in using the various methods provided in Chapter 1 to achieve compliance. (See e.g. Sections 103.4. 110.5, 112.2, 113.1) Legal action, including criminal prosecution, is one tool the building official has to assist with the furtherance of the USBC's purpose. Notices of violations arise in this context. It is one "tool" the building official can use to obtain compliance if more amicable steps have been unsuccessful. Also, if legal proceedings are to be pursued, the USBC mandates certain due process. Pursuant to Section 112.2 the building official must first issue a notice of violation and provide an opportunity to cure the violation. Section 112.2 has certain due process requirements which must be observed including what the content of the notice of violation must be and how it can be served. 037 Although the VBCOA agrees that Section 112.2 would benefit from some clarifying amendments, it does not believe that this section re~_uires a building official to issue a notice of violation for every USBC violation he discovers regardless of when it is discovered. The authority and responsibility to issue notices of violation is essential to successfully achieving the stated purpose of USBC. Improperly exercising the authority and responsibility to enforce the USBC only serves to undermine the integrity and accountability of Virginia's code enforcement system. VBCOA believes that mandating the issuance of violation notices would impose unnecessary burdens on the public, and only serve to aggravate skepticism about the role of government rather than furthering compliance with the stated purpose of the USBC. Also, such a ruling would create code enforcement policies which have never been explored or taught through the programs delivered through the Virginia Building Code Academy. The V'BCOA believes it is critical for the Technical Review Board to provide direction on this issue. We hope the Board will agree that the appropriate response to when a notice of violation must be issued is as we have outlined it. 0193561.02 -5- .-- O38 HRNOVER CO. BLDG. INSP TE!--~©z~-S$?-62~? BO~ O~ ~UPER~R8 MECHANfCSVJLLE DISTRICT CIIfCKA~Y OIS~T WlLLI~ C. F~IEH ~ H A~A DISTRICT ~ND DISTRICT R. J, ~LOTZ. JR. H~RY DISTRICT AUBREY M. ~TANLEY, eE~VE~M D~TRIC] ELT~ J, W~, HANOVER COUHTY ;~, O. BOX 47U HANOVER. VIRGINIA 23069 0470 Jul 17,~95 15:$8 No.O06 P.02 JOHN F. B~RRY 0OUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RIOHARO R. ~)HNSC~I DEPUTY COIJNTY ADMINISTRATOR STERLING ~, RIVES, Ill COUNTY ATTORNEY July 17, 1995 Mr. William Dupler Building Official Chesterfield County P.O. ~ox 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Mr. Dupler: This is in response to your inquiry regarding Hanover's po[icy for eervt~g notices of violation for building code violations. Prior to May 10 of this year, Hanover's policy had always been to attempt to gain building code compliance b¥contacting the violator and attempting to obtain compliance cooperatively. Under that policy, we only served notices of violation as a las[ resort, when cooperative enforcement methods had failed and we were preparing to initiate criminal misdemeanor proceedings. We had followed this cooperative enforcement policy for many years for two reasons. First, the policy is consistent with the tratn[ng that we received from the State Department of Housing and Community Development, which teaches that cooperative enforcement methods are more appropriate and effective than serving formal notices unless a criminal prosecution has become inevl:able. Second, our experience has been that the cooperative enforcement policy Is usually more effective than notices Of violation for gaining prompt compliance. We changed our policy on May 10 as a result of the ruling by the State BuLlding Code Technical Review Board and ~he Chesterfield Clrcui~ Court, which state that no:ices of viola:ion shall be served for al! building code violations. Our new policy is to serve no:~cee of vLo~a~ion for all violations that we discover. A: this t~me, we have no: had enough experience with the new policy to determine whether it w~ll be as effective as our old, cooperative enforcemen: policy. RicHard ~. Bartell Building O~f~cial 040 MICHAEL C. ALLEN W. RICHARD HAIRFIELD C. FRANK MORTON. III MARY PHILLIPS USRY A. RUSSELL WATSON T. MICHAEL BLANKS, JR. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW I-L~RFIELD, MORTON & AI,LEN i~)N AIR PROFESSIONAL BUI~ING. 8Ul~ 201 ~EN~-EIG~ HUNDRED BUFORD ROAD ~CH~O~, ~G~ 23235 TELEPHONE (804) 320-6600 FACSIMILE: (~)4) 320-1~40 May 26, 1995 Mr. Roger M. Robertson Chief of Inspections Chesterfield County Deparunent of Building Inspections P.O. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832 Re: Southern Homes, Inc. Building Code Citations 14441 Newgate Road, Midlothian, Virginia Dear Mr. Robertson: I have received a copy of your May 12, 1995 letter to Southera Homes, Inc. and have been asked to respond. First, let me state that it is our position that proceeding against my client in reliance upon Virginia Code Section 36-106 is unconstitutional. My client is being cited, after the fact, for civil violations of the Building Code that supposedly took place prior to June 22, 1993. Enclosed is a copy of the Certificate of Occupancy issued to my client on June 22, 1993. The Certificate was a final Certificate of Occupancy and required no further action on the part of Southern Home, Inc. All of the complaint areas in your May 12 letter were inspected prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy and were approved [rd your department. Despite the above position and in an attempt to resolve this matter, I offer the following information: 1. With respect to item 1 in your letter, my client, Southern Homes, Inc., acknowledges the front and right side basement foundation walls are not reinforced below grade. Per your recommendation of June 14, 1994, Southern Homes, Inc. had the area inspected by a professional engineer and a reinforcement design was submitted to you and to the homeowners' attorney. Southern Homes, Inc. received your approval on September 30, 1994. The homeowners have yet to notify Southern Homes, Inc. of their approval to proceed with the prescribed repair. 2. With respect to item 2 in your letter, the method used in 1993 to install the drain tile at the subject property was a method commonly accepted in the wade and approved by your office routinely at that time. 041 Roger M. Robert. son May 26, 1995 Page two 3. With respect to items 3, 4, and 5 in your letter, my client called for and received a grading and yard inspection from your office in 1993. The grade of the yard was acceptable and approved at that time. Thereafter, the homeowners installed their own shrubbery and performed additional landscaping, and perhaps grading. It is our position that Southern Homes, Inc. cannot be held responsible for grade conditions of the property in 1995 different from those that existed in 1993, caused by the homeowner's actions and/or weather conditions over the last two years. In summary, it is our position that four of the five areas cited were not violations on June 22, 1993 when the Certificate of Occupancy was issued to Southern Homes, Inc. It would be unconstitutional for your office to proceed, two years after your approval process, with misdemeanor charges against my client. Further, it would be unconscionable for your office to proceed against my client for its failure to remedy item no. 1 in light of the homeowner's refusal to allow us access to the property to correct the problem. I would be happy to discuss these issues with you. It is our hope that they can be resolve without formal charges being placed against Southern Homes, Inc. Vv3~-lYdrw Enclosures Southern Homes, Inc. William B. Dupler, Building Offie~ 04; '~'"'X. BUILDF. R DESIGNER To c Co . January 4, 1995 Mr'. Robert E. Olsen, Chairman Board of Building Code Appeals County of Chesterfield P. O. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832 RE: APPEAL Dear Mr. Olsen: Enclosed is a copy of a decision by the Building Official of Chesterfield County dated October 12, 1994 on the Karnes Residence. Tomac Corp. hereby appeals this decision of the Building Official to the Board of Building Code Appeals. The owners of the building are Mr. and Mrs. Robert G. Karnes, 15201 Powel! Grove Road, Midlothian, Virginia, to the best of our knowledge. Please contact us with the proposed hearing date prior to issuing a notice so we can confirm our availability. Sincerely, Thomas G. Cauble President TGC: bc f Enclosure RO. Box '193 Micllothic:n, Wginia 23'1'13 (804) 794-4,5,34 · Fax: 379-8215 Midlothian Office t3.301-C Midloth~n Turnpike Midlot~ian, Virginia 231t 3 Mr. T~omas G. Cauble Toma~ Corporation P.O. Box 193 Midlothian, VA 23113 CHESTERFIELD COUNT1 P.O. BOX 40 - CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA' ~:~832 (804) 748-1 2'I 1 March 7, 1995 (~DUNTY A~MINIb'rRA?QR LANE B. RAMSEY Decision of March 1, 1995 Meet/rig of Chesterfield County Board of Bu/Iding Code Appe,~Is Dear .'Mr. Cauble: It was tile decision of tile Chesterfield Coumy Board of Building Code Appesls to suppor~ the Bu/ld/ng Offic/al/n b/s Notice of Violation lett~' d~ed October 12, I994. In the hear/ng, the Board decided there was no evidence to prove thax the two items cited were not code violations. The decision by the Board was unanimous. If "uptOn receipt of t~is resolution, my person wfio was a party to the sppe~ msy ~ppest to the State Building Code Techn/c~l Review Board by submitting an spplicztion tn the State Bui/d~ng Code Technic~ Keview Board within 21 calendar d~ys." ',Application forms are ~'x3fidlable ~rom the office of the Sta~e Build'n§ Code Technic~ Review Board, 501 North Second Street, Richmond, VA ~219, (g04) 371-7170. Respectfu/ly, Robert E. Olsen, Cha/rm~n Chesterfield County Board of Building Code Appesls Appeals Board Members, William D. Dupler, Stylian P. Parthemos 045 Providing a FIRST cHOICE community through excellence in' public service. Ca'mmonwe.'tlrh o[ Vk'g~nia p.~!~,~i,~n ~..rviag ~ bas,Ls for ~ppeal (che~k one) Vir~a Uaiibrm S[a£c..v(de Building Cad~ Volume I - New Can~wacrioa Stare Building Coa~ .echn{_~l R~4~-,v Board ~1 N~ ~p~don for Adm,n,~a~ ~~ ~ RECEWED ~ ~e O~fopme~ <~ - ~c, Vol~c 2 - B~g ,. Vk~a Scatc~dc ~t~c Pr~eat£oa Code Other ccgutadom Ye..~ Edition of t~~a (include amcndmcnr, s if applicable) 1986 0'SBC A~Han£ rni"nrlZlal.~Dn (Name, Azidr~-~ and Phone Number cf .%,ppli~c:) Tomac Cora. 804-79~-4534 P_ a_ ~e~_ 1,93 tiidXothian, Virginia 23113 Appc/lea: r-encroach (Name,, Address and Phone Number of Oppc~mg P~m/or Pm-dc~) ~r. William D. Duplerl Building Official 804-748-1057 Chesterf±eld County P. 0. Box 40 Chesterfield, Vir~in~ 238~Z 1. Copy of decision of eatbrcing or admin;stradve agency being appealed. Z C.~.py at' app. iicadon for appeal to cbc local board and local appeal board's resolution and any crmmm~ipc · or m~nutes wiiich were taken. 3. Description and location of building or structure [avolvexl including aamc and address of owner. '.. . 4. Sp~c{~c £¢~ef~ou~r' Withdraw~ cancel and/or rescind ~he uoCice of violation (include actciidamal pages CEK'U. FtCATE OF SERVICE I ba:rcby ccrtLC]r daac on thc 21 day of ~'reh , 199_~ a completed true copy of thc tbrcgoing Aophcadon /or Appeal including required intbrmation as ~dicatcd on the application wa~ ~v~e.d or ~.nt to thc S~atc Building Code Technical ~ ~a.t~ ~ to all ~d on thc applicadoa Ocbe~ d~m m~cl ~~ ~" or Name ~"rin£ James A. Relationship to case Appel_].ant O46 "'?~LI"~-UMBING & HE~TING co.J PLUMBING. v,,,, This Symbol ~ Means Quality HEATING · AIR CONDITIONING · SALES AND SERVIC (804) 288-1951 FAX - (804} 26~ M. arch 22, 1994 Mr. Bob Obcn ,Chairm,'m Bo~d of Bui.ldi.ng Code AppeaLs c/o Chcsmrfie!d Coumv Depaz'm'~ent of 13 ufid/ng irmpec don P. O. Box 40 ChesterJSe!d, VA 23'd32-0040 Re,: De~ Mr. O.Ls~:: I axn wfifi.r~3 to you ;az refe:'cnce rs a recsnr es'seal 'A,o.t was be'~brc ~c Chesterfield Building Cede Appcais Board, ofw'i~ch you m-c choJrmrm. This appeaL. I believe, was in rcg:u'ds to an altcgcd buildfizg code ,,5olat/en a~ th: above home. My ,main concern b that tl~ Board can hold an appeals hearing m regards re my company and not notify us of the hearing. This is not the way, I b¢ticve, thc s?'stem is supposed to work. I would like to see this rnarr~ brought back to your Board so that we can be re~esented, before th/s matter goes .:my further. We lmve ~ways had a good reputation with Chesterfield County. of when ! am sure anyon~ there can attest to. We have been in business in thc Ric'h~d area since 1929, and would not have stayed in business for this many years if we did not do reputable work and stand behind our work. We have tried to schedule a t/me with this homeowner to re-patch these holes, and have not been 'allowed access. Please note, I said, repatch. It is our contention that'these holes were patched or/gdnaily yearn ago when d'ds house was bu/it. The home passed &e tinal plnmb/ng inspection a. nd r am sure yom- h'nspectm~ -"an attest that th/s is on.,.:' item they look for. f am sm'¢ you have either been ,,-2. ut to th/s home or seen pictures, a considerable amount of dig,_~.ng has been done around thb found;etlon, thus am.vttzi~g could have lmpp~.-ncd. · When we were IL'st contacted by Mr. Bunchvtt about 'hb homo b mid-December, 199~, 'we informed h/m St this Fa'nc dmt we would i:c wi/ling t,b gu b.',:k out oa~d rcpatch these holes, t'I~ a.skcd us to c'~ Mr. Kamc:~ :md scr uo a am:. Vee ~bdowed om' normal procedure and gave N.h'. Kames' phone n 'tm~b¢r 'to our dispatch~ and a.*.,ked him to call O47 Bob Oben Mm-ch 22, 1994 Page - 2 - 5,,Ir. Karn(:s. i-I<: left scverat messages for !'~H. Karncs, and kis phone calls were m,'ver returned. Several week taters ivir. Burtchert c~led us again, and asked why we had not bern out to Mr. Kames home, we told ~ that we could not reach _Mr. Kames. He asked us to put ;h/m on hold and c~l! M.r. I<h,.rnes, we d./d. M.r. ~larn¢s said we could not come out unfii hc received some sort of letter £o.,:n~ Chesterfield County. We informed We wq2I go out and ii:.: .il,Jo prol:k:n, thoui,..h our pa:icr.::e is r"~nn/ng thin at tiffs poh~t, if someone can rna.[:<: Mr. K;u'ncs lc: us ~;n uhc i',ro?:,"qy ~:cc cop],' of aaachcd letter). W~efl,.er or not~ yc~u can do ~.2is. ! don't i:ncw, but tI~ is just :,nether reason that ir doesn't seem rig~ght:, thal: you have the authofirv [o ~pl.inc our company; when we want to fix the problmn and ae not ~owed to. t will await to hear from you on the above matters. Sincerely, G. F. Jones, President William Dupler, Chesterfield County Tom Caublc, 'I'omac Corp. George R. Andrews, Esq. 04S occupancy, a final inspection shall be made to ensure that any violations have been corrected and all work conforms with the USBC. 110.3.1. Special inspections. Special inspections required by this code shall be limited to only those required by Section 1705.0. 110.4. Notification by permit holder. It shall be the responsibility of the permit holder or the permit holder's representative to notify the building official when the stages of construction are reached that require an inspection under Section 110.3 and to confirm continuation of work per Section 109.8 or for other inspections as directed by 'dae building official. All ladders, scaffolds and test equipment required to complete an inspection or test shall be provided by the property owner, permit holder or their representative. 110.5. Inspections to be prompt. The building official shall respond to inspection requests without unreasonable delay. The building official shall approve the work in writing or give written notice of defective work to the permit holder or the agent in charge of the work. Such defects shall be corrected and reinspected before any work proceeds that would conceal them. Note: A reasonable response time should normally not exceed 2 working days. 110.6. Approved inspection agencies. The building official may accept reports from individuals or inspection agencies which satisfy qualifications and reliability requirements, and shall accept such reports under circumstances where the building official is unable to make the inspection by the end of the following working day. Inspection reports shall be in writing and shall be certified by the individual inspector or by the responsible officer when the report is from an agency. An identifying label or stamp permanently affixed to the product indicating that factory inspection has been made shall be accepted instead of the written inspection report, if the intent or meaning of such identifying label or stamp is properly substantiated. USBC - VOL. U1993 110.7. In-plant inspections. When required by the provisions of this code, materials or assemblies shall be inspected at the point of manufacture or fabrication. The building official shall require the submittal of an evaluation report of each prefabricated assembly, indicating the complete details of the assembly, including a description of the assembly and its components, the basis upon which the assembly is being evaluated, test results, and other.data as necessary for the building official to determine conformance with this code. 110.8. Coordination with other agencies. The building official shall cooperate with fire, health and other State and local agencies having related maintenance, inspection or functional design responsibilities, and shall coordinate required inspections for new construction with the local fire official whenever the inspection involves provisions of the BOCA National Fire Prevention Code. SECTION 111.0. WORKMANSHIP. 111.1. General. All construction work shall be performed and completed so as to secure the results intended by the USBC. SECTION 112.0. VIOLATIONS. 112.1. Code violations prohibited. No person. firm or corporation shall construct, alter, extend, repair, remove, demolish or use any building or equipment regulated by the USBC, or cause same to be done, in conflict with or in violation of any of the provisions of the USBC. 112.2. Notice of violation, The building official s~h.a!! ?.rv.e..a_99~!~e 0_f viol~f6-h'""~-n- ~he pers6n. responsible for ...t.!~...c0nstruction~ alteration, gXi~'nsion, repair, removal, demohtion or use of a 6fiildifi-g"in"'~;~i'a~'i~'"6'/:'-'ih~'~'0~isions of the' approved thereunder, or in violation of a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of the USBC. Such order shall reference the code section that serves as the basis for the violation and direct the discontinuance and abatement of the violation. Such notice of violation shall be in writing, and be II USBC - VOL. 1/19v3 served by either delivering a copy of the notice to such person by mail to the last known address, delivering the notice in person or by delivering it to and leaving it in the possession of any person in charge of the premises, or by posting the notice in a conspicuous place at the entrance door or accessway if such person cannot be found on the premises. 112.3. Prosecution of violation. If the notice of s_h_a!_( .re_q._ue.s[~. i_E__w_rit___igg,&h&!e_g_al_..c__o.unsel of the jurisdiction to institute the appropriate legal proceedings to restrain, correct or abate such' v_i_o_!a.[!'.o, ii, °r'tci:eqisii'e~-~h';"rem0val °r terminatiofi of the use of the building in violation of the provisions of the USBC. Compliance with a notice of violation notwithstanding, the building official may request legal proceedings be instituted for prosecution when a person, firm or corporation is served with three or more notices of violation within one calendar year for failure to obtain a required construction permit prior to commencement of work regulated under the USBC. 112.4. Violation penalties. Violations are a misdemeanor in accordance with {} 36-106 of the Code of Virginia. Violators, upon conviction, may be punished by a fine of not more than $2,500. 112.5. Abatement of violation. Conviction of a violation of tl3_e .U.SB_.Q.s.ha!I.. ~ot. preclude the' institution of appropriate legal.action to requir~ correctiori or abatement of the violation or tO prevent other violation's or'recurring violations o~ the' UsBC 'r~fzi~n-~'"tS"~Sfi~i~dtib-n~kn'd 'isse of thd' 6-uiidin~ 6r' 'p?e~i;_~) SECTION 113.0. STOP WORK ORDER. 113.1. Notice to owner. When the building official finds that work on ~ny building is being executed contrary to the provisions of the USBC or in a manner endangering the general public, an order may be issued to stop such work immediately. The stop work order shall be in writing. It shall be given to the owner of the property involved, or to the owner's agent, or to the person doing the work. It shall state the conditiom; under which work may be resumed. No work covered by a stop work order shall be continutx3 after issuance, except under the conditions statcc! in the order. 113.2. Application of order limited. The stop work order shall apply only to the work that wa~ being executed contrary to thc USBC or m a manner endangering the general public, providcci other work in the area would not cattsc concealment of the work for which thc stop w~,rk order was issued. SECTION 114.0. POST/NG BUILDINGS. 114.1. Use group and form of sign. Prior to use, every building designed for Use Groups [3, H, M or S shall be posted by the owner with a approved by the building official It shall Dc securely fastened to the building m a rea&is visible place. It shall state the use group, the live load, the occupancy load, and the date of posting. 114.2. Occupant load in places of assembly. Every room constituting a place of assembly o~ education shall have the approved occupant load of the room posted on an approved sign in :.. conspicuous place, near the main exit from tik' room. Signs shall be durable, legible, ant maintained by the owner or the owner's agent. Rooms or spaces which have multiple-ust~ capabilities shall be posted for all such uses. 114.3. Street numbers. Each structure to wbici~ a street number has been assigned shall have thc number displayed so as to be readable from thc. public right of way. SECTION 115.0. CERTIFICATE OF USE AND OCCUPANCY. 115.1. When required. Any building or structure constructed under this code shall not be used until a certificate Of use and occupancy has been issucc! by the building official. Final inspect~o~ approval(s) shall serve as the certificate of use c~t occupancy for any addition or alteration to a building or structure which already has a valid 12 CHEST PLflNNING DEPT ,~ 1-804-768-0790 ,~-21-g5 16:43 TO: Address: CHES~T,D CO~ PLANNIHG DEPARTMENT ZONING ADMINISTRATION NOTICE OF ZONING VIOLATION Date: An Inspection was made of your premises, located at and It was observed that you are in violation of Chesterfield County Code, Chapter 21/Chapter 21.1 (Zoning Ordinance) with respect to: Section .. J We request that the above violation be corrected on a voluntary basis no later than . · Our goal is to work with you to obtain your voluntary compliance, if wa are unsuccesslul in obtaining voluntary compliance, we may rater this matterto the General District Court for resolution. The court may impose the following penalties per the County Zoning Ordinance: Penalties for violation 1. A misdemeanor conviction and a fine of not less than ten (10) dollars and nol more ~ then one-thousand (1,000).dollars. Each day the violation continues is a separate otfense. 2. A civil penalty of not lass than one-hundred fifty (150) dollars. Each day the violation continues is a separate offense and although you cannot be fined more frequently than once every ten (10) days of the identical violation, you could be liable for civil penalties of up to $3,000.00. You may file an appeal of this notice to the Board of Zoning Appeals within thirty (30) days of tho date of this notice. The filing fee for an appeal, of this notice is $500.00. The decision shall be final and unappeaJabla il not appealed within thirty (30) days. in.D_ i e~y__be made: In Person: Planning Department, Room 203, Virginia between 8'.~ and 5:00 p.m. In Wdting: By Phone: Zoning Inspector Cheslerfield Administration Building, Chesterfield. Planning Olflce, P.O. Box 40, Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 748- NEAL J. BARBER DIRECTOR JACK A, PROCTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR NORMAN R. CRUMPTON PROGRAM MANAGER COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRCjIN A DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE February 17, 1994 The Jackson Center 501 North Second Street Richmond, Virginia 23219-1321 (804) 371-7170 FAX: (804) 371-7092 TrP: (804) 371-7089 Mr. Bob Olsen, Chairman Board of Building Code Appeals Chesterfield County Building Department P.O. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Mr. Olsen: The Office of the State Building Code Technical Review Board has received your correspondence dated January 27, 1994, requesting, presumably, an interpretation of the Uniform Statewide Building Code, Volume I, New Construction Code (USBC). Part of the Board's function is to interpret the provisions of the USBC in order to make recommendations to the Board of Housing and Community Development, the body with authority under state law to write and amend the USBC, for future changes to the USBC. In doing so, the Review Board has delegated to staff the responsibility of determining whether issues presented are interpretative in nature or whether the code text clearly indicates how the code is to be applied. If the text is clear, staff will respond with an informal opinion to clarify concerns. Should the submitter not be satisfied with the informal response, both the original request and staff's response are presented to the Review Board for their disposition. Although the issues with which you are concerned seem apparent to me, the questions you have posed may need some clarification due to the use of terminology, which is 'not presently used in the USBC and the fact that your questions have asked about courses of action that a building official may take, instead of stating specific provisions of the regulation and asked for clarification concerning their meaning. The general questions which you have posed require combining authority from several different provisions to make an overall determination as to how the regulation should be applied. They also to some extent involve legal issues outside the scope of the provisions of the USBC. With that in mind, I would like to present my views on your questions, in hopes that they may provide clarification or at least give some direction for future resolution of your concerns. You have first asked, "Can a building official "cite" a violation to document it in writing without issuing a notice of violation per Section 112.2 of the USBC?" The term, "cite" is an inappropriate term since it is not used in the regulation. Section 112.2 is very clear when it comes to violations and mandates that the building official serve a notice of violation on the person responsible for the violation. I find no other provision in the USBC to the contrary or that would indicate any other way of handling violations. Mr. Bob Olsen February 17, 1994 Page Two You next ask, "Is it appropriate to issue a notice of violation when -the statute of limitations for the enforcement of the code has expired?" The term, "serve" rather than, "issue" should be used. You also mention the statute of limitations for the "enforcement" of the code. The statute of limitations for building code violations, which is set out in Chapter 1 of Title 19.2 of the Code of Virginia, concerns legal issues dealing with prosecution of building code violations and is not referenced by the USBC. The only section I find in the USBC relating to prosecution of violations is Section 112.3, which clearly states that if the notice of violation which has been served is not complied with, the building official shall request the legal counsel of the jurisdiction to take action. The legal counsel may then examine any legal issues if necessary. Your last question is as follows, "What legal recourse is available when the building official has issued a notice of violation, the statute of limitations has expired and the contractor has not corrected it?" Since this question relates to legal issues, I researched opinions of the Attorney General's Office which have been written over the years and found one that I believe to be relevant. It relates to the authority of the jurisdiction to seek injunctive relief as well as criminal prosecution for building code violations. You may want to pass it along to the county attorney for his views. One final note that I would like to add concerns local appeals board's responsibilities, since your serve on the Chesterfield board. When issues such as the ones raised by your letter are presented to the local board as part of an appeal, my belief is that it is very important to make a determination of what issues the local board must review. Keep in mind that both the statutes concerning appeals to the local board and the USBC provisions authorizing appeals relate only to the application of the USBC by the enforcing authority. When in doubt concerning-whether the USBC has been applied, simply review the decision of the building official which is being questioned and ask yourself, how has the USBC been applied. It may become apparent that in some cases, the code has not been applied at all, therefore rendering the issue which has been raised one which the local board does not need to consider. As always, the staff of this Office is available to assist you in addressing specific questions. Please feel free to consult with us and the County's legal counsel concerning issues raised at your local appeals meetings. NRC/vh Enc. Sincerer, Secretary, Technical Review Board INTRPCORFL294 ,-~ELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT hotel 4, 1995 Sty!ion P. Pa~hemos, Es.an/ire ~hesL~rfie!d County Attorneys Office Senior A~sistan~ County .Attorney ~ O. Box 40 '~ ~. ~hesterfie!d, Virginia ~23832 John B. Purcell, Jr., Esquire .%sis~a_nt Att.orney General S00 East Main Street Richmond, .~V. irginia ' · -232 !~.. County of Chesterfield v. Robert G. Kar~"an~ ~h'e State .Bui!dinc Code'Technical Revie~ Board (CL94-!273) Dear Counsel: Th~s mat~__ is before the Court on Apace! of the decision rendered by the State ~ui!ding Code Technical Revie~ Board, The issues before the Cour~ are the standing of the county to appeal and ~he correctness of ~h= ...... m=cnn_ca_- ~ ~ Review Board/s ruling requiring Chesterfield County to serve a notice of a violation. Upon, review of al! of the evidentia_~y materials and consideration of counse!s~ arguments and supporting memoranda, the Cou~ reaches the following conc!usi6ns. t. 'Chesterfield County is mot the Proper Amoellant: Pursuant to § 116.31 of the Virginia Uniform S~ate~ide Building code, Chesterfield. County has created the local board of Building Code Appeals known as '~he Chesterfield County Board of Building code of Appeals (BBCA) to hear appeals from the local.building department, concerning ithe application of the Uniform S~atewide Building Code (USBC)..~ 5uy!ian Par-~hemos, Esquire John Purcell, Esquire April 4, !995 Page 2 In this case, the BBC_k heard an appeai which arose from the failure of the building inspector to issue a notice of the violations in ~he construction of M~. Kamasz home. The BBCA .~u!ed ~hau ~he building ~ ' ~ o_~_cla_ was required to serve a notice of the · violation on ~he builder. The County appealed the decision of the BBCA to the S~a~e Building Code Technical Review Board pursu~nE %o Section 1!7.1 of ~he USBC. The State Building Code Technical Review Board uoheld the decision of t_he BBCA ruling that the Chanty w~s require~ to serve r_he notice of via!etlon. The County appealed the decision of ~he TRB to the Circuit Cour~ of Ches ..... eld. Section 9-6.!4:16 oF ~he Code of ~ ~ ' - V__c_nla pe_~mits a paruy aggrieved and cla~_ming unlawfulness of ~b.e T_~B/s decision to seek judicial review. The County would have s~anding as would any person who is aggrieved. However, to have legal standing, an en~i~v mus~ suffer a substan~ia! grievance, a denial of personal or prepe_~y rights, legal or equisab!e, or the imposition upon a par~y of a burden or obligation. Ches~erfie!d County is neither agg__eved, nor has been deprived of any personal or prope_~¥ rlght by ~-b.e decision of the BBCA. The Counzy considers itself agg~r_ieved by nec being able to pursue USBC enforcement in its own way. The Cou~ is not shown that ~his is a legally sufficient aggrieved cDnce-~n. Accordingly the county lacks standing to appeal nhe decision of the T.RB. !~. The Ru!inc of the Technical Review Beard was Correct: kssuming arquendo'that the County had s~anding, the Court would uphold the _~uling of the TRB. .The TFcB is authorized bv s~uta to interpret the state building ~cde. The T.RB like th~ B~ck ~n~eroreted.~ 112 ~ ~o .... ~a Z~= ..... =u ..... s.ervi~ of a nc~ice of violation. W~ni!e in a few i~stancas courts have intrapre~ed the word "shall" in statutes and ~rdinances to be direc~o.~y or pe~missive, the ordinary and usual intarpretasion has a mandatory connonation. _~he Cou_~t finds no basis for giving the word "shall" or_her than ius ordinary and usual mean%rig which is obligatory. The county is co,amended for its civility in first ta~ing a non-adversarial approach by requesting t~he contractor to remedy %he code breach. The county asserts its info_~ma! approach generally is successful. However its efforts to remedy t~ke code violations once unsuccessful, for who= ever reasons, the building official mus~ issue a notice of violation and mus~ request in writing the county Sty!lan PaI~chemos, Esquire John Purcell, Esquire April 4, !995 P~ge 3 attorney to institute the appropriate legal proceeding. The county's discretion in whether to take !eg~! action rests in the professional judgment of .the county attorney. The Cou_.',-'t sustains the ruling of the T.~B. The Cou_~t asks that .~. Purcell prepare an order, for~ard it to Mr. Pnrthemos for his Endorsement or exception, a_nd ret~n i% to the court within ~an (10)i days. Interpretations of the State Buikm~g Code Technical Review Board Page 1978/6 interpretation 16/78~ Issued November 30, 1979 Sections 209.0, 315.2, 909.1.2 and Table 902, BOCA Basic Building Code/1978 Edition Qo mo A Group of 50 'Townhouses' or ownouses are to be constructed on a single land parcel; each individual dwelling is to be rented. The dwellings are divided by fire separation walls meeting the fire Group in Table 902 and Section '909.1.2 uluple, singled-family dwellings; side-by- side.' ~M ' grading for Class R-3 Use Are these dwellings properly classified as' 'R-3', as implied by Section 909.1.2, and within the broad defirdtion as noted in Section 209.4; or, are they properly classified R-2, multifamily dwellings? · , Section 909.1.2 defines such single family dwellings as Use Group R-3 and as such are not subject to the requirements of 315.2. _/.nterpretation 17/78_ Issued Apr/1 25, 1980 Sections 112.5, 113.5, BOCA Basic Building Code/1978 Edition Do the above-mentioned sections mean we must keep the plans on file even after the permit has been finalized? No. Section 108.7 only indicates that the building official shall keep record of applications received, permits and certificates issued, fees collected, reports of inspections, notices and orders issued in the official records as long as the building is in ex/stence. Section 113.5 says that one (1) set of plans is to be retained by the building official but does not say how long he must keep them. The length of rime they are kept must be determined by local regulations. Interpretation 18/78_ Issued October 12, 1979 Section 110.0, BOCA Basic Building Code, 1978 Edition Q. Do we have the right to go back on a job after a final inspection has been made if the owner finds a violation and can we then cite the builder with a violation notice? A. Yes. Section 110 requires the Building Official to make ali necessary inspections during and after the construction of a building. Section 114.2 states that a permit is a license to proceed with the work and not authority to violate any Code provision. Section 114.3 states that all provisions of the permit must be complies with. Section 121.1 states that it is unlawful for any person or firm to occupy or construct or alter any buffeting in v/olation of any Code provision. It is the responsibility of the Building Official to enforce the provisions of the Building Code either before or _after the building is complete. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING, DEPARTMENT July 25, 1995 ZONING ENFORCEMENT FY 94-95 Number of Complaints Received Number of Complaints Closed by Zoning Staff Number of C,urt Cases l'ercent of C~ml~laints Closed by Zoning Staff (1145+ 1220 --' .94.10) Average Number of Days t.o Verify Zoning Violation Average Number of Days to Close Zoning Violation 1148 72 94. i% 1.5 22.75 Should you t~ave questions, please call Mike Janosik at 748-1083 Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 267 1995 Item Number: Pa~e ~- f~- O~ Subject: Consideration of Revisions to the County Code permitted by the 1995 General Assembly. County Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: BoardAction Requested: To identify revisions to the County Code permitted by the 1995 General Assembly for future public hearings. Summary of Information: At the June 28, 1995 meeting, the Board decided to advertise ordinance chanles that were required by changes in state law and deferred decisions on any discretioniary changes te the County Code. The attached list identifies those changes to the County Cele that may be adopted after holding a public hearing. If the Board takes no action on any of the items, they will not be scheduled for a public hearing. Steven L. Micas Attachments: Yes ~-~ No County Attorney 0800:10470.1 049 1995 VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY LEGISLATION AFFECTING THE COUNTY June 28, 1995 Public Hearing or Other Board Action I1. CHANGES WHICH PERMIT THE BOARD TO TAKE ACTION A. ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNMENT Yes No Comments: Authorizes local government bodies to set the regular meeting times of their various authorities, boards and commissions to eliminate conflict. [HB 2233; SB 1108] Recommendation: No action. Yes No Comments: = Provides that a small claims court may be created in any locality upon adoption of a resolution to that effect by the local governing body and subsequent approval by the General Assembly of an act specifically authorizing creation of a small claims court for that locality. Previously, local governing bodies were required to adopt an ordinance rather than a resolution prior to General Assembly approval. [HB 2597] Recommendation: No action. The Board and the County's court system were polled when the General Assembly first authorized the creation of small claims courts. There was no interest expressed in creating a new small claims court in Chesterfield. 0800:10549.3 -1- O5O Yes No Comments: m Provides that localities may, by ordinance, adopt policies and procedures for "incentive contracting." Such an ordinance would offer a contractor the opportunity to share in any cost savings realized by the locality when project costs are reduced by such contractor, without affecting project quality, during construction of the project. [HB 2459] Recommendation: No action at this time. Staff should explore this ordinance change and bring this matter back to the Board. Incentive contracting can result in cost savings to the County but can also create new dispute opportunities between the County and its contractors. Staff will attempt to minimize the negative effects of incentive contracting in the draft ordinance. Yes No Comments: Removes the requirement that localities, prior to removing or repairing certain dangerous structures, must file a lawsuit in the circuit court asking the owners of the structure to remove or repair the structure. A locality is still required to provide notice to the owner and lien holder of the property and a reasonable time to take the necessary actions. [SB 1051] Recommendation: Recommend ordinance change. Would allow County to remove dangerous structures more expeditiously. Yes No Comments: Narrows the circumstances under which a locality must notify other localities of proposed land use matters that involve a parcel of land within one-half mile of the other Iocality's border. Would only require notification if the proposed change involves a change in use or an increase by 50% in the bulk or height of an existing building. [SB 766] Recommendation: Recommend no change. It is administratively easier to do the notification in all cases. 0800:10549.3 -2- Yes No Comments: Extends to the County the authority to enact a bicycle helmet ordinance which would require every person 14 years or younger to wear a protective helmet when riding a bicycle on any highway, sidewalk, or public bicycle path. [HB 1745] Recommendation: Recommend that ordinance not be adopted. Compliance can be achieved more effectively through the County's current safety education programs. Yes No Comments: 10. Allows localities to prohibit by ordinance the shooting of crossbows, longbows, or recurve bows in any manner that would result in the impact of the arrow on another person's property. [HB 600] Recommendation: This has not been an issue in the County and no action is necessary. Yes No Comments: 11. Authorizes counties to adopt ordinances making it unlawful to willfully and maliciously damage or deface any public building, facility or personal property. Violating any such ordinance is a Class 1 misdemeanor. [SB 688] Recommendation:.. Recommend setting public hearing to consider ordinance. Yes No Comments: 12. Authorizes counties and cities to supplement the compensation of magistrates; however, the supplement shall not exceed 50 percent of the Commonwealth's compensation to such officers. Currently, the County supplements the operating expenses of the magistrate. [HB 1879] Recommendation: No action. 0800:10549.3 -3- Yes No Comments: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Authorizes the Board to amend the zoning ordinance to give the zoning administrator the power to grant variances from building setback requirements. [HB 2488] Recommendation: Refer to Planning Commission study and make a recommendation. C. FINANCE AND TAXATION Yes No Comments: 14. Permits localities to issue local motor vehicle licenses free of charge to surviving spouses of deceased disabled veterans. [HB 1860] Recommendation: No action. Yes No Comments: 15. Allows the local governing bodies to exempt or abate real estate taxes on assessment increases resulting from improvements to residential and commercial real estate which is at least 15 and 20 years old, respectively. The exemption or abatement period may not exceed 15 years. [HB 2341] Recommendation: No action. Should be studied in conjunction with the neighborhood studies currently being conducted by the Planning Department. 0800:10549.3 -4- ·" 053 Yes No Comments: 16. Establishes a new motor carrier transportation property classification as a separate class of property for tangible personal property tax purposes. Currently, some trucks that travel intra-state are taxed at the personal property tax rate $3.60/hundred dollar assessed value. This new classification could expand the number of intra-state and interstate trucks subject to tangible personal property tax. However, the rate would be limited to the current rate for machinery and tools ($1.00/hundred dollar assessed value). [SB 898] Recommendation: No action until staff can determine the fiscal impact of this tax program. Yes No Comments: 17. Allows localities to exempt from the enhanced emergency telephone service tax, telephone subscribers who reside in a nursing home or other similar adult care facility. [HB 1861] Recommendation: No action. Yes No Comments: Yes No Comments: 18. 19. Requires a treasurer, who has been granted the authority by the local governing body, to approve and make refund a taxpayer up to 92500 for an erroneous assessment. [HB 1694] Recommendation: No action. Would interfere with normal assessment process. Treasurer recommends against approval. Allows localities to impose a local business license tax on gourmet brewing shops. Gourmet brewing shop is defined as an establishment which sells ingredients for brewing beer, and rents to such persons facilities for manufacturing, fermenting, and bottling beer. [HB 1809/SB 848] Recommendation: No action. 0800:10549.3 -5- Yes No Comments: 20. Allows local jurisdictions to impose a video programming excise tax on the gross receipts of persons selling video programming through telephone lines to end-user subscribers through telephone lines. Currently, video services through the telephone line is not offered anywhere in the Commonwealth. The bill does not apply to persons providing such programming by wireless or direct-to-home satellite television service. [HB 2115] Recommendation: No action at this time. However, once this service is available, it will negatively impact the amount the County collects in cable franchise fees. 0800:10549.3 -6- CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Meeting Date: July 26, 1995 Item Number: Page 3~ .of i 7oCo ect: DEFERRED NOMINATION/APPOINTMENT John Tyler Community College Local Board County Administrator's Comments,: CountyAdministrator: ~ BoardAction Requested: Summary of Information: At its meeting on June 28, 1995, the Board deferred consideration of nominations for a member to serve on the John Tyler Community College Local Board, representing the County at large. Under the existing Rules of Procedure, appointments to boards and committees are nominated at one meeting and appointed at the subsequent meeting unless rules are suspended by a unanimous vote of the Board. Nominees are voted on in the order in which they are nominated. Term would be effective immediately and expire June 30, 1999. See attached. Preparer: Theresa M. Pitts Attachments: Yes ~-~ No Title: Clerk to Board of Supervisors 056 March 22, 1995 Mr. Lane B. Ramsey County Administrator Chesterfield County P. O. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Lane' ~.~ ~19.95, the-s~ond term of General William D. Curry, Jr., to the John T,~er C~lege Board expires. Since this is his second term, he is not eligible for reappointment. I would appreciate your assistance in working with the Board of Supervisors to appoint a new representative to our Board to date from July 1, 1995. Please know that General Curry was an outstanding Board member. His broad experiences enabled him to offer sound and constructive advice on a variety of matters. His congeniality made him quite popular with his fellow Board members and his record of attendance and participation was exemplary. In addition, he was always cognizant of his responsibility to Chesterfield County. He will be hard to replace. I will personally miss his collegiality, common sense, and perspective. Thank you for your assistance. If you need additional information about the appointment, please let me know. Sincerely, Marshall W. Smith President Office of the Pre~dent John Tyler Community Co[ Chester, Vkginia 23831 S04.796 4021 fax 804.796 4163 800.$52 3490 TDD 804.796 4197 MWS :gw xc: Ms. Linda Hyslop, Chairman, JTCC Board General William Curry Meeting Date: CltESTERFIELD COUNTY Page 1 of BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26, 1995 Item Number: 7. D. 2 Subject: Deferred Streetlight Installation Cost Approvals County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: This item requests Board approval of deferred Streetlight Installation Costs in the Bermuda District. Summary of Information: 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; 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; CONTINUEDNEXTPAGE Preparer: Attachments: Richard M~cElfish, P.E. Yes N No Title: Director, Environmental Engineering I# 0158 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 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: * Ranson Hills Court, in the cul-de-sac Cost to install light: $602.53 Does not meet minimum criteria for intersection or vehicles per day. * 207 Kristen Lane Cost to install light: $554.80 Does not meet minimum criteria for intersection or vehicles per day. Balance Forward $29,733.94 Bermuda Streetlight Funds (unaudited) Requested Effective Expenditure Balance Remaining $602.53 $29,131.41 554.80 28,576.61 I# 059 STREETLIGHT REQUEST Bermuda District REQUEST KEGEIVED: June 27, 1994 ESTIMATE RECEIVED: April 25, 1995 ESTIMATE REQUESTED: June 29, 1994 DAYS ESTIMATE OUTSTANDING: 300 COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: $ 602.53 NAME OF REQUESTOR: Ann Sandal ADDRESS: 3426 Ransom Hills Court Richmond, VA 23237 PHONE NUMBER: HOME- 743-2039 WORK- 771-8045 ~-~ REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF: IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUEST Ransom l:lill~ Court, in cul-de-sac POLICY CRITERIA: INTERSECTION: VEHICLES PER DAY: PETITION: REQUESTED LOCATION IS: Not Qualified, location not an intersection Not Qualified, less than 400 VPD Qualified REQUESTOR OR STAFF COMMENTS: Staff notes that this light was deferred from the May 10, 1995, Board meeting for a period not to exceed 90 days for the purpose of obtaining a statement from the requestor regarding security or safety reasons for approving the installation. Please see requestor's statement below. Requestor states: "This light would be of great benefit for the security of the residents of the cul-de-sac and the safety of the children who play there." Attachments: Map 060 'Street Light Request M~a~p July 26, 1995 HILL Street Light Legend ~ existing light ~ requested light This map shows citizen requested streetlight installations in relation to existing streetlights. Existing streetlight information was obtained from the Chesterfield County Environmental Engineering Department. REQUEST RECEIVED: December 15, 1994 ESTIMATE RECEIVED: March 1, 1995 STREETLIGHT REQUEST Bermuda District ESTIMATE REQUESTED: December 16, 1994 DAYS ESTIMATE REQUEST OUTSTANDING: 73 COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: $ 554.80 NAME OF REQUESTOR: R. Michael Phoenix ADDRESS: 207 Kristen Lane Chester, VA 23831 PHONE NUMBER: 274-5957 REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF: -~ IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATION IS: REQUEST 207 Kristen Lane POLICY CRITERIA: INTERSECTION: VEHICLES PER DAY: PETITION: Not Qualified, Location not an intersection Not Qualified, Less than 400 VPD Not Required, existing light REQUESTOR AND STAFF COMMENTS: Staff Comments: The requestor, Mr. Phoenix, has an existing Colonial style fixture installed on his property approximately eight feet from the road right of way. He paid to have this type light fixture installed to match the then existing style being utilized in the Rivers Bend community. The developers of Rivers Bend have since, with Board approval, paid to have their twenty six colonial fixtures replaced with Acorn fixtures on fluted poles. The County pays for the electrical service to these twenty six fixtures. Mr. Phoenix would like to have the colonial fixture for which he pays electrical service removed and the County to have installed, and take over electrical service charges for, an Acorn fixture such as in use everywhere else in the development. This will involve removing his Colonial light and installing an Acorn light approximately eight feet away in the road right of way near his driveway. The monthly charge for this fixture will be $16.95 or $203.40 per year. The developers of Rivers Bend have declined to fund this installation as has the homwowners association, thus his request to the County to pay for the installation. The County can only pay for the installation and monthly service for streetlights installed in rights of way or on County property. CONTINUED NEXT PAGE 062 Thi§ iequest was deferred until the July 26, 1995, meeting. At that time staff was to present th~ most recent cost for this installation and a comparison of that cost with the cost for installing the more standard fixture of an enclosed lamp on a concrete pole. The cost to install an enclosed fixture on a concrete pole at this location will be $325.00. This cost is $229.80 less than the cost of installing an acorn style light on a fluted pole as was requested. The enclosed fixture has a monthly maintenance charge of $7.90 or $94.80 per year. Attachments: Map 063 St~,et Light Request July 26, 1995 E HUNDRED RD t~F~ I ST£N £N This mop is a copyrightett produa of ~ne Chesterfiehi County 075 O~fc~ Street Light Legend ~] existing light ~] requested light This map shows citizen requested streetlight installations in relation to existing streetlights. Existing streetlight information was obtained from the Chesterfield County Environmental Engineering Department. o 4Q Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26, 1995 ltemNumber: Page o __ 8,A. 1~ Subject: Appointment of Lieutenant Robert E. Lukhard as an Assistant Fire Marshal pursuant to Section 27-36 of the Code of Virginia. County Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: BoardAcfion Requested: Request that the Board appoint Lieutenant Lukhard as Assistant Fire Marshal pursuant to Section 27-36 of the Code of Virginia. The code designates the governing body as the authority to appoint assistant fire marshals to do the duties of the fire marshal in his absence. Summary of Information: This action will allow Lieutenant Lukhard to exerCise the authority to issue summons for fire prevention code violations granted by Section 9.1-8, "Authority of Fire Marshal and Assistant Fire Marshals" of the Code of the County of Chesterfield. Lieutenant Lukhard has satisfactorily completed the required training course designed specificallY for local fire marshals by the Commonwealth of Virginia. This appointment will greatly enhance his effectiveness as a fire safety inspector. Preparer: Robert L E~he~ ~Yes Title: Chief of Fire Department # 065 Attachments: No Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26, 1995 Item Number: 8.A.2. /of l Page i I Subject: Nominations to Chesterfield Emergency Planning Committee County Administrator's Comments: BoardAction Requested: · The staff requests that the Board approve the nominations listed in the attached memorandum for the Chesterfield Emergency Planning Committee. Summary of Information: The intent of the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986 is for the local community to work with first responders, to create a working plan that outlines emergency response to hazardous materials situations, and to coordinate the Community's Right-To-Know. The Chesterfield Emergency Planning Committee is authorized to function under this Act. Chief Robert L. Eanes, Emergency Services Coordinator, and Lynda G. Furr, Assistant Emergency Services Coordinator, will be present to answer questions concerning these nominations. Attachments: Yes V-~ No Title: Fire Chief # 066 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS J, L.'~b:~HALE~' III, CHAIRMAN BERMUDA OISTRICT ARTHUR S. WARREN, VICE OHAIRMAN CLOVER HILL DISTRICT HARRY G. DANIEL DALE DISTRICT FREDDIE W. NICHOLAS, SR, MATOACA DISTRICT EDWARD B. BARBER MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT ~"CHES TERFIELD CO UNTY~' P.O. Box 40 CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832-0040 LANE B. RAMSEY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Memorandum TO: FROM: DATE: The Honorable Board of Supervisors June 15, 1995 Chesterfield Emergency Planning Committee The following individuals have resigned from the Chesterfield Emergency Planning Committee during the 1994/1995 term: Mrs. Debra Turner, AlliedSignal Fibers Technical Center Mr. Stephen H. Martin, Senator Major Dennis McDonald, Chesterfield Police Mr. William Jacobsen, Johnston-Willis Hospital Mr. Don Peachy, Community Group Please consider the following nominees for the 1995/1996 Chesterfield Emergency Planning Committee: ~. Mr. Samuel A. Nixon, Jr., House of Delegates Home Address: 7412 Barkbridge Road Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 District: Dale Mr. Robert C. French, Captain, Chesterfield Police Department Home Address: 11021 Golden Leaf Road Richmond, Virginia 23237 District: Bermuda 067' Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service. District: Ms. Beverley Hudgins, Johnston-Willis Hospital Home Address: 4111 Stratford Road Richmond, Virginia 23225 Midlothian - Johnston-Willis Hospital 068 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Meeting Date: July 26, 1995 Item Number 8 .A. 3. Subject: Nominations and Appointments to the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Task Force. Count~_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ~~_ Board Action Requested: Staff requests the Board of Supervisors make appointments to the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Task Force. Summary of Information: Staff requests the ]~oard of Supervisors nominate and appoint the following individuals to serve on the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Task Force: Ms. Debbie Davis Bermuda District Ms. Lauren Cummings* Clover Hill District Each appointment will be to serve in an unlimited term as an at-large member, except for Lauren Cummings, a high school student, whose term will be one year. Each nominee demonstrates a high level of concern and understanding of the important issue of substance abuse and a strong commitment to addressing this issue in Chesterfield County. * Lauren Cummings' appointment will be to serve one year as an at-large student member. Preparer: ~ ~- ~ Title: Coordinator, Youth Services ~arbara L. Bennett # 069 Attachments: [~] Yes /No I Meeting Date: July 26, 1995 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Item Number: Page i of~___ 8.A.4. Subject: NOMINATION/APPOINTMENT Clerk to Board of Supervisors County Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: BoardAction Requested: Summary of Information: The County Charter provides that the Board must formally vote to appoint the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Although the Board affirmed the appointment Davis at its meeting on June 28, 1995, the Board needs to take formal action for appointment by voting to appoint Mrs. Davis as Clerk. Under the existing Rules of Procedure, appointments are nominated at one meeting and appointed at the subsequent meeting unless Rules are suspended by a unanimous vote of the Board. Steven L. Micas ~Yes Title: County Attorney 06q. I Attachments: No Meeting Date: CI:IESTERFIELDCOUNTY Page 1 of 4__ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26~ 1995 Item Number: 8. B. Sub,iect: Streetlight Installation Approvals County, Administrator's Comnlents: County Administrator:_~Z~ Board Action Requested: This item requests Board approval of Streetlight Installations in the Clover Hill and Dale Districts. Summary of Information: 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; 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 ' Rict~ard M. ~L-~lf[sh, P.E. Attachments: Yes N No Title: Director, Environmental Engineering I# O7O CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 4 Summary of Information: (Continued) o 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. CLOVER HILL DISTRICT: * Intersection of Royal Crescent Court and Royal Crescent Drive Cost to install light: $ 2,879.77 Does not meet minimum criterion for vehicles per day. Clover Hill Streetlight Funds (unaudited) Requested Balance Forward Expenditure $ 33,678.07 $ 2,879.77 Effective Balance Remaining $ 3O,798.3O DALE DISTRICT: Kim Drive, vicinity of 3051 Cost to install light: $ 0.00 Does not meet minimum criteria for intersection or vehicles per day. CONTINUED NEXT PAGE I# 071 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 3 of 4 Summary of Information: (Continued) DALE DISTRICT (continued): * Greatbridge Court, in the cul-de-sac Cost to install light: $ 1,215.48 Does not meet minimum criteria for intersection or vehicles per day. * Intersection of Greatbridge Court and Greatbridge Road Cost to install light: $ 1,313.09 Does not meet minimum criterion for vehicles per day. * Greatbridge Road and Plum Street Cost to install light: $ 1,624.03 Does not meet minimum criterion for vehicles per day. * Monza Drive, vicinity of 4030 Cost to install light: $ 5,198.73 Does not meet minimum criteron for intersection. * Falstone Road, vicinity of 4010 Cost to install light: $4,655.54 Does not meet minimum criteron for intersection. * Burnham Road, vicinity of 4856 Cost to install light: $3,160.48 Does not meet minimum criteria for intersection or vehicles per day. CONTINUED NEXT PAGE 0?2 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 4 of 4 Summary of Information: (Continued) DALE DISTRICT (continued): * Bonnie Brae Road, vicinity of 4853 Cost to install light: $3,769.85 Does not meet minimum criteria for intersection or vehicles per day. Dale Streetlight Funds (unaudited) Balance Forward $31,381.24 Requested Expenditure 0.00 1,215.48 1,313.09 1,624.03 5,198.73 4,655.54 3,160.48 3,769.85 Effective Balance Remaining 31,381.24 30,165.76 28,852.67 27,228.64 22,029.91 17,374.37 14,213.89 10,444.04 I# 073 STREETLIGHT REQUEST Clover Hill District REQUEST RECEIVED: May 25, 1995 ESTIMATE REQUESTED: May 31, 1995 ESTIMATE RECEIVED: June 26, 1995 DAYS ESTIMATE OUTSTANDING: 29 COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: $ 2,879.77 NAME OF REQUESTOR: Carol Ann Watson ADDRESS: 625 Royal Crescent Drive Richmond, VA 23236 PHONE NUMBER: HOME- 379-2637 REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF: Royal Crescent Court and Royal Crescent Drive REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATION IS: POLICY CRITERIA: INTERSECTION: VEHICLES PER DAY: PETITION: Qualified Not Qualified, less than 600 VPD Qualified REQUESTOR OR STAFF COMMENTS: Requestor states: "Royal Crescent Drive is a very dark road. There have been vandals around this area. There are numerous children at this location and it is very hard to see them coming around the turn." Attachments: Map 074 St~et Light Request Mat~ July 26, 1905 0 MARBL Street Light Legend ~ existing light ~ requested light This map shows citizen requested streetlight installations in relation to existing streetlights. Existing streetlight information was obtained from the Chesterfield County Environmental Engineering Department. O REQUEST RECEIVED: May 26, 1995 ESTIMATE RECEIVED: June 19, 1995 COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: STREETLIGHT REQUEST Dale District ESTIMATE REQUESTED: DAYS ESTIMATE OUTSTANDING: $ 0.00 NAME OF REQUESTOR: Walter Cook ADDRESS: 3051 Kim Drive Richmond, VA 23224 PHONE NUMBER: HOME - 745-4959 REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF: June 2, 1995 17 [-~ IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATION IS: REQUEST Klm Drive, vicinity of 3051 POLICY CRITERIA: INTERSECTION: VEHICLES PER DAY: PETITION: Not Qualified, location not an intersection Not Qualified, less than 400 VPD Qualified REQUESTOR OR STAFF COMMENTS: Requestor states: "We really need a light in this area due to recent crime rate." Attachments: Map 076 Street Light Request M~ July 26, 1995 co Street Light Legend ~ existing light ~ requested light This map shows citizen requested streetlight installations in relation to existing streetlights. Existing streetlight information was obtained from the Chesterfield County Environmental Engineering Department. O REQUEST RECEIVED: January 13, 1995 ESTIMATE RECEIVED: February 28, 1995 STREETLIGHT REQUEST Dale District ESTIMATE REQUESTED: January 16, 1995 DAYS ESTIMATE REQUEST OUTSTANDING: 41 COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: $1,215.48 NAME OF REQUESTOR: Melvin Harris ADDRESS: Chesswood Subdivision 5348 Plum Street Richmond, VA 23237 PHONE NUMBER: HOME - 796-5687 WORK - N/A REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF: ~-~ REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATION IS: Greatbridge Court, in the cul-de-sac POLICY CRITERIA: INTERSECTION: VEHICLES PER DAY: PETITION: Not Qualified, location not an intersection Not Qualified, less than 400 VPD Qualified STAFF COMMENTS: This installation is priority//4 of 13 based upon petition signatures. Attachments: Map O78 REQUEST RECEIVED: ESTIMATE RECEIVED: January 13, 1995 March 6, 1995 COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: STREETLIGHT REQUEST Dale District ESTIMATE REQUESTED: January 16, 1995 DAYS ESTIMATE REQUEST OUTSTANDING: 46 NAME OF REQUESTOR: Melvin Harris ADDRESS: Chesswood Subdivision 5348 Plum Street Richmond, VA 23237 $1,313.09 PHONE NUMBER: HOME - 796-5687 WORK - N/A REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF: Greatbridge Court and Greatbridge Road REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATION IS: POLICY CRITERIA: INTERSECTION: VEHICLES PER DAY: PETITION: Qualified Not Qualified, less than 600 VPD Qualified STAFF COMMENTS: This installation is priority//5 of 13 based upon petition signatures. Attachmems: Map 079 REQUEST RECEIVED: January 13, 1995 ESTIMATE RECEIVED: March 9, 1995 COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: STREETLIGHT REQUEST Dale District ESTIMATE REQUESTED: January 16, 1995 DAYS ESTIMATE REQUEST OUTSTANDING: 48 $1,624.03 NAME OF REQUESTOR: Melvin Harris ADDRESS: Chesswood Subdivision 5348 Plum Street Richmond, VA 23237 PHONE NUMBER: HOME - 796-5687 WORK - N/A REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF: Greatbridge Road and Plum Street REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATION IS: POLICY CRITERIA: INTERSECTION: VEHICLES PER DAY: PETITION: Qualified Not Qualified, less than 600 VPD Qualified STAFF COMMENTS: This installation is priority//6 of 13 based upon petition signatures. Attachments: Map OSO Street Light Request M. ap July 26, 1995 D~ MAL~ 0 0 0 3'treet Light Legend existing light requested light This map shows citizen requested streetlight installations in relation to existing streetlights. Existing streetlight information was obtained from the Chesterfield County Environmental Engineering Department. REQUEST RECEIVED: March 22, 1995 ESTIMATE RECEIVED: June 14, 1995 COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: STREETLIGHT REQUEST Dale District ESTIMATE REQUESTED: DAYS ESTIMATE OUTSTANDING: $ 5,198.73 NAME OF REQUESTOR: Chuck Nolte ADDRESS: Meadowbrook Civic Assodation 3545 Marquette Road Richmond, VA 23234 PHONE NUMBER: HOME - 275-0800 REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF: March 23, 1995 83 REQUEST AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATION IS: IS NOT AT Monza Drive, Vicinity of 4030 POLICY CRITERIA: INTERSECTION: VEHICLES PER DAY: PETITION: Not Qualified, location not an intersection Qualified Qualified REQUESTOR OR STAFF COMMENTS: Requestor states: "This street is approximately two blocks long and extremely dark. The light is needed for security and safety reasons." Attachments: Map REQUEST RECEIVED: March 22, 1995 ESTIMATE RECEIVED: June 14, 1995 COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: NAME OF REQUESTOR: Chuck Nolte ADDRESS: Meadowbrook Civic Association 3545 Marquette Road Richmond, VA 23234 PHONE NUMBER: HOME- 275-0800 STREETLIGHT REQUEST Dale District ESTIMATE REQUESTED: DAYS ESTIMATE OUTSTANDING: $ 4,655.54 REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF: March 23, 1995 83 -~ IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. LOCATION REQUEST REQUESTED IS: Falstone Road, vicinity of 4010 POLICY CRITERIA: INTERSECTION: VEHICLES PER DAY: PETITION: Not Qualified, location not an intersection Qualified Qualified REQUESTOR OR STAFF COMMENTS: Requestor states: "This street is approximately two blocks long and extremely dark. The light is needed for security and safety reasons." Attachments: Map 08;3 REQUEST RECEIVED: April 12, 1995 ESTIMATE RECEIVED: June 14, 1995 COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: NAME OF REQUESTOR: Chuck Nolte ADDRESS: Meadowbrook Civic Assodation 3545 Marquette Road Richmond, VA 23234 PHONE NUMBER: HOME- 275-0800 STREETLIGHT REQUEST Dale District ESTIMATE REQUESTED: DAYS ESTIMATE OUTSTANDING: $ 3,160.48 REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF: April 13, 1995 62 REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATION IS: Burnham Road, vicinity of 4856 POLICY CRITERIA: INTERSECTION: VEHICLES PER DAY: PETITION: Not Qualified, location not an intersection Not Qualified, less than 400 VPD Qualified REQUESTOR OR STAFF COMMENTS: Requestor states: "This street is approximately two blocks long and extremely dark. It would be in the best interest for safety and security reasons." Attachments: Map REQUEST RECEIVED: April 12, 1995 ESTIMATE RECEIVED: June 14, 1995 COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: NAME OF REQUESTOR: Chuck Nolte ADDRESS: Meadowbrook Civic Association 3545 Marquette Road Richmond, VA 23234 PHONE NUMBER: HOME- 275-0800 STREETLIGHT REQUEST Dale District ESTIMATE REQUESTED: DAYS ESTIMATE OUTSTANDING: $ 3,769.85 April 13, 1995 62 REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF: -~ IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. LOCATION IS: REQUEST REQUESTED Bonnie Brae Road, vicinity of 4853 POLICY CRITERIA: INTERSECTION: VEHICLES PER DAY: PETITION: Not Qualified, location not an intersection Not Qualified, less than 400 VPD Qualified REQUESTOR OR STAFF COMMENTS: Requestor states: "Area is extremely dark and just out of curve in street. help with safety and security." It would greatly Attachments: Map O85 S~eet Light Request July 26, 1995 0 Street Light Legend ~-] existing light ~] requested light This map shows citizen requested streetlight installations in relation to existing streetlights. Existing streetlight information was obtained from the Chesterfield County Environmental Engineering Department. 0~6 Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26, 1995 Item Number: Page ~- f z O~ 8.C.l.a. Subject: Resolution recognizing Rear Admiral Keith W. Lippert, U.S. Navy, for his service as commander of the Defense General Supply Center County Administrator's Comments: Recommends approval CountyAdministrator: BoardAction Requested: Mr. Warren requested a resolution honoring Rear Admiral Lippert. Summary of Information: Rear Admiral Lippert has lead DGSC since 1993. See attached resolution. Preparer: ~ ~ Title: Kenneth N. P'errotte Attachments: Yes ~-] No Director, Public Affairs RECOGNIZING REAR ADMIRAL KEITH W. LIPPERT, UNITED STATES NAVY, FOR HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO CHESTERFIELD COUNTY DURING HIS SERVICE AS COMMANDER OF THE DEFENSE GENERAL SUPPLY CENTER WHEREAS, Rear Admiral Keith W. Lippert has served as 20th Commander of the Defense General Supply Center, a primary field activity of the Defense Logistics Agency since July 1993; and WHEREAS, during Rear Admiral Lippert's leadership, the DGSC enhanced its reputation as a quality Chesterfield County employer by receiving the prestigious Commander-In-Chief's Award for Installation Excellence, the Department of Defense Value Engineering Achievement Award for Outstanding Field Command, and being recognized as a finalist in the Secretary of Defense Environmental Security Awards Program and U.S. Senate Productivity and Quality Award Program; and WHEREAS, Rear Admiral Lippert advocated communication initiatives within the workforce by chartering numerous employee process action teams, increasing the employee suggestion program, developing an internal customer service plan and personally conducting DGSC's first town hall meeting; and WHEREAS, DGSC, under Rear Admiral Lippert's direction, fostered the most successful school partnership in the state, expanding its role to include support of the Chesterfield County Math-Science Renaissance Program and the Crayons to Computers Store for educators and DGSC employees contribute more than 85 hours per week working with students at Meadowbrook High and Bensley Elementary; and WHEREAS, Rear Admiral Lippert has been active in community programs such as the Virginia Blood Services and Federal Campaign and active in community affairs including speaking engagements with the Rotary Club, Chesterfield Business Council, Jefferson Davis Economic Impact Zone, and other organizations; and, WHEREAS, Rear Admiral Lippert has served his country with distinction in the Navy, at sea and on shore, and now is relinquishing command of DGSC to assume the leadership of the Naval Aviation Supply Office and Ships Parks Control Center in Pennsylvania. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes the outstanding contributions of Rear Admiral Keith W. Lippert and expresses the appreciation of all residents for his valued commitment to the county and best wishes for continued success as he serves our nation. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26, 1995 Meeting Date: Item Number: Page . __ 8.C.l.b. Subject: Adoption of Resolution recognizing James L. Macklin for service to the County. Count~ Administrator's Comments: ~his CountyAdministrator: BoardAction Requested: Adoption of Resolution Summary of Information: James L. Macklin will leave Chesterfield County on July 30, 1995, after 21 years of service as he will be getting married and moving to Gulf Port, Mississippi. Fran Pitaro Attachments: Yes RECOGNIZING MR. JAMES L. MACKLIN FOR HIS SERVICE TO CHESTERFIELD COUNTY WHEREAS, MR. JAMES L. MACKLIN will leave Chesterfield County Government on June 30, 1995; and WHEREAS, MR. MACKLIN began his public service with Chesterfield County on July 1, 1974 as a Mechanic's Helper in the old County Garage; and WHEREAS, MR. MACKLIN as the "Dean" of the Chesterfield County Garage Team has helped many different mechanics, supervisors and managers as the team leader of the lubrication and tire service area; and WHEREAS, MR. MACKLIN has led this two-man team as the fleet of vehicles has more than tripled in size; and WHEREAS, MR. MACKLIN was recognized to have unique skills to the degree that he was selected to be the first, and so far only, person to be a Senior Mechanic's Helper; and WHEREAS, MR. MACKLIN is recognized by his fellow team members and other County employees as being a cheerful supportive and efficient worker; and ' WHEREAS, MR. MACKLIN has been an extremely reliable employee; and WHEREAS, MK. MACKLIN'S dedication, loyalty and total involvement in his Job has been of such magnitude it has brought credit not only upon himself but to the Garage Team and to Chesterfield County as well. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Mr. James L. Macklin and extends their appreciation for the 21 years of dedicated service to the County and their best wishes to him in all of his future endeavors. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Macklin and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. 09O . CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page _~__1 ot 9_ ~' AGENDA l- Meeting Date: July 26, 1995 Item Number: 8. c. 3. Subject: Request for Additional Staff and Funds for Detention Home Count~ Administrator's Comment,s! County Administrator: BoardAction Requested: Approve two additional Youth Supervisor positions for the Juvenile Detention Home and appropriate $42,200 to cover salaries and benefits in FY 96 for such positions. SummaryofInformation: The Detention Home currently operates with only two Youth Supervisors (1 male & 1 female) assigned to the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. This "staff to detainee ratio" is dangerously low when considering the number of physically large and violent offenders now being detained. Added to this situation are the conditions brought on by the massive over- crowding that is presently being experienced. We are currently averaging between 50 and 60 detainees per day with peakloads as high as 74 individuals in a 33 bed facility. This over- population is projected to continue and grow in the future. Current staffing pattem portends major security risks and presents major safety concerns if the building needs to be evacuated in the event of fire. The current compliment of 17 Youth Supervisors must maintain security and control 24 hours a day, 365 days per year and are chalJenged well beyond normal standards as they deal with populations which exceed 220% of the home's rated capacity. Reimbursement for 2/3 of salaries and fringe benefits has been requested from the Dept. of Youth and Family Services. The unofficial response was that no monies are available at this time; however, the Dept. of Youth and Family Services will again request the General Assembly to provide funds to reimburse the County for such positions. ~ James McKinnell for Robert Masden ' ~ Attach:nents: [---] Yes ! No CHESTERFIELD COUN FY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Summary of Information: (Continued) BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT COMMENTS: The two positions are expected to be funded for FY96 for 8.5 months at a cost of $42,225 for salaries and benefits. The funding source for this item will come from the following: 1) 2) 3) Any County overpayment for the FY95 Health Department cooperative budget. Surplus Library FY95 revenues. Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Grant. If sufficient funds are not available from these sources, then the remaining funding for this item will come from unanticipated FY95 property tax revenues. Expenditures for FY97 will be $59,612 for a full year. funds are not identified presently. Sources of /J~ - - JZL. Ste~maier, Director Office of Budget and Management # 093 Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26. 1 ~ Item Number: Page 1 of_2_ 8.C.5. Subject: Allocation of Three Cent Road Fund Monies to Pay for Development and Site Improvement Costs for Chester Pocket Park. County Administrator's Comments: County Ad ministrator: ~ BoardAction Requested: The Honorable J.L. McHale, III requests that the Board of Supervisors apProve the allocation of $2,600 from Bermuda District Three Cent Road Fund to Parks and Recreation to pay for development and site improvement costs for Chester Pocket Park. Summary of Information: Since the widening of Route 10 through Chester, the property at the northeast corner of Route 10 and Chester Road has remained vacant. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has granted a land use permit to the County to develop this area as a small pocket park to beautify this intersection. Volunteer groups have offered to provide maintenance of this site. Funding is needed to provide plant materials, benches, surfacing for a small path, and an area for lawn court games. Preparer: ~~"'~ Title: Michael S. Golden ~Yes Director Parks and Recreation # Attachments: No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Summary of Information: (Continued) Budqet and Management Comments: Funds in the amount of $2,600 are available in the Bermuda Three Cent Road Account; use of $2,600 for the Chester Pocket Park request and $100 for installation of a barricade in Thompson Avenue will leave an approximate balance of $27,392. james. J. L. Steg~aier, Director ~.Budget ~ Management # 09.9 Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page AGENDA July 26, 1995 Item Number: '~'~.C.6.a. Subject: Approval of Award of Contract for ADA/HCP Improvements to Existing Park Restrooms Count~ Administrator's Comments: Board Action Requested: The Board of Supervisors is requested to authorize the County Administrator to execute a contract in the amount of $146,049.00 with JRJ Building Contractors, Inc., for ADA/HCP Improvements to existing park restrooms. Summar}, of Information: Phase II of the County's plan for compliance to the Americans with Disabilities Act includes retrofitting 17 park restrooms to meet the current ADA standards. Funding is available for this project in the County's ADA Plan. Preparer: Michael S. Golden County Administrator: Title: Attachments: Yes D N o Director of Parks and Recreation # 10o CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meetin~ Date: Jul~ 26, 1995 Item Number: Budget and Management Comments: While funds are available within the county's approved ADA Transition Plan, the cost for constructing the improvements for the subject restrooms does exceed the original project estimate for this item. Consequently, in the next several months, once bids are in for the other major Plan items, staff.will be evaluating the Transition Plan to determine if completion will require additional funding. If so, staffwill then prepare recommendations for addressing any remaining Plan issues in FY97. James'~. L~tegmaier Title: Director, Budget and Management 101 PARKS ADA RESTROOM IMPROVEMENTS ~ 17 restrooms to be modified Park sites included: -Bensley Park -Bird Complex -Ettrick Park -Goyne Park -Harrowgate Park -Huguenot Park -Iron Bridge Park -Manchester Middle School Field House -Matoaca Park -Midlothian Middle School Field House -Point of Rocks Park -Providence Middle School Complex -Robious Athletic Complex -Rockwood Park See attached notes on typical modifications that will be performed at all of these sites Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26, 1995 Item Number: Page l_of 4~_ 8.C.6.b. Subiect,: Award of Contract for services related to the implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. County, Administrator's Comments: County Administrator.' ~.. tg. ~ Board Action Requested: 1) Authorize the County Administrator to execute a contract between the County and the firm of CH2M/Hill; 2) increase the FY '96 appropriation by $58,300 Summary of Information: In May of 1992 and May of 1993, Parts I and II of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permit application were submitted to the Water Control Board, now the State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). This is a permit program that is mandated under the Federal Clean Water Act and implemented in this State by the DEQ. The Program requires that localities develop comprehensive stormwater management plans including water quality monitoring -- to reduce the level of pollutants in their stormwater run-off. Once approved by DEQ, the Stormwater Plans are incorporated into a final NPDES Permit. Officials of that agency have advised County staff that a draft permit is written and will be forwarded to the County soon. The Permit term will more than likely be five years and will be renewable after that period. Jo~n ---~ Yes No Title: Environmental Coordinator 103 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 4 Summary of Information: (Continued) In anticipation of receiving the permit, the Environmental Engineering Department has investigated a number of alternatives for implementing the Stormwater Management Program. The Environmental Engineering Department investigated whether or not the private sector could implement the entire program more efficiently, and at a lower cost than the County. First, a survey of other localities in the Country was conducted to determine where privatization was done successfully and, in particular, what types of services were being privatized. It was found that while a number of cities and counties were successful in having certain services privatized, none of these localities privatized a State or Federally mandated program. The Department's next step was to determine if a private firm could develop a superior and more cost effective way of implementing the Stormwater Management Program. An RFP was sent out to over 100 private firms in the Spring of this year. Ten firms responded to the RFP. These firms were reviewed by a team from the Environmental Engineering, General Services and Purchasing Departments. Based on this review, the firm of CH2M/Hill was deemed the most qualified. However, their yearly cost for the implementation of the Program was $636,355, well over the Department of Environmental Engineering's budget of $350,000 for the program. Given the high cost of the CH2M/Hill proposal, it is the Environmental Engineering Department's opinion that the firm should be contracted to do only the monitoring and public education components of the program instead of the entire program. The balance of the program would be performed by County staff. In this way, those portions of the effort for which there is no County expertise, or where resources are limited, can be efficiently and accurately performed by a firm with specific experience in these areas. Those segments of the program which are more administrative in nature, involving the coordination of some twenty program elements to be carried out by Environmental Engineering and various other County Departments, will be more appropriately implemented by County staff in the Environmental Engineering Department. We believe this public/private partnership will be the most effective means of implementing the County's NPDES program. 104 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 3 of 4 Summary of Information: (Continued) CH2M/Hill's cost for conducting the monitoring and public educational elements of the program is $238,700. The Department of Environmental Engineering's cost for implementing the administrative components, including the hiring of appropriate staff, would be $169,600. The total public/private project cost would be $408,300, well below the CH2M/Hill's proposed cost for the complete privatization of the program. This combined effort will be $58,300 short of the $350,000 currently budgeted for the program. It should be noted that the three additional staff positions needed to implement the program were authorized in the FY '95 budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors: 1) authorize the County Administrator to execute a contract with the firm of CH2M/Hill in an amount not to exceed $238,700 to provide monitoring and public education services related to the implementation of the NPDES program; 2) appropriate $58,300 for the implementation of the NPDES program. # 105 CHESTERFIELD COUN lq/' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 4 of~_. Summary of Information: (Continued) BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT COMMENTS: The additional expenditures requested by the Department will be funded either with unexpended funds or from additional property tax revenue from FY95. This determination will be made when final year-end results are available. J~es J. E. Stegm~ier, Director ~fice of Budget and Management I# 106 Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Item Number: Page ~- of,,,~ REPLACEMENT 8.C.7. Sub~ect: Award Contract for Fire Suppression System Installation in Eppington House, Authorize the County Administrator to ~xecute Grant Agreement and Deed of Easement, and transfer funds from the Reserve for Capital Projects. County Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: BoardAcfion Requested: The Board of Supervisors is requested to: (1) award contract for fire suppression system installation at Eppington House to Williams Fire Sprinkler Co. Inc. in the amount of $111,531 (2) authorize the County Administrator to enter into an agreement with the State Division of Historic Resources to accept Grant Funds in the amount of $50,000 to be allocated towards this project and authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator to execute an Historic Preservation Easement on the house and curtilage and (3) transfer $25,000 from Sthe Red,rye fox Capital Projects. ummaryollnlormauon: A fire study was performed as part of the overall Master Plan for Eppington Plantation. This study revealed the need for a fire suppression system to protect this valuable county resource. The County has received approval of $50,000 from the State Department of Historic Resources to fund a portion of this project. Execution of a Grant Agreement and Deed of Easement is required prior to expenditure of these funds. Preparer: Michael S. Golden Attachments: Yes ~ No Title: Director Parks and Recreation CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meetin[ Date: July, 26, 1995 Item Number: Budget and Management Comments: In FY95, $50,000 was allocated from the General Fund to install the subject suppression system. In addition, a $50,000 grant from the State Division of Historic Resources was also approved for this project. System design costs were approximately $13,500 and the construction cost is $111,531. This leaves a funding shortfall of approximately $25,000. Funds are available in the Reserve for Capital Projects. If utilized, the balance in the Reserve will be $433,982, (this assumes approval of the Coalboro/Otterdale Connector Road item utilizing $200,000 from the Reserve). /ecs J. L.~(~grn'aier /'~ Director, Budget and Management CO~ Jr,, MONWEA. LTH o[ VIRQ/NZA Del~nmen~ o~ HIswra: Resources $u17 1~, 199~ IC,~hmoruL V~r,~ ~3219 ~ent.or ~ohit~o~v~al ~tstcr&an CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 19'95 9:12 No.O05 ?.02 TgL' $04~25 426t ~ DF,~ OF ~_A8~, marlo this ..--_ d~y of__....___ , 1995. 5v ~, Cha~er 22, Titb 10. i of rbe Cod~ of V~ of 19~0, as amea~, ~s ~z~ to ~ ~o p~on ~d pmt~ of ~o Commonw~ of V~ma's b, iid{n~ m~ur~. ~ sites w~ it ~ ~ ~ve 1~. {~widc. ~ ~o~ ~ ~, ~on{ ~ ~ ~!n~m, of ~ ~gon ~d pm~don of such ~~ ~ I~0, U ~d~, ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ f~ ~st~c and other 9'~; and ~ ,o ~ ~t~m ~er!eme~1 ~cn mclu~ a ~r hn,,~ ~-~ ;. ~; u;.,~_ W~, ~ 'I~W' ~ a~u~ by ~o O~r for ~e p~ of ~a~Us~g it u a ~ent m~ ~r ~e ~t of ~ pub~o; ~ ~UUNIY nad th~M f~tt~es of ~he prop, EPPINGTON and ~e pfc on such Re~hte. rs: I b..L :,~Ua- r'96-1755 Jul 19'95 9~ of the 1994 Act{ of Assembly, I{~m 507, appropnau~i $30,00~ the purpose, de~ribeA i. Section ] 0.1-2213 0frhe Co~e of Vbginia: ~ Omator arid ~ Grmltee desire to c~sur~ tho preservation of ~'tton of ~ hisiorto and arcl~~ f~;~-ea that lei it to la: placed n NOW T~E~'~f)]~ in mooguitiou Of ~e for~8 ~ in ~d~mdon of the qim of ~ ~10.~ ~d ~]~ vg~lc ~sid~, thc r~ipt of w~ ia h~y ~t {n ~~ ~ ~ u ~u ~~ me a~ of me pz~ d~d~ tn ~ r~tc~s h~ ~ m ~ ~ of ~c ~mcnt Pro~ ~ ~ a~rd w~ me ~fiCY of me ~, ~a ~ ~~ ~ch ~e O~ h ~y ~fitled to ~fn~, ~all ~ ~ follows: of ~e ~~~of ~ ~ Au~st 19, l~ ~ negative n~ 13,830 ~d 13.8~ Pmk. ~e nf ~ of ~ ~d ~o~ shall ~ s~ ~r~y ~ ~e ~u~ ~ ~ n~ly ~ p~~, ~ for ch~ges ~ ~e ~y No builging or ~tr~ ol~c shall be built or mahliairl~l on ~e ~menl ~~ ~ u~ (i) am ~r l~s ~, (fl) ~x~d~a of l~l'ic ou~l~s or m~r~ whi~ ;~c 1~ ~ ~ ~~t ~, ~d (~) bu~s or s~cc~es ~~ for u~ of ~ ~t ~ u a t~u~st ~ ~,~a~l f~iHty. and provided that Page 2 NO.UUb H.J~ ?, 003. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY TEL 804-796-1753 Jul 19'95 9:13 Grading ~nd ~ r~moval shall not gler Prope, ny, exc~ a,, ~,quir~d in ihe ~'.nn.~mzcfinn of permil'ied buildin~ and sll'uc~urei, ur · rb~ hascm~n~ Pro ~ si~dl no~ ~e ¢tvi~ed, Sul~t~ideg, or conve.~ in ! The O~mtee na~cl i~s fel:a'~tatives may enter ~he propero/(i) from t/me te rime, Ul~n 10. days' wriC~rt Ir, od~ m th,: Orantor, t~ ~h~ sot,: puxpo~c or' in~accdo~s antt e~l:Orcement of' lhe lgnns of ~ ~.,me~t gralltC~ l'~mill, and (U) in its ~E~:~_.t.k:., tv erect at s locatioa, ~le ~o the Orantor, a sinllB n~'ice~ or sign, not exceecung two fi,~. by two feet, w tbs aasemeat ~r~nt Prior ~ any lra~f ~I¢I~ s~ ~ mine of the Oantce and advise~ that thc Gramee owns off ti~c F, aaen~t Property, tt~ Oramor shall noti£y ubt~ ~raut~ ~t Page 3 CHESTERF:[ELD SOUNT¥ TEL: 804-796-1755 Jul 19'95 Al~ough this herein sh~ll be oonstru~[ th~ (}fa.ntor mhill r~tain herein r~itod, in ~roi$ wa be~-Clt thc lmblio ir, the ways mit~l above, convey .a ri~t to thc public of acr~ls to or use of ~e l~rolam~, by __~cl~on IO,I-L~20~ of ti Witrm~ the f~llo~i~ ai~t~'~ te Code of V~ of 1~50, as am, ended, ~ld se~l; COUNTY OF CI-~--_sTF. RFI~LD _(SEAL) Ac. cepmt: VlRG~ By: ,,, Pa~¢ 4 : ..... /~. 00,~- ' UUUNIY I P_L.; ~U'4- i'~o-J. (~o STATE of VIRGINIA of ...... , 1~), My commi~on expi~: ~TAT]~ of VIRGINIA CITY of RICHMOND ) )'To wic ~, by , u~ bei~£ ur LJ~ Cuumy u£'--~c~tc~field, Public The fOregotn~ '~lmlmenLr was ~edged before me thi,,l ~ ~ ~f .. 1~5, by 1/. ~ Wise, fr., Director, Department of H/zrnri¢ P. ewu~ on bdufl/of th! Virg~i~ ~ of Hbtofic Rc. aourcc~, th~ Grantee there/ri. Nm, try Public. My common e~la~z~ ~ Pa~e ~ Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26, 1995 Item Number: Page 1 ofl 8.C.8.a. Subject: Initiate Application to the Board of Zoning Appeals Requesting a Special Exception for Property at 416 Keithwood Court. County Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: C ~ ~./~ BoardAction Requested: Authorize the Board of Supervisors to initiate an application to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a special exception at 416 Keithwood Court. Summary of Information: At the request of Mr. Barber, the Board of Supervisors is requested to initiate an application for a special exception to operate a one chair beauty salon at 416 Keithwood Court. Deborah Damerel has been operating a one chair beauty salon from her home since 1986. The County Code requires that certain businesses inside a home, including beauty salons, must obtain a special exception from the Board of Zoning Appeals. In 1986, Mrs. Damerel obtained a special exception from the BZA to operate the salon and the BZA renewed it in 1989. This special exception expired in December, 1994, and Mrs. Damerel has indicated that she cannot afford the filing fee to renew it. Mrs. Damerel would like to continue to operate the salon from her home. Thomas E. ~obson Attachments: ~--] Yes No Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26, 1995 Item Number: Page i of 1 8.C.8.b. Subject: Authorize Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to be Obtained by the Magnolia Grange Committee for Gutters at Magnolia Grange County Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: BoardAcfion Requested: Recommend the Board of Supervisors initiate an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install gutters on Magnolia Grange at 10020 Ironbridge Road. Further, recommend that the Board authorize Nancy Carter Crump, Director of the Museum to act as their agent for the application. Summary of Information: Magnolia Grange is a County owned property and must have the Board authorization to initiate an application for the property. Magnolia Grange was designated a County Historical Landmark by the Board on September 9, 1987, this designation requires a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Preservation Committee prior to any exterior modifications to the property. Due to the damage of water wicking to the interior walls of this building, it has been recommended that gutters be installed. Thomas E. a~bson Attachments: ~ Yes No Title: Director of Planninq 2JULY2 , . , ___. 695/A. A~,DA~ Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26, 1995 ltemNumber: Page i of 3 8.C.9. Subject: Economic Market Analysis Midlothian Planning Effort and Strategy for the Upcoming Eastern County Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: BoardAcfion Requested: Authorize $35,000 to retain an Economic Market Consultant to develop the economic analysis and strategy Summary of Information: The purpose of this proposed market analysis is to provide valuable information about market trends in the Eastern Midlothian area. Also, define a market position for the Eastern Midlothian corridor in the context of local and regional conditions. These funds will be used to hire an Economic Consultant who would do the following important tasks: Examination of the study area's current role in the County's economy and its future potential as a contributor to the county's tax base; Examination of the impact of changing demographics on retail activities in the study area; Definition of the market areas pertinent to different types and levels of commercial, office, and light industrial land use; Attachments: Yes [---] No Title: Director of Planning 1JUL2695/A AGi' ~','~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2__.of 3 Summary of Information: (Continued) 4. Estimate of the future supply and demand for various segments of the retail market and future supply and demand for office and industrial space; 5. Development of a business retention and expansion strategy In addition to the economic development aspect, the upcoming Eastern Midlothian planning effort will examine deficiencies along the corridor from both a functional design and aesthetics perspective, provide recommendations to improve the visual appearance and functional efficiency of the corridor, examine neighborhood concerns and opportunities identified through citizen participation meetings, and will organize a proactive corridor business association. Planning staff will begin preliminary meetings with business leaders to identify issues in early Fall, 1995. Meetings with neighborhoods will begin in January 1996. # 11S CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 3 of 3 Summary of Information: (Continued) Budqet and Management Comments: The attached item is a request to appropriate up to $35,000 which will be utilized for an economic market analysis for the Eastern Midlothian Planning effort. Specifically, the $35,000 will be utilized only to hire the consultant and for related printing costs. The funding source for this item will come from the following: ~) 2) Unspent FY95 Planning Department or Community Development expenditures. Surplus FY96 Planning Department revenues. If sufficient funds are not available from these sources, then the remaining funding for this item will come from unanticipated FY95 property tax revenues. The Planning Department expects the market analysis to be similar to the Rt. 360 corridor market analysis. The department will work with the purchasing department to develop a Request for Proposal in order to obtain the consultant necessary to perform this analysis. This action will appropriate up to $35,000 to be utilized for consultant and printing fees associated with the Eastern Midlothian economic market analysis. /a~es J.~_VS~egmaier, Director !~ddget and Management # 119 Eastern ~)Chippenham Hospital Uon Polioe Th, · Boulders Toys R Us Beaufont Mall Cloverlaafi Mall & Ale North Elementary PrOvide mddl RD. RT. 360 PLAN Meeting Date: g.¢. "'CHESTERFIELD COUNTY" BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - AGENDA July 26, 1995 Item Number: Page 1 of z 8.C.10. Subject: FAA Airport Improvement Project 3-51-0007-12, Consider acceptance of a Federal Aviation Administration Grant and appropriation of funds for aviation easement acquisition at the Chesterfield County Airport. Count~, Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: BoardAction Requested: i. Authorization for the County Administrator to accept the FAA grant and execute the applicable contract with the Federal government for expenditure of funds. 2. Authorization for the County Administrator to acquire and purchase aviation easement. 3. Appropriation of Federal funds in the amount of $135,000.00 for this project. Summary oflnforma fion: At the August 25, 1993 Board of Supervisors meeting acceptance of a State grant and fund appropriation was approved at a public hearing to acquire aviation easements necessary for the installation of the precision Instrument Landing System (ILS). At that time Federal funds were not available for the acquisitions, and a grant agreement was subsequently executed with the Virginia Department of Aviation. The Federal Aviation Administration has now offered a grant to reimburse the State and County for the majority of their expenditures associated with this acquisition. 'This item requests Board approval to appropriate funding for AIP project 3-51-0007-12 as follows: Total Project State Local Match Federal Total Appropriation $150,000.00 $ 7,500.00' $ 7.500,00' $135,000.00 $135,000.00 *Previously appropriated through Board of Supervisors action on August 25, 1993 Preparer Attachments: ~Yes No Title: Director for Aviation Services CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meefin~ Date: Jul~ 26, 1995 Item Number: Budlget and Management Comments: Per action by the Board of Supervisors on August 25, 1993, a Virginia Department of Aviation (VDA) grant was approved for $90,000, including an appropriation of $72,000 in state revenue and a local match of $18,000. With the FAA's approval of this new federal grant ($150,000), the state and local portions are $7,500 each. Given the previous action (as mentioned above) which appropriated state and local revenue to acquire aviation easements, no additional appropriation of state or local funds is required. Approval of this federal grant will supersede the action taken on 8/25/93; therefore, existing appropriations of state and local funds for this project will be reduced accordingly. Furthermore, approval of this action will only require an appropriation of $135,000 in federal revenue. Prior Grant Revised Grant Federal $ 0 $135,000' State 72,000 7,500 Local 18,000 7,500 TOTAL $90,000 $150,000 * Only the Federal portion requires appropriation. James J. L. Stegmaier / ~ Title: Director, Budget and Management Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26, 1995 Item Number: Page 1 of 2 8.C.11.a. Subject: Set a date to conduct a public hearing to consider the application for and acceptance of a Virginia Department of Aviation Grant and associated appropriation of funds to rehabilitate taxiway KC" and those taxiways serving the t-hangars at the County Airport. County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: As outlined below, schedule a public hearing for August 23, 1995 to authorize the County Administrator to apply for and accept a State Airport Improvement Grant, appropriate the State and Local matching funds, solicit bids for work to be preformed and award contracts to the lowest responsible bidder. Summary of Information: This item requests Board approval to schedule a public hearing to formally apply for and accept a State Department of Aviation (VDA) Grant, enter into the necessary contracts, and appropriate the applicable funds for the below listed Airport Improvement Project. A tentative allocation of funding was awarded by the Virginia Aviation Board at it April 26, 1995 meeting for: 1. Design, Engineering and Rehabilitation of Taxiway KC" $516,800.00 and T-Hangar Taxiways This item requests Board approval to appropriate funds as follows: State $516,800.00 Local Match ~129.200.00 Total Project $646,000.00 k~//John R. Lillard Attachments: ~-~ Yes No Title: Director for Aviation Services I# CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Summary of Information: (Continued) Funds are available in the Airport Capital Projects fund at $129,200. This fund has a current balance of $345,100.00. The Virginia Department of Aviation Engineering Department has evaluated this pavement, and confirmed our consultants recommendation for reconstruction due to it's age, and failed condition. Recommendation: Authorized the County Administrator to accept a VDA Grant for this project and enter into a contract with the Commonwealth of Virginia for expenditure of said funds. 2 o Authorize the County Administrator to execute the contract amendment number ten (10) with Delta Airport Consultants, for Design, engineering, and consultant services. o Authorize the County Administrator to enter into contract with the applicable lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Appropriation of all State ($516,800.00) and County ($129,200.00) for this Airport Improvement Project. # :l.k 4 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meetin~ Date: July 26, 1995 Item Number: 8. c..~.l.b. Subject: Set a Public Hearing to Consider the Abandonment of a Portion of Harwick Drive, State Route 2564 County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution to set a public hearing and to post and publish notices of the County's intention to consider the abandonment of a portion of Harwick Drive, State Route 2564. Summary_ of Information: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution to set a public hearing for September 13, 1995 at 7:00 p.m., and to post and publish notices of the County's intention to consider the abandonment of a portion of Harwick Drive, State Route 2564, as shown on the attached plat. We have received a request from James and Frances E. Robeson and Betty J. Helsley and R. C. Helsley to abandon this portion of Harwick Drive. This request has been reviewed by County staff and the Virginia Department of Transportation and approval is recommended. Dist~ct: Clover Hill Preparer~~~ ~ ~ J~hn W. Harmon Attachments: Yes] [No Title: Riqht of Way Manager # CHESTERFIELD COUNTY: At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors held at the Courthouse on JULY 26, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. Resolution of the County of Chesterfield's intention to consider a Resolution and Order to abandon a portion of HARWICK DRIVE, State Route 2564. Pursuant to Section 33.1-151 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, be it resolved that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby gives notice that at a regular meeting to be held on JULY 26, 1995, it will consider a Resolution and Order to abandon a portion of HARWICK DRIVE, State Route 2564, more fully described as follows: A portion of HARWICK DRIVE, State Route 2564, within CLOVER HILL Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia as shown crosshatched on a plat of "Stonehenge", Section "A", sheet 2 of 3, prepared by F. T. SEARGENT, C.L.S., dated SEPTEMBER 20, 1966, a copy of which is attached to this resolution. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Board shall send a copy of this resolution to the State Transportation Commissioner thereof. The Clerk shall further cause to be published and posted the required notices of the Board's intention to abandon this portion of HARWlCK DRIVE. Certified by: CLERK OF THE BOARD VICINITY SKETCH SET A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ABANDONMEL OF A PORTION OF HARWICK DRIVE STATE ROUTE 2564 .oJAI~S & FRANCES E ROBESON & BETTY J &' R C HELSLEY / / l~eeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26, 1995 Item Number: Page ~- of ~ 8.C.12. Subject: Request for an Entertainment/Musical Festival Permit from the Chesterfield County Fair Association County Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: BoardAction Requested: Staff recommends that the Board grant a musical/entertainment feStival permit to the Chesterfield County Fair Association for the annual Chesterfield County Fair subject to the attached conditions. Summary oflnformation: The 82nd annual Chesterfield County Fair ("Fair") will be held at the fairgrounds complex from August 25 through September 2, 1995. Because the Fair includes musical events, exhibitions and rides, the Fair Association must obtain a musical/entertainment festival permit from the Board. The Fair Association has subcontracted the responsibility for amusements and midway rides to Amusements of America, an experienced company that has satisfactorily performed the same service at the Fair in past years. The plans for this year's Fair have been reviewed by staff, who have determined that the plans contain adequate measures to protect public safety, fire prevention, medical protection, sanitation, traffic control, insurance, bonds and building and ride safety. (Continued) Steven L. Micas Attachments: ~ Yes No County Attorney 0505.1770.4 # 12U J CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Summary of Information: (Continued) As a condition of being granted a permit, Staff recommends that the following safety requirements be placed on the Fair's operation: Two representatives of the Fair Association, with full authority to act on the Fair Association's behalf, must be present during all open hours of the Fair. A performance bond for site clean up and restoration in the minimum amount of $1,000, naming the County as obligee, must be provided by either the Fair Association or its sub-contractor, Amusements of America. Public telephones must be functioning during all hours that the Fair is open and while the Fair is being set up and taken down. Fair personnel must be assigned for regular and routine cleanup of public restrooms, pursuant to a written cleaning schedule which must be established and followed. Signed records must be maintained which establish that cleanups have been performed. Fair Association personnel and their subcontractors shall promptly comply with all County requests for action necessary to protect the County from liability for violations of any rights guaranteed by Constitutional, federal or state provisions by the Fair Association or its agents and employees. Staff will monitor compliance with the conditions of the permit prior to opening day, and for the duration of the Fair. 0505:1770.4 # 130 Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26, 1995 Item Number: Page 1 of 1 8.C.13. Subject: State Road Acceptance County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: DALE: Amended Five Forks Village, Phase I MATOACA: Manor Gate Triple Crown, Section 4 MIDLOTHIAN: Charter Colony Parkway and a portion of North Woolridge Road Cross Creek, Section F Preparer: Attachments: Richard M.~lfish, P.E. Yes [---] No Title: Director, Environmental Engineering TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Environmental Engineering SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance - Amended Five Forks Village, Phase I MEETING DATE: July 26, 1995 Five Forks Lane Northford Mews Northford Court Middlefield Place Middlefield Court Pleasant Pond Lane Northford Place Northford Lane Middlefield Lane Middlefield Mews Bakers Hill Place Pleasant Pond Place Amended Plat - Five Forks Village, Phase I Vicinity Map TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: Board of Supervisors Environmental Engineering State Road Acceptance - Manor Gate July 26, 1995 Manor Gate Drive Manor Gate Place Manor Gate Court MANOR GATE Project~ HULL STREET¥¢O~O {....,~ us RouTE VICINITY SKETCH 133 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: Board of Supervisors Environmental Engineering State Road Acceptance - Triple Crown, Section 4 July 26, 1995 Whirlaway Drive Whirlaway Terrace Whirlaway Turn Triple Crown, Section 4 Vicinity Map 1.:34 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: Board of Supervisors Environmental Engineering State Road Acceptance - Charter Colony Parkway and a portion of North Woolridge Road July 26, 1995 Charter Colony Parkway and a portion North'Woolfidge Road 'To: FROM: SUBJECT: Board of Supervisors Environmental Engineering State Road Acceptance - Cross Creek, Section F MEETING DATE: July 26, 1995 Crossings Way CROSS CREEK, SECTION F HILl,.5- ~EC. I Vicinity Map CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page ! of 2 Meeting Date: July 26, 1995 Item Number:. s.c. 14. Subject: Award of Construction Contract for County Project ~93-0110R Route 1 Water Line Improvements County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors award the construction contract to G. L. Howard, Inc. in the amount of $394,308.00 and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary construction contract documents. Summary of Information: The project consists of installation of an 8" and 16" water line on Route 1 in two phases as shown on the attached map. Both lines will replace an old, maintenance intensive 8" cement asbestos water line that was installed in the 1950's. Phase I consists of 1082 L.F. of 8" water line and all associated appurtenances. Phase II consists of 2879 L.F. of 16" water line, 233 L.F. of 8" water line and all associated appurtenances. This project will provide increased system reliability and added fire protection. Preparer: R~y ~-~ ~ ~/~ E. Covi~ton Attachments: YesI INo Title: Assistant DireQtor of Utilities 137 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Summary of Information: (Continued) We have received three (3) bids ranging from $394,308.00 to $452,016.75. The lowest bid was in the amount of $394,308.00 by G. L. Howard, Inc. Our engineering consultant Draper Aden Associates has reviewed the bids and recommended that we award the contract to the low bidder G. L. Howard, Inc. Funds for this project are available in the current C.I.P. ROUTE 1 WATER LINE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT #93-0110 PHASE II PHASE I /i COl)IriS, COUNTY 1.39 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of Meetin[ Date: July 26, 1995 Item Number: 8.c. 15. Subject: Approval of the Purchase of a Parcel of Land for Improvements at Thomas Dale High School from Horace C. Dabney County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: BoardActionRequested: Staff requests that the Board of Supervzsors approve the purchase of a parcel of land for improvements at Thomas Dale High School and authorize the County Administrator to execute the contract and deed. Summary of Information: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors approve the purchase of a parcel of land containing 12.3 acres, more or less, with improvements, for $225,000.00, lying east of Old Centralia Road and adjacent to the Thomas Dale High School Complex. The property is being acquired for future improvements including additional classroom space to eliminate trailers; and, additional and upgraded athletic facilities to meet County standards. Improvements will eliminate the need to construct a new Thomas Dale High School at another location. Approval is recommended. District: Bermuda John W. Harmon Title: Riqht of Way Manaqer Attachments: Yes CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meetin Date: 6, 1995 Item Number: Budget and Management Comments This purchase of land at Thomas Dale is consistent with the School Board's Capital Improvement Program as well as the policy of attempting to acquire necessary sites prior to a bond referendum. Funds are available in the School's Reserve for Capital projects for this purchase. If this purchase is approved, the balance in the Reserve for FY96 will be $363,384. The School Board is expected to act on this request at their August 8th meeting. Board of Supervisors approval, contingent upon School Board approval, is requested so that purchase of the land can proceed immediately after the School Board's August 8th meeting. J/aa ei J. L/Stegmaier - Title: Director of Budget and Management 1.4:1i. VICINITY SKETCH APF.~qOVAL OF THE PURCHASE OF A PARCEL OF LAND FOR IMPROVEZ~ENTS AT TtlO~AS DALE HIGH SCHOOL FROM HORACE C DABNEY 4.1~§§ 14;Z ~ 2z ~ 6 we~r Tower 3O ~ HORACE C. DABNEY TAX MAP # 97-16(1)1 DEED BOOK 289 PAGE 384 12.3 ACRES, MORE OR LESS II1~1! THOMAS DALE HIGH SCHOOL II 11700 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meetin~ Date: July 26, 1995 Item Number: 8. c. 16. a. Subject: Request to Quitclaim a Portion of a Drainage Easement (Private) containing 0.021 acres Across Property Owned by Delmarva Properties, Inc. County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate a portion of a drainage easement (private), containing 0.021 acres across the property of Delmarva Properties, Inc. Summary of Information: Delmarva Properties, Inc. has requested quitclaim because this portion of the easement is no longer needed. This request has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. District: Matoaca Jotin W. Harmon Attachments: Yes No Title: Riqht of Way Manaqer # 144 VICINITY SgETCH REQUEST TO QUITCLAIM A ~ ORTION OF A DRAINAGE EASEM=_.~ (PRIVATE) CONTAINING 0.021 ACREA ACROSS PROPERTY OWNED BY DELMARVA PROPERTIES INC N 145 146 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meetin~ Date: July 26, 1995 Item Number: 8. ¢. 16. b. Subiect: Request to Quitclaim a Portion of an Existing 30' Drainage Easement Across Lot 8, Block A, Otterdale, Section D County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate a portion of an existing 30' drainage easement across the Lot 8, Block A, Otterdale, Section D. Summary of Information: Regal Home Builders has requested a portion of an existing drainage easement be vacated to allow for the construction of a house addition. Staff has reviewed the request and recommends approval. DistHct: Midlothian Attachments: Yes No Title: Riqht of Way Manaqer 147 REQUEST TO QUITCLAIM A PORTION OF AN EXISTING 30' L.~INAGE EASEMENT ACROSS LO~ 8 BLOCK A OTTERDALE SECTION D REGAL~HO~LE BUILDERS 148 ~Jorren ~. C/crf h'n ~ Me//)?d~ Ot'l~/"dc~ ie "'" ' Date: Scale: ~~r~ield ' Co',d//T ly, Vircj /r//6 Job No.:/~¢'~-/ · PLANNERS · ARCHITECTS · ENGINEERS · SURVEYORS · · 501 Branchw'ay Road · Suite 100 · Richmond, Virginia 23236 o 794_0571 · Fax 794-2635 " 11038 Lakeridge Parkway - Suite I - Ashland, Virginia 23005 · (804) 550-2888 · Fax (804) 550-2057 AN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meetin~ Date: July 26, 1995 Item Number: 8. ¢. 17. a. Subiect: Request Permission for a Fence to Encroach within an Existing Variable Width Easement across Lot 3, Block I, Roxshire, Section 4 County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors grant William P. Baker permission to have a fence encroach within an existing variable width easement across Lot 3, Block I, Roxshire, Section 4; subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: William P. Baker has requested permission to have a fence encroach within an existing variable width easement across Lot 3, Block I, Roxshire, Section 4. This request has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. District: Midlothian John W. Harmon Attachments: Yes No Title: Riqht of Way Manaqer # 150 '" VICINITY SKETCH ~ REQUEST PERMISSION FOR A FENCE TO ENCROACH WITHIN AN EXISTING VARIABLE W~DTH EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 3 BLOCK I ROXSHIRE SECTION 4 WILLIAM P BAKER 151 Z Notes: ~i_s proper located lin F, E,t.I,A, Flood Zone II C II m E. ' STOE. Y No. ?_.o '~1 CAR ~>O N S2..?' I I /aa ao, I I S 55"/?' 20"~- Re'r: Wolter A. Vorvel & Jonet G. Vorvel HILL PLAT SHOWING IMPROVEMENI'8 ON LOT 5, BLOCK "I", PLAN OF "ROXSHIRE", S'ECTION 4, IN THE MIDLOTtlIAN DISTRICT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA. Re; Willio~ P. l~ker & Amv .G. ~ker CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meetin~ Date: July 26, 1995 Item Number: s.c. 17. b. Subject: Request Permission for a Fence to Encroach within an Existing Variable Width Easement across Lot 2, Block, B, Windsor Place Section 1 County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors grant Barbara D. Francesco permission to have a fence encroach within an existing variable width easement across Lot 2, Block B, Windsor Place, Section 1; subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary_ of Information: Barbara D. Francesco has requested permission to have a fence encroach within an existing variable width easement across Lot 2, Block B, Windsor Place, Section 1. This request has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. Dist~ct: Midlothian Attachments: Yes No Title: Riqht of Way Manaqer # _53 --, VICINITY SKETCH -~ REQUEST PERMISSION ~R A FENCE TO ENCROACH WIThiN AN EXISTING VARIABLE WIDTH EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 2 BLOCK B WINDSOR PLACE SECTION 1 'BARBARA D FRANCESCO 154 ?~./7 ' 596.89' -t Width E~$ erne n t 84.52' To the W/ L of 50' ROAD EAS£MENT-~_ FEATHERSTONE DRIVE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meetin~ Date: July 26, 1995 Item Number: 8. c. 17. c. Subject: Request Permission for the Installation of an Underground Power Cable within an Existing 30' Right of Way designated as Carroll Avenue County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors grant Virginia Power permission to install an underground power cable within an existing 30' right of way designated as Carroll Avenue; subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: Virginia Power has requested permission to install an underground power cable within an existing 30' right of way designated as Carroll Avenue in order to provide power to a new residence. This request has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. DistHct: Matoaca Joh~ W. Harmon Attachments: Yes No Title: Riqht of Way Manaqer VICINITY SKETCH ..REQUEST PERMISSION FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN UNDERGROUND POWER CABLE WITHIN AN EXISTING 30' RIGHT OF WAY DESIGNATED AS CARROLL AVENUE VIRGINIA POWER 157 ~un-~5-95 12:24P P.05 Map NO. Vicinity Map ........... P, oc¢' ._~. - ~ Est. (Semand aml~oltage Drop ~..,,~,,,.-,, Ix- F''°~''' Phone Nb. Tele. Eng. Circuit No. ~'.3 (':) S~j~lalion C^RS D~,m ,0.//4 ~C.;,~5' /~ 7,."." #30 Tax District ;~ "~ 5 O' O Easement No. Acldrt~ CustOmer Project No. ~2 ~. ,".5 ¢ \/ L= - ~c5 q'5 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meetin~ Date: July 26, 1995 Item Number: s.c. 17. d. Subject: Request for Permission to Install a Water Service for a Residence off of River Road County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Acron Requested: Staff recommends approval subject to the execution and recordation of an agreement acceptable to the County Attorney. Summary of Information: David W. and Janett R. Weeks have requested to extend a private water service within a 16' private water easement to serve a new residence on Tax Map No. 178-02-01-00-000-010. This request has been reviewed and staff recommends approval subject to the execution and recordation of an agreement acceptable to the County Attorney. District: Matoaca Attachments: Yes No Title: Riqht of Way Manaqer # VICINITY SKETCH ~,~ REQUEST FOR PERMISSIuN TO INSTALL A WATER SERVI~E ALONG RIVER ROAD DAVID W AND JANETT R WEEKS 160 Hc C,.A F F ~1~ PG~. RIVF~R- N= PLAT' C t-4 F_5-F ~I:~,.F I DAVID V I F~C~INJ IA 16,1 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meetin~ Date: July 26, 1995 Item Number: s.c. is. a. Subject: Acceptance of a Parcel of Land along Courthouse Road (State Route 653) from the Trustees of Trinity Assembly of God Church County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator:~~ Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.302 acres along Courthouse Road (State Route 653) from the Trustees of Trinity Assembly of God Church, 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. DistHct: Midlothian ~hn W. Harmon Attachments: Yes No Title: Riqht of Wav Manaqer 162 VICINITY SKETCH ACCEPTANCE OF A PARCEL OF LAND ALONG COURTHOUSE k ~D (STATE ROUTE 653) -~RO~ THE TRUSTEES OF TRINITY ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH 163 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: ~ul¥ 26, i9~5 Item Number: 8. c. 18. b. Subject: Acceptance of a Parcel of Land North of Rivers Bend Boulevard from Pioneer Properties III, Inc. County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board A~nRequested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 2.58 acres North of Rivers Bend Boulevard from Pioneer Properties III, Inc, and to authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. Summary of Information: Staff requests the Board of Supervisors accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 2.58 acres for the dedication of Rivers Bank Boulevard and extension of Hogans Alley. This dedication is necessary for the development of Rivers Bend Subdivision. Dist~ct: Bermuda Attachments: Yes No Title: Riqht of Way Manaqer # .65 VICINITY ACCEPTANCE OF A PARCEL uF LAND NORTH OF RIVERS BE~* BOULEVARD FROM PROPERTIES III INC /S~ANO RIVERS BEND IND PK 166 O~N CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of Date: July 26, 1995 Item Number: ~.c.4. Subject: Appropriation of Bermuda District Three (3) Cent Road Funds County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors appropriate $100.00 from Bermuda District Three (3) Cent Road Funds for the construction and installation of a barricade in Thompson Avenue. Summary of Information: Mr. McHale has requested the Board to appropriate Bermuda District Three (3 Cent Road Funds for the purchase of materials and supplies and for the construction and installation of a barricade in Thompson Avenue. The Right of Way Office has received a request from one of the adjacent property owners to construct the barricade to reduce vehicular traffic on Thompson Avenue. If approved, the total cost of construction and installation will not exceed $100.00. DistHct: Bermuda Preparer: . John W. Harmon Attachments: Yes ]lNo Title: Riqht of Way Manaqer 094 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meetin~ Date: Jul~ 26, 1995 Item Number: Budget and Management Comments: Funds in the amount of $100 are available in the Bermuda District Three Cent Road Account; use of $100 will leave an approximate balance of $29,992. ,'/am~s J'. L.~3tegmaier Title: Director, Budget and Management 095 VICINITY SKETCH APPRQPRIATION OF BERMUDA DISTRICT THREE (3) CENT ROAD FUNDS --THDM~PSON AVENUE -I!LLTO? CENTRAL' PA RI,( ESTATES / coif ES Radio Tower 4' 4.12500 096 097 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page ~ of ~ Meeting Date: July 26, 1995 Item Number: 10.Al Report On: Developer Water and Sewer Contracts The Board of Supervisors has authorized the County Administrator to execute water and/or sewer contracts between the County and the Developer where there are no County funds 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: Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: County Administrator: Attachments: 93-0053 State Farm Office Building at Polo Parkway State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Richard L. Crowder Construction Company Water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements - Midlothian .~ ~/f Prepared By: /~~ ' /~/J. E~ Jr. Yes No $8,714.43 $4,110.00 # 1GS Age n.~ July 26, 1995 Page 2 o Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: 94-0103 Bon Air Place S.L.A., Inc. Godsey and Son, Inc. Water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements - Midlothian $26,582.00 $57,0O3.00 o Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: 94-0171 National Welders Supply Company - Allied Road National Welders Company, Inc. Southern Construction Company Water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements - Bermuda $26,293.50 $63,718.40 169 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REPORTS Meeting Date: Ju'ly 26, 1995 Page i of I Item Number: 10.B. Report On: Status of General' Fund Balance, Reserve for Future Capital Projects, District Road and Street Light Funds, Lease Purchases; County Administrator: ents: Yes ~.70 BOARD MEETING DATE 07/01/95 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY GENERAL FUND BALANCE July 7, 1995 DESCRIPTION FY96 Budgeted Beginning Fund Balance* AMOUNT BALANCE $22,327,600 Pending outcome of audit. 171 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY RESERVE FOR FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS TRADITIONALLY FUNDED BY DEBT July 7, 1995 Board Meeting Date 11/22/89 12/13/89 06/30/90 06/13/90 06/27/90 06/27/90 FY89 Excess revenue FY90 Budgeted addition Designation from June 30, 1989 Fund Balance Purchase of land-Cogbill Road Purchase building at 6701 West Krause Road Budgeted addition of excess revenue Purchase medical building for future library site Funds to purchase land for park on Lake Chesdin Budgeted but not appropriated funds to purchase land for school and park sites Amount $2,119,900 $1,881,500 $1,500,000 ($630,000) ($400,000) $2,100,000 ($735,000) ($600,000) ($2,000,000) FOR FISCAL YEAR '91 BEGINNING JULY 1, 1990 12/12/90 Fill dirt for cover repair at Fort Darling Landfill 06/30/91 Budgeted addition from FY91 revenues ($180,000) $4,000,000 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 rfcip.wk4 172 03/13/91 Designated but not appropriated funds to cover construction contract for MH/MR/SA building if bonds are not sold in fall, 1991 ($1,8o6,8oo) $5,249,600 FOR FISCAL YEAR '92 BEGINNING JULY 1. 1991 07/01/91 Regional Jail Authority as approved in the FY92 Adopted Budget (which will be reimbursed) 08/28/91 Provide funding for improvements at Northern Area Landfill to allow reallocation of General Fund dollars to recycling programs 08/28/91 Additional funding for Bon Air Library expansion 08/28/91 Add back MH/MR building funds which were previously deducted for construction 11/27/91 Appropriated funds for T.V. arraignment equipment but holding in reserve account until prices and all costs are confirmed 03/27/92 Add back funds previously deducted to purchase land for school and park sites 03~7~2 Funds designated for interest cost in FY94 due to accelerated 1988 School bond issue 04/08/92 12/14/94 Designated funds for Center- Pointe Fire Station construction in FY95 ($1,000,000) ($315,000) ($275,5oo) $1,806,800 ($115,000) $2,000,000 ($1,400,000) ($2,314,800) $4,249,600 $3,934,600 $3,659,100 $5,465,900 $5,350,900 $7,350,900 $5,950,900 $3,636,100 rfcip.wk4 173 FOR FISCAL YEAR '93 BEGINNING JULY 17 1992 04/08/92 04/08/92 FY93 budget addition FY93 Capital Projects (reven~e sharing roads $500,000; ind~s- trial access $300,000; drainage $200,000) 04/08/92 Funds to convert Meadowdale Boulevard building into Hopkins Road Library 04/08/92 Funds to construct lights along portions of Jefferson Davis Hwy 05/13/92 Funding for emergency access for Millside subdivision contingent upon necessary right-of-way acquisition 07/22/92 07~2D2 Funding for design phase of, Annex Funds to purchase Castlewo; ail 08/31/92 Budget Change Request to fund wetland study of property on Cogbill Road 09/09/92 Supplement to finish improvements to intersection of River and Walkes Quarter roads 09/09/92 Funds for Charter Colony Parkway 09/09/92 Sidewalk at Enon Library 11/12/92 11/24/92 Designated and appropriated, if needed, funds to cover shortfall in construction of Public Safety Training Building Increase from FY92 Results of Operations $2,600,000 ($1,000,000) ($1,386,500) ($5oo,ooo) ($80,000) ($500,000) ($315,000) ($14,000) ($13,400) ($140,000) ($20,000) ($326,000) $661,550 $6,236,100 $5,236,100 $3,849,600 $3,349,600 $3,269,600 $2,769,600 $2,454,600 $2,440,600 $2,427,200 $2,287,200 $2,267,200 $1,941,200 $2,602,750 rfcip.wk4 174 1'2/09/92 Unappropriated funding for TV arraignment $115,000 $2,717,750 12/09/92 12/09/92 12/09/92 06/30/93 06/30/93 Appropriated $1,941,200 balance plus $661,550 addition from FY92 ending fund balance and use of funds previously appropriated for TV arraignment $115,000 for Jail Annex Unappropriated funds from 11/12/92 appropriation for construction of Public Safety Training Building Appropriated to cover shortfall in construction of Jail Annex Enon Library Sidewalk- project complete Funds which were not needed for the Public Safety Training Building. Interest on the bonds was sufficient to cover this appro- priation. ($2,717,750) $139,980 ($139,980) $13,401 $186,020 $0 $139,980 $0 $13,401 $199,421 FOR FISCAL YEAR '94 BEGINNING JULy 1, 1993 05/12/93 07/01/93 07/01/93 07/28/93 08/25/93 Appropriated FY94 funds for Cedar Springs Rural Road addition (FY94 Secondary Road Improvement) FY94 Budgeted Addition FY94 Capital Projects Appropriated funds to cover entire cost of Keithwood/Hylton Park Drainage project. Supplemental revenue sharing match for FY93 to fund Ledo Road ($35,000) $3,500,000 ($2,793,000) (s8o,7oo) ($200,000) $164,421 $3,664,421 $871,421 $790,721 $590,721 rfcip.wk4 '1__75 09/08/93 10/13/93 11/23/93 12/15/93 04/27/94 04/27/94 05/25/94 05/25/94 06/08/94 06/08/94 06/14/95 06/22/94 Supplemental appropriation for Charter Colony Parkway Transfer for Northern Area Landfill Transfer from fund balance as per Section 18 of the FY94 Appropriations Resolution Transfer for Phase I development of the Warbro Road Athletic Complex Designation for John Tyler committment pending decision on Bond Referendum date. Reduce designation for John Tyler Community College by $49,400 to $2,220,321 Designate funds in order to begin advance work needed to con- struct the Christmas Mother and County Warehouse (These funds will be returned after July 1) Reduce designation for John Tyler Community College by $500,000 to $1,720,321 Transfer funds to begin repairs on the Ettrick/Matoaca and LaPrade branch libraries Release funds designated for John Tyler Community College Health Center Commission for new nursing home facility Transfer to Midlothian Branch Library to fully fund project ($9 ,ooo) ($370,000) $2,800,000 ($660,000) ($2,269,721) $49,400 ($49,400) $500,000 ($500,000) $1,720,321 ($1,000,000) ($490,100) $499,721 $129,721 $2,929,721 $2,269,721 $0 $49,400 $0 $500,000 $0 $1,720,321 $720,321 $230,221 rfcip.wk4 176 FOR FISCAL YEAR '95 BEGINNING JULY 1~ 1994 07/01/94 FY95 Budgeted Addition 07/01/94 FY95 Capital Projects 07/01/94 Return funds advanced to begin construction on Christmas Mother Warehouse. 07/27/94 Transfer to Clover Hill Sports Complex 09/20/94 Return unused funds from Meadowdale Library Project 09/28/94 Transfer for LaPrade, Ettrick- Matoaca Branch Libraries Renovation 11/22/94 Transfer from Fund Balance as per Section 18 of the FY95 Appropriations Resolution 02/22/95 Transfer to purchase land and and building within the county complex 03/22/95 Transfer for preparation of construction plans to rebuild Woolridge Road 04/12/95 Third ballfield at Warbro Complex 04/12/95 06/14/95 Health Center Commission for new nursing home facility FOR FISCAL YEAR '96 BEGINNING JULY 1, 1995 04/12/95 Additional Transfer to Schools 04/12/95 For Use by County 04/12/95 Addition to Fund Balance 04/12/95 FY96 Budgeted Addition $4,850,000 ($3,675,000) $49,400 ($200,000) $11,936 ($160,000) $3,100,000 ($152,000) ($300,000) ($150,000) (1,500,000) (1,2o5,6oo) (475,700) (230,000) 6,400,000 $5,080,221 $1,405,221 $1,454,621 $1,254,621 $1,266,557 $1,106,557 $4,206,557 $4,054,557 $3,754,557 $3,604,557 $2,104,557 $898,957 $423,257 $193,257 $6,593,257 rfcip.wk4 '1.~ 04/12/95 04/12/95 05/10/95 07/01/95 FY96 Capital Projects County uses for capital purchases Return of unused funds from Fair Exhibition Warehouse (project complete) Supplemental revenue sharing match for road projects up to a maximum of $50,000 (5,494,700) (400,000) 10,425 (50,000) $1,098,557 $698,557 $708,982 $658,982 rfcip.wk4 178 : Prepared by Accounting Department June 30, 1995 Date Began 12/88 03/89 10/92 10/92 10/92 09/93 12/93 SCHEDULE OF CAPITALIZED LEASE PURCHASES Description APPROVED AND EXECUTED Airport State Police Hangar Additions County Warehouse Total Geographic Information System ("GIS") - Automated Mapping System School Copier School Copier School Copier School Copier Real Property Lease/ Purchase TOTAL APPROVED AND EXECUTED Original Date Amount Ends 128,800 331,200 460,000 3,095,000 22,797 23,322 18,750 36,605 17,510,000 $21,166,474 12/00 3/98 9/97 10/97 10/97 8/98 12/01 Outstanding Balance 06/30/95 73,190 188,203 261,393 1,320,000 11,071 12,591 10,190 25,937 14,575,000 $16,216,182 PENDING APPROVAL AND/OR EXECUTION None Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REPORTS July 26, 1995 Item Number: Page 1 ,, of 1 10.C. Report On: Roads Accepted into the State Secondary System County Administrator: Attachments: Yes 1.8 t 0 Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26, 1995 Item Number: Page }.__of z__ Subject: EXECUTIVE SESSION County Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: {-. /~' - Ur, BoardAction Requested: Summary oflnformation: Executive session, pursuant to § 2.1-344(A)(7), Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, for consultation with legal counsel regarding Biron v. County_ of Chesterfield, et al. and pursuant to § 2.1-344(A)(3), Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, for consultation with legal counsel regarding acquisition and conveyance of real estate for a public purpose in the Matoaca Magisterial District. Steven L. Micas Attachments: Yes ~ No County Attorney 0800:10874.1 ~tS3 MOTION: SECOND: DATE: RE: CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION HELD IN CONFORMANCE WITH LAW WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has this day adjourned into Executive Session in accordance with a formal vote of the Board, and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS,' the Virginia Freedom of Information Act effective July 1, 1989, provides for certification that such Executive Session was conducted in conformity with law. NOW, TIIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the. Board of County Supervisors does hereby certify that to the best of each member's knowledge, i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under the Freedom of Information Act were discussed in the Executive Session to which this certification 'applies, and ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the Motion by which the Executive Session was convened were heard, discussed or considered by the Board. No member dissents from this certifi- cation. Vote: (by roll call) The Board being polled, the vote was as follows: AYES: MAYS: ABSENT DURING VOTE: ABSENT DURING MEETING: **CERTIFIED** CLERK TO THE BOARD ~~. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Page 1 of ~L BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Meeting Date: July 26, 1995 Item Number :LS. B. 1. Resolution honoring Rick Parr for service as a member of the Chesterfield County Youth Services Citizen Board. County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator:~ Board Action Requested: Adoption of Resolution Summary of Information: Rick Parr served as a dedicated member of the Chesterfield County Youth Services Citizen Board representing the Bermuda District for a 1 1/2 year period from January 13, 1993 to June 30, 1995. Preparer: ~Xctcc~ ~. ~ Title: Coordinator, Youth Services Barbara L. Bennett # ~7 Attachments: l Yes ~--] No WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors and Youth Services Citizen Board are committed to enhancing the quality of life for the youth and families of our community; WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Youth Services Citizen Board is made up of dedicated and visionary adult and youth residents of our community who volunteer their time in service to others; WHEREAS, Rick Parr has represented the Bermuda district as an active and committed member of the Youth Services Citizen Board for a 1 1/2 year period from January 13, 1993, to June 30, 1995; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes and thanks Rick Parr for his exemplary performance and service as a member of the Chesterfield County Youth Services Citizen Board. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Page 1 of 1 ~. ~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Meeting Date: July 26, 1995 Item Number 15. B. 2. Resolution honoring Cheryl Ghorashi for service as a member of the Chesterfield County Youth Services Citizen Board. County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ~ Board Action Requested: Adoption of Resolution Summary of Information: Cheryl Ghorashi served as a dedicated member of the Chesterfield County Youth Services Citizen Board representing the Clover Hill District for a 5 year period from May 24, 1990 to June 30, 1995. Mrs. Ghorashi served as Chairperson from July 1, 1993 to June 30, 1995. Preparer: ~ -~- .;~_~r~ Title: Coordinator, Youth Services Barbara L. Bennett # 1~9 Attachments: l Yes ~ No WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors and Youth Services Citizen Board are committed to enhancing the quality of life for the youth and families of our community; WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Youth Services Citizen Board is made up of dedicated and visionary adult and youth residents of our community who volunteer their time in service to others; WHEREAS, Cheryl Ghorashi has represented the Clover Hill district as an active member and a capable leader of the Youth Services Citizen Board for a 5 year period from May 24, 1990, to June 30, 1995; WHEREAS, Cheryl Ghorashi served as Chairperson of the Youth Services Citizen Board from July 1, 1993, to June 30, 1994; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes and thanks Cheryl Ghorashi for her exemplary performance and service as a member of the Chesterfield County Youth Services Citizen Board. Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26, 1995 Item Number: is. ¢. Page of 1 Subject: Resolution recognizing John Cogbill for his leadership of the Chesterfield Business Council. County Administrator's Comments: Recommends approval County Administrator: BoardAction Requested: Mr. Warren requested a resolution honoring Mr. Cogbill. Summaryoflnformation: Mr. Cogbill has served two terms as chairman &the Chesterfield Business Council. See attached resolution. Preparer: /~ ~ Title: Attachments: Kenneth N. Perrotte Yes [~]No Director, Public Affairs RECOGNIZING~MR. JOHN COGBILL FOR HIS LEADERSHIP AS TWO-TERM CHAIRMAN OF THE CHESTERFIELD BUSINESS COUNCIL AND HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO CHESTERFIELD COUNTY AND ITS BUSINESS COMMUNITY WHEREAS, Mr. John Cogbi11 served two terms, from July 1993 to June 1995, as Chairman of the Chesterfield Business Council; and WHEREAS, during his leadership, the Chesterfield Business Council has been an active organization that contributed to the community in numerous ways, including raising funds for victims of the Petersburg tornado, organizing a letter-writing campaign to remove the Defense General Supply Center (DGSC) from the base closing list, organizing gift giving and contributing funds to the Christmas Mother program; and WHEREAS, the Chesterfield Business Council under the direction of Mr. Cogbill has provided the Board of Supervisors with invaluable assistance through such events as workshops and legislative receptions, and by providing input in such areas as the Business, Professional and Occupational License (BPOL), sign ordinance, Upper Swift Creek Watershed, Parks and Recreation Plan and Business Recognition Awards; and WHEREAS, during Mr. Cogbill's terms as Chairman, the Chesterfield Business Council adopted resolutions supporting pro- business initiatives, including the Olympic Festival, Regional Cooperation, Tourism and Airport Signage, and initiated county budget forums and a budget review committee; and WHEREAS, the Chesterfield Business Council under the auspices of Mr. Cogbill formed the Business Retention Committee, a partnership between the council and the Department of Economic Development; and WHEREAS, Mr. Cogbill provided representation and leadership at the Urban Summit and the White House Conference on Small Business; and WHEREAS, he always answers the call to community service through his work in numerous civic, social and other organizations and is one of Chesterfield County's most noteworthy citizens and leaders. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes the outstanding contributions of Mr. John Cogbill during his tenure as Chairman of the Chesterfield Business Council and expresses the appreciation of all residents for his continued commitment to the County. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of~__ Me~ting Date: July 26, 1995 Item Number: Subject: Resolution Recognizing Mrs. Bessie Moorer for Her Leadership in the Ettrick/Matoaca Area. County Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: BoardAction Requested: Adoption of resolution. Summary oflnformation: Dr. Nicholas requests a resolution be adopted recognizing Mrs. Bessie Moorer for her leadership contributions in the Ettrick/Matoaca area. Mrs. Moorer will be present to accept the resolution. See attached resolution. Preparer: Frederick W. W~s, Jr. Attachments: Yes ~ No Title: Director. Human Resource Managemen' # ~_93 On-motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mrs. Bessie Cargill Moorer is a native of Petersburg, Virginia and resides in Colonial Heights; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Moorer attended John Tyler Community College, and Virginia State University; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Moorer has served Robert E. Lee Elementary School for eleven years during which she served as a Reading Center Aid, and as President of the Teachers' Aide Association; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Moorer serves on many regional and local organizations including the Petersburg Chapter No. 33 Order of the Eastern Stars, District 16 of the Negro College Fund Parade of Stars TV Program, Petersburg Educational Association and National Educational Association (NEA), American Business Women's Association (ABWA), N.A.A.C.P, Civic and Progressive Action Association For the Matoaca Magisterial District, Ettrick on the Move and the Chesterfield Democratic Committee; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Moorer is Block Captain for the Voter Registration Committee of Ettrick, Va., Poll-worker Organizer for the Village of Ettrick, Chesterfield County Assistant Coordinator for the 1962 Freedom March in Selma, Alabama; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Moorer Organized the Salvation Army's Christmas Workers, and is an active member of the Gillfield Baptist Church in Petersburg, Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby commends and congratulates Mrs. Bessie Cargill Moorer on her outstanding citizenship and leadership in Ettrick/Matoaca area; involvement with the N.A.A.C.P and Ettrick on the Move, and her participation and leadership in many other civic and community projects. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mrs. Moorer and that this resolution be perman- ently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Vote: Unanimous Meei'~ng Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page ._5_~ of 1 July 26, 1995 AGENDA Item Number: 15.E. Subject: Resolution Recognizing Miss R. Danielle Bailey for Being Named a Jefferson Scholar County Administrator's Comments: Cou nt~ Ad min istrator: BoardAction Requested: Summary of Information: Dr. Nicholas requests the Board adopt a resolution recognizing Miss R. Danielle Bailey for being named a Jefferson Scholar. Danielle will be present, accompanied by members of her family, to accept the resolution. See attached. Preparer: ~/'~.6~ x J ~. c/0~ Theresa M. Pitts Attachments: Yes [-~ No Title: Clerk to Board of Supervisors 195 RECOGNIZING MISS R. DANIELT,E BAILEY FOR HER OUTSTANDING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENTS WHEREAS, Miss R. Danielle Bailey is a 1995 graduate of 'Matoaca High School and valedictorian of her class; and WHEREAS, Danielle was an outstanding student with keen interest in math and science and a member of the National Honor Society; Key Club; German Club; and President of both her Senior and Junior Class; and WHEREAS, Danielle has served as a United Way volunteer; competed on Battle of the Brains and in the Math League; participated in the Math and Science Center; and was a member of Students Against Drunk Driving; and WHEREAS, Danielle was recognized as a National Merit Scholarship Semi-Finalist and received the University of Virginia Book Award, the 1993 Kodak Young Leader Award, and the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Outstanding Student Achiever Award; and WHEREAS, Danielle has been recognized for her scholastic achievements by being named a Rodman Scholar by the University of Virginia; a National Science Scholar by the Virginia Department of Education; and, most prestigiously, a Jefferson Scholar by the University of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Jefferson Scholars Program was established to attract to the grounds of the University of Virginia, the most promising students in the country; and WHEREAS, selection is based on excellence in leadership, scholarship, and citizenship; and WHEREAS, nationwide, 640 candidates were nominated and 68 finalists were chosen by regional selection committees to participate in the Jefferson Scholars Program's national competition and in which Danielle is one of 28 students offered a Jefferson Scholarship for study at the University of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Jefferson Scholarship is merit based and awarded to outstanding high school seniors and cover the entire cost of attending the University of Virginia for four years of study; and WHEREAS, Danielle plans to continue her education at the University of Virginia majoring in mechanical engineering. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby congratulates Miss R. Danielle Bailey for her outstanding scholastic achievements and wishes her well in her future endeavors AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors acknowledges the good fortune of the County to have such an outstanding young woman as one of its citizens. Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26, 1995 Item Number: Page _Lof i 15.F.1.-3. Subject: Resolutions Recognizing Boy Scouts Upon Attaining Rank of Eagle Scouts County Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: BoardAction Requested: Summary of Information: Staff has received requests for the Board to adopt resolutions recognizing the following Boy Scouts upon attaining rank of Eagle Scouts: Matoaca District · Mr. Joseph P. Dorton, Episcopal Church Troop 819, sponsored by Saint John's Midlothian District · Mr. Matthew B. Brincefield, Troop 869, Salisbury Presbyterian Church Mr. Christopher David Cosby, Troop $&9, Salisbury~ Presbyterian Church Pisgah United Methodist Church They will be present, accompanied by members of their families, to receive the resolutions. See attache~. Preparer: ~ ?/~/~4~-~ ~ ~ Theresa M. Pitts Attachments: Y~s Title: Clerk to Board of Supervisors I# RECOGNIZING MR. JOSEPH P. DORTON UPON HIS ATTAINING RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was incorporated by Mr. William D. Boyce on February 8, 1910; and WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was founded to promote citizenship training, personal development, and fitness of individuals; and WHEREAS, after earning at least twenty-one merit badges in a wide variety of fields, serving in a leadership position in a troop, carrying out a service project beneficial to his community, being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit, and living up to the Scout Oath and Law; and WHEREAS, Mr. Joseph P. Dorton, Troop 819, sponsored by Saint John's Episcopal Church, has accomplished those high standards of commitment and has reached the long-sought goal of Eagle Scout which is received by less than two percent of those individuals entering the Scouting movement; and WHEREAS, growing through his experiences in Scouting, learning the lessons of responsible citizenship, and priding himself on the great accomplishments of his County, Joseph is indeed a member of a new generation of prepared young citizens of whom we can all be very proud. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby extends its congratulations to Mr. Joseph P. Dorton and acknowledges the good fortune of the County to have such an outstanding young man as one of its citizens. RECOGNIZING MR. MATTHEW B. BRINCEFIELD UPON HIS ATTAINING RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was incorporated by Mr. William D. Boyce on February 8, 1910; and WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was founded to promote citizenship training, personal development, and fitness of individuals; and WHEREAS, after earning at least twenty-one merit badges in a wide variety of fields, serving in a leadership position in a troop, carrying out a service project beneficial to his community, being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit, and living up to the Scout Oath and Law; and WHEREAS, Mr. Matthew B. Brincefield, Troop 869, sponsored by Salisbury Presbyterian Church, has accomplished those high standards of commitment and has reached the long-sought goal of Eagle Scout which is received by less than two percent of those individuals entering the Scouting movement; and WHEREAS, growing through his experiences in Scouting, learning the lessons of responsible citizenship, and priding himself on the great accomplishments of his County, Matthew is indeed a member of a new generation of prepared young citizens of whom we can all be very proud. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby extends its congratulations to Mr. Matthew B. Brincefield and acknowledges the good fortune of the County to have such an outstanding young man as one of its citizens. 199 RECOGNIZING MR. CHRISTOPHER DAVID COSBY UPON HIS ATTAINING RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was incorporated by Mr. William D. Boyce on February 8, 1910; and WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was founded to promote citizenship training, personal development, and fitness of individuals; and WHEREAS, after earning at least twenty-one merit badges in a wide variety of fields, serving in a leadership position in a troop, carrying out a service project beneficial to his community, being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit, and living up to the Scout Oath and Law; and WHEREAS, Mr. Christopher David Cosby, Troop 869, sponsored by Salisbury Presbyterian Church, has accomplished those high standards of commitment and has reached the long-sought goal of Eagle Scout which is received by less than two percent of those individuals entering the Scouting movement; and WHEREAS, growing through his experiences in Scouting, learning the lessons of responsible citizenship, and priding himself on the great accomplishments of his County, Christopher is indeed a member of a new generation of prepared young citizens of whom we can all be very proud. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby extends its congratulations to Mr. Christopher David Cosby and acknowledges the good fortune of the County to have such an outstanding young man as one of its citizens. Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA 26, 1995 Item Number: Page 15.G. Subject: Resolution recognizing Midlothian Youth Soccer U-12 State Champions for their fine representation of Chesterfield County. Count~ Administrator's Comments: County Ad ministrator: BoardAction Requested: The Honorable Edward B. Barber has requested that the Board of Supervisors commend and recognize the U-12 State champions and Midlothian Youth Soccer League for their superior achievement and representation of Chesterfield County and its residents. Summary of I nfor mation: Midlothian Youth Soccer League registers over 1700 participants each season and has a U-12 State champion team from among 30 entries in Virginia. This team represented Chesterfield County in a regional tournament held July 1-2 in Niagara Falls, New York where they compiled a 2-0-1 record against teams from Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York. Michael S. Golden Attachments: Yes ~ No Director Parks and Recreation I# WHEREAS, the Midlothian Youth Soccer League has for 10 years consistently and diligently provided top quality recreational opportuefities for the youth of Chesterfield County, and, WHEREAS, the State champion U-12 team, coach Danny Tomic, and team manager, Bill Hanley represented Chesterfield County and Midlothian Youth Soccer League in the regional tournament held July 1-2 in Niagara Falls, New York, and compiled a 2-0-1 record while scoring 11 goals and giving up only 2 goals, and, WHEREAS, Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Department cosponsors numerous youth and adult leagues, providing the facilities necessary for their operation, and, WHEREAS, the Midlothian Youth Soccer League, headed by President Jim Schreckengost, registers over 1700 participants each season, and, WHEREAS, the Midlothian Youth Soccer League had a U-12 State champion team from among 30 entries in Virginia, and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the chesterfield County Board of Supervisors commend and recognize the U-12 State champions, and Midlothian Youth Soccer League for their superior achievement and representation of Chesterfield County and its res/dents. Meeting Date: Subject: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26, 1995 Item Number: Resolution Recognizing Jacobs Fifth Grade Classes for Representation of Chesterfield County Page i of~__. County Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: ~ BoardAction Requested: Summary of Information: Preparer: 15 .H. Attachments: Road Elementary School Their Outstanding Theresa M. Pitts Yes D No Title: Clerk to Board of Supervisors Z03 Mr. Jeff Beatman, Principal of Jacobs Road Elementary School, will be present to accept the resolution. See attached. Mr. Daniel requests the Board adopt a resolution recognizing Jacobs Road Elementary School fifth grade classes for their participation in the nationwide Science Olympiad Contest. ~ECOGNIZIlqG JACOBS ROAD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FIFTH GRADE STUDENTS FOR THEIR OUTSTANDING REPRESENTATION OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY WHEREAS, the Jacobs Road Elementary School fifth grade class entered the nationwide Science Olympiad Contest; and WHEREAS, Jacobs Road Elementary School administered this test to all of its 141 fifth grade students and due to the number of fifth grade students who took the test, Jacobs Road Elementary School entered two teams in the Science Olympiad Contest; and WHEREAS, from the results of the test, the top twenty pupils who scored the highest, were formed into two teams; and WHEREAS, among the 27 schools in the State of Virginia that participated, Jacobs Road Elementary School teams finished first and third; and WHEREAS, Jacobs Road team number two obtained a score of 347 which was better than the majority of United States schools and scored higher than all the international competition; and WHEREAS, out of nearly 800 schools in the United States who participated in the contest, with several teams from Japan, Germany, and Bahrain, Jacobs Road team number one finished second in the National Science Olympiad. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors extends its congratulations to all Jacobs Road Elementary School fifth grade students for their participation and recognition in the National Science Olympiad Contest and for their outstanding representation of Chesterfield County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors acknowledges the contributions of the fifth grade students who participated in the Contest; Mr. Jeff Beatman, Principal; and to all the science teachers at Jacobs Road Elementary School for their dedication in teaching. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26~ 1995 Meeting Date: Item Number: Page i of i 8.C.2. Subject: Request to Governor to Investigate Environmental Impact of Renewed Quarrying Operations at the Vulcan Quarry County Administrator's Comments: BoardAcfion Requested: Authorize the Chairman to request on behalf of the Board that the Governor initiate an investigation into the environmental impact of renewed quarrying operations at the Vulcan Quarry. Summary of Information: In June, 'Mr. McHale and Dr. Nicholas received an Impact Report from Mr. Kenneth Shiflett of the Community of Winterpock describing several potential adverse environmental impacts that could arise from renewed quarrying operations at the Vulcan Quarry in Matoaca Magisterial District. The report identifies several abandoned coal mines that are located near the quarry which were not known to exist at the time that the former Board reaffirmed Vulcan's zoning in 1991. The report raises the possibility of pollution to neighboring wells and mine collapses resulting from quarrying activity in close proximity to abandoned mines. Due to Court rulings in Vulcan's lawsuit against the County, the County cannot regulate Vulcan's environmental impact through the zoning process. However, Vulcan must obtain renewal of its state mining permit next month, and of its environmental quality permit in January. Mr. Shiflett's impact study raises serious questions that should be thoroughly investigated by the State as part of the State permit review process. Preparer: Attachments: Steven L. Micas [~Yes No Title: County Attorney 0505:10772.1 # 09l Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26, 1995 Item Number: Page _L~of 2 ADDITION 8.D. Subject: Transfer $200,000 for Right of Way Acquisition for Coalboro/Otterdale Connector Road County Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: BoardAction Requested: Transfer $200,000 for the Coalboro/Otterdale Connector Road from the Reserve for Capital Projects for right of way acquisition. Summary of Information: In November 1991, the former Board of Supervisors reaffirmed Vulcan Materials Company's conditional use permit for a quarry at the intersection of Coalboro and Beach Roads in Matoaca Magisterial District. The Board denied Vulcan's plan of operation for the quarry due to the lack of an adequate transportation plan, but the courts have reversed that denial and approved the plan of operation. When Vulcan reopens the quarry, several hundred dump trucks per day will travel to and from the quarry, substantially increasing traffic in the area of the quarry. In order to meet the increased traffic demand, Vulcan's plan of operation requires them to construct $1.2 million of road improvements to the existing roads in the neighborhood at an estimated cost of $1.2 million. However, an alternative plan for improvements to the existing roads will more adequately protect the neighborhood. The proposed Coalboro/Otterdale Connector Road is part of the County's adopted thoroughfare plan and would provide direct access from the quarry to Route 360. (See attached map) The Board has continually supported construction of this new road as a resolution of the transportation issues at the quarry. (continued) Preparer: ~~. ~ Title: Stev~n L. Micas Attachments: [-~ Yes No County Attorney 0505:10771.1 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Summary of Information: (Continued) Staff has proposed to Vulcan that it transfer its $1.2 million commitment to improve the existing roads to construction of the Coalboro/Otterdale Connector Road. If Vulcan agrees, the County would need to pay the remaining additional costs of acquiring right of way and constructing the road. The road would be constructed as a limited access, all weather, gravel road and would eventually be improved to state standards as the property abutting the road develops. The road would not be constructed until such time as the quarry decides to re-open. Development of the abutting property is anticipated to begin in the near future, and the owners of the right of way have indicated a willingness to negotiate dedication or sale of the right of way to the County. At this time, it is unknown when Vulcan intends to reopen the quarry. However, to implement the appropriate transportation plan, funds for initial right of way acquisition in the amount of $200,000 need to be transferred from the Capital Reserve. Budget and Management Comments: Transfer of the $200,000 from the Reserve would be contingent upon Vulcan's commitment to construct the Coalboro/Otterdale Connector Road. Upon transfer of the $200,000, the balance in the Reserve will be $458,982. J,a/hes J. L~.St~maier / ~Director, Budget and Management 0505:10771.~1 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: July 26, 1995 Item Number: 16. ~. Subject: PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance to Vacate an 8' Easement across Lot 1, Block B, Cross Creek Subdivision, Section A County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator:__~ Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Beard of Supervisors adopt an ordinance to vacate an I' easement across Lot 1, flock B, Cress Creek Subdivision, Section A. Summary of Information: Gary L. Clower has submitted an application requesting the vacation of an 8' easement across Lot 1, Block B, Cross Creek Subdivision, Section A. This request has been reviewed and staff recommends approval. District: Midlothian Mn W. Harmon Attachments: Yes No Title: Riqht of Way Manaqer # Z05 PUBLIC HEARING: ORDi~NCE TO VACATE AN 8' EASEk 3 ACROSS LOT 1 BI~CK B CROSS CREEK SUBDIVISION SECTION A GARY L CLOWER BOARD OF SUPERVISORS J, L. McHALE, III, CHAIRMAN BERMUDA DISTRICT ARTHUR S. WARREN, VICE CHAIRMAN CLOVER HILL DISTRICT HARRY G. DANIEL DALE DISTRICT FREDDIE W. NICHOLAS, SR. MATOACA DISTRICT EDWARD M j D LOT HIAN~D15'j'l:~tC~ CHESTERFIELD COUN7. P.O. Box 40 CH ESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832-0040 LANE B. RAMSEY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR That on the~[~~, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as may be heard, the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County at its regular meeting place in the Board Room of Chesterfield County, Virginia, will consider the following ordinance for adoption: AN ORDINANCE to vacate a portion of a 8' easement located in ~/~~11, Lot 1, Block B, Section A, MIDLOTHIAN District, Chesterfield, Virginia, as shown on a plat dated JANUARY 26, 1986, and recorded MARCH 7, 1986, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 52, Page 41 The complete text of the proposed ordinance and conveyance is on file in the office of the Right of Way Manager in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and may be examined by all interested parties between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meetin~ Date: July 26, 1995 Item Number: 16. B. Subject: PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance to Vacate a Portion of Byrd Avenue, Lots 10-16, Block A and Lots 1-5, Block B, within Petersburg- Heights Subdivision County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator:~ Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt an ordinance to vacate a portion of Byrd Avenue, Lots 10-16, Block A, and Lots 1-5, Block B, within Petersburg-Heights Subdivision. Summary of Information: Mr. and Mrs. John C. Vasiloff and Mr. and Mrs. Jimmie C. Skelton have requested the vacation of a portion of Byrd Avenue, Lots 10-16, Block A, and Lots 1-5, Block B, within Petersburg-Heights Subdivision. Staff has reviewed the request and recommends approval. A drainage easement over the entire portion of Byrd Avenue being vacated, will be retained. District: Bermuda Jo~n W. Harmon Attachments: Yes No Title: Riqht of Way Manaqer # o OS VICINITY SKETCH PUBLiC HEARING: ORL~.,INACE TO VACATE A PORTIO~ BYRD AVENUE WITHIN PETERSBUKG-HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION MR & MRS JOHN C VASILOFF & MT AND MR~ JI~IE C SKELTON ~: :,. .,,,..... ~,~ Minnis R U t'.; Memorial Park 2 Allied Research La~ ~,.:: Towolr Ivey M~mof ~09 ~JlO dia Gane~a~ ?~(}. 80× 85333 RICHMQNO V~R(_.~IA 23?93-000 ~t~ 649,6000 COUNTY OF P 0 INS VA CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page ! of ~ Meeting Date: July 26, 1995 Item Number: 16. c. Subject: Public hearing to consider an Ordinance to establish the "Lyndale Drive Special Tax or Assessment Water District" for three lots in the Lyndale Subdivision. County. Administrator's Comments: LvV ~ c~x.'c f ~ ~ County Administrator: ~ /-.J ~x.A~.St..4~t~4~ L. ~./EL. Board Action Requested: 1 Adopt the attached Ordinance to establish the "Lyndale Drive Special Tax or Assessment Water District", appropriate funds for the project from the water fund balance, and set interest rates equal to the interest rate on one-year U.S. Treasury Bills on this date. Summary of Information: In March of this year the Utilities Department was contacted by Mr. and Mrs. Forest Byrd of 8816 Lyndale Drive who were interested in connecting to the County's water system. Since that time, the Byrds and two adjacent property owners have agreed to the establishment of an assessment district to fund the cost of the necessary water line extension. This assessment district, encompassing three (3) lots, would be located within the Lyndale Subdivision, in the Clover Hill Magisterial District. Preparer: ~ Jr. Title: Assistant Director Attachments: Yes ~-~ No Zll CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page ~ of ~ Summary_ of Information: (Continued) If the assessment district is created, the County will pay all construction and other costs for extending a water line to the lots and then will recoup the cost from the landowners. The water assessment on each lot is repaid over a ten-year period in semi-annual installments which are due at the same time as real property taxes. The owners will also pay interest at a rate equal to the interest rate on one-year U.S. Treasury Bills. A lien in the total amount of the assessment will be recorded to ensure that any subsequent purchaser of the property is notified of the assessment and pays it. The total estimated cost of the waterline extension is $10,560.00, and the estimated assessment on each lot would be $3,520.00. -All three property owners support this district. After completion of the extension those property owners desiring to connect to the public water system would pay a connection fee, currently set at $3,092.00. In order to create the "Lyndale Drive Special Tax or Assessment Water District", the Board must adopt an Ordinance, with at least two thirds of the members voting in favor of the Ordinance. A copy of the draft Ordinance and a map of the proposed district is attached. AN ORDIN/MNCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING ARTICLE XV ' OF CHAFFER 20 RELATING TO LYNDALE DRIVE SPECIAL TAX OR ASSESSMENT WATER DISTRICT BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Chapter 20 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted to add Sections 20-215, 20-216, 20-217, 20-218 and 20-219 as follows: Sec. 20-215. Definitions. In the context of this article, the definitions contained in this section shall be observed and applied, except when the context clearly indicates otherwise. District: The Lvndale 'Drive Special Tax or Assessment Water District. Map of the District: The map entitled "Lyndale Drive Special Tax or Assessment Water District" prepared by the County. Department of Utilities, dated May 24, 1995, which map is on file with the director of utilities. Sec. 20-216. Establishment of Lyndale Drive Special Tax or Assessment Water District. Pursuant to Code of Virginia, Section 15.1-239 et seq., there is hereby created in the coun.ty the Lyndale Drive Special Tax or Assessment Water District. The area of the district shall be and the same is hereby fixed within the boundaries depicted on the map of the district. Sec. 20-217. Construction of certain water facilities in and adjacent to the district, The utilities department shall cause to be constructed in and adjacent to the district the water line and appurtenant facilities depicted on the map of the district, See. 20-218. Taxes or assessments upon owners of propert~ located within the district The cost of construction of the water line and appurtenant facilities located within the district shall be apportioned among the owners of property_ abutting the water line. The amount of the tax or assessment charged to each such owner of abutting property shall be-one-third (1/3) of the total cost of the improvements constructed within the 0505:10810.1 -1- district, including the legal, financial and other directly attributable costs incurred by ~e County. The mount finally taxed or assessed against each landowner shall be reported to the treasurer as soon as practicable after completion of the water line and appurtenant facilities located within the district, and the treasurer shall enter the same as provided for other taxes. Sec. 20-219. Installment payment of assessments. Any person against whom an assessment provided for in this article has been finally made shall pay the full amount of the assessment provided for in this article, on the due date of the first tax bill on which such assessment is shown. In no event, however, shall any part of the assessment be due prior to the completion of the water line and appurtenant facilities constructed pursuant to this article. As an alternative to payment as provided above, a person against whom an assessment provided for in this article has been made may pay such assessment in twenty (20) equal semiannual principal installments over a Period of ten (10) years, together with simple interest on the unpaid principal balance at the rate of percent per annum. The first of such installments shall be due on and interest on the unpaid principal balance shall accrue from the date on which the full amount of the assessment would otherwise have been due as provided above. 0505:10~10.1 -2- LYNDALE DRIVE SPECIAL TAX OR ASSESSMENT WATER DISTRICT 37].0 37~0 361t 370~ 37]O 8834 LYNDALE DR WATER LIN E 8849 ~017 I.~GEI~iD ASSE:~MENT DISTRICT BOUNDARY PROPOSED WATER EXISTING WATER 3949 250' 500' / DEPARTMENT ~ 'r~ o~ ~ WATER DIST~CT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIEI,D OF UTILITIES An Affiliate of ~edia General P,Q, BO~ 85333 Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA July 26, 1995 Item Number: Page lof 1 16.D, Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Conveyance of a Parcel of Land on West Krause Road to the Chesterfield Employee Federal Credit Union for Construction of a new Credit Union building County Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: BoardAction Requested: Conduct public hearing Employee's Credit Union. and convey designated property to Chesterfield County Summary oflnformation: This date has been set as a public hearing be set to consider the conveyance of the parcel to the Credit Union. The Chesterfield County Employee's Credit Union has outgrown its current office space on West Krause Road. In order to keep credit union services conveniently available to Chesterfield County employees, the County has agreed to give to the Credit Union a parcel of land adjacent to the IST building on which the Credit Union will build at its cost a new 4500 square foot building. Under the agreement, the County will continue to provide utility services to the Credit Union as it presently does, and in the event the Credit Union ceases to operate at any point in the future, the County will have the option of acquiring the building on the property for its depreciated value. ~ Preparer: Bradford S. Hammer Attachments: Yes ~ No Deputy County Administrator 0607:10594.1 (10024) ,-,- - ~--~ PUlILIC S&FETY AC~,OEMIC B pHYSICAl. TR&INI#G BLDG. Cc> ~'~ E¥ DEPT. OF I F uTILiTiES ~ I I ',~ R~ iL.. / o~ -~.-: L .... . I I I L~ ~ I I " -,, ~t::, c: ::, I I ~ I '[ · ~- --' Rt. StObte AGREEMENT This Agreement dated May 30, 1995, by and between the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, herein call ("County"), and CHESTERFIELD EMPLOYEES FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, a federally chartered and lawfully existing credit union hereinafter called CCEFCU"). WHEREAS, CEFCU has outgrown its current office space and in order to continue to provide financial services to County and School Board Employees additional space is needed; and .. WHEREAS, no additional space is available for the expansion of the building currently occupied by CEFCU; and WHEREAS, the County is the owner of a certain parcel of land in Dale District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, located on West Krause Road; and, WHEREAS, for the benefit of the employees of the County, the Chesterfield County School Board and other individuals utilizing the services of CEFCU, County desires to convey to CEFCU a parcel of land for the construction of a credit union facility. THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows: 1. .Conveyance. County agrees to convey by special warranty deed to CEFCU on or before September 1, 1995, for the sole purpose of constructing and operating a credit union, that certain parcel of land lying in the Dale Magisterial D!strict, Chesterfield County, Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the "Property". The exact 'boundaries and acreage of the Property shall be determined by survey prior to closing. Included in the conveyance will be a right of access to W. Krause Road. 2. Survey and Inspection. a. CEFCU shall obtain at its cost a survey subject to the County's approval which will define the exact legal description of the Property for purposes of conveyance. b. CEFCU shall have the right prior to conveyance to enter upon the Property and conduct such studies, tests or analyses it deems necessary to determine the suitability of the Property for its intended use. If for any reason the Property is deemed by CEFCU to be unsuitable, CEFCU shall so notify the County and this agreement shall be terminated. 3. Closing Costs. CEFCU shall pay all of the costs associated with the conveyance including any recordation costs, title examination and title insurance costs and survey costs. 4. Construction. a. Within twelve (12) months of the conveyance, CEFCU shall in/t/ate construction at its own expense and complete within twenty-four (24) months of executing this agreement a building of at least 4,500 square feet, together with drive- thru facilities and sufficient parking. The architecture of the building shall be similar and in like character to other structures in the County complex, and shah be submitted to and subject to the approval of the County's Planning Department. The construction of the project shall be managed by the County's Construction Manager and CEFCU 0607:10024.1 2 agrees to cooperate and communicate appropriately with the Construction Manager during all phases of Construction. b. The County shall be responsible for no costs associated with the conveyance, planning, development, or construction the Credit Union. c. CEFCU shall be responsible for all landscaping on the Property upon completion of construction, but thereafter the County shall maintain the grounds of the Credit Union at no cost to CEFCU. The County also agrees to pay all sewer, water, gas, electric/ty, and local telephone utility expenses incurred in operating the Credit Union Building, including initial hook-up and/or coImection fees. Local .~ telephone service shall be paid by the County only if and for so long as the Credit Union is connected to the County's PBX. d. CEFCU agrees to comply at its sole expense with all applicable site plan, zoning, and planning ordinances and requirements. e. CEFCU shall not be responsible for any expenses associated with the future realignment of W. Krause Road. 5. Right of Reversion. In the event CEFCU ceases, for a period of 30 days or more, to operate a federally chartered credit union on the Property which provides financial services to County and School Board employees, then upon written request of the County and payment by County to CEFCU, or its successor, of the depreciated v~lue of the improvements on the Property based on whatever straight line method of depreciation is approved by the National Credit Union Administration, CEFCU shall execute and deliver a General Warranty deed convey/rig marketable title of Property 0607:10024.1 3 220 to th~ County. 6. Board Approval, This agreement and the conveyance of the Property is subject to approval and authorization by the Board of Supervisors. 7. Assignment. This agreement may not be assigned without the expressed written consent of the County. 8. No Conveyance. CEFCU agrees that at no time will it convey or mortgage, in whole or in part, the Property without the express written consent of the County. 9. Miscellaneous. .. a. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, and it is understood and agreed that all prior agreements and discussions between the parties is merged herein. No representations, promises or inducements not included herein shall be binding on any party hereto. b. This agreement may not be changed orally, but only by an agreement in writing, signed by all parties. c. The obligations of sections 4, 5 and 8 shall survive conveyance and not be merged therein. d. CEFCU hereby represents that entering into this contract and the actions contemplated hereby have been approved by the CEFCU's Board of Directors and are in compliance with all applicable rules, regulations, or guidelines of the National Credit Union Administration. 0607:10024.1 4 ~ ~/ITNESS the following signatures: COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA Lane B. Ramsey County Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant County Attorney CHESTERFIELD EMPLOYEES FEDERAL CREDIT UNION J. Edward Beck, Jr. President 0607:10024.1 5 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, to-wit: I, , a Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that this day of , 199 , Lane B. Ramsey, County Administrator, personally appeared before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid, whose name is signed to the foregoing writing dated this ~ day of , 199 , and acknowledged the same before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand this My Commissions Expires: Notary Public COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, to-wit: I, , a Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that this day of , 199 , J. Edward Beck, Jr., President of Chesterfield Employees Federal Credit Union, personally appeared before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid, whose name is signed to the foregoing writing dated this day of , 199 , and acknowledged the same before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand this My Commissions Expires: Notary Public 0607:10024.1 6 P,G l~-i}OX ob333 RICHMG~ID ViRGiNI~ 23293-0001 (804) 649 6000 COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD VA Me~ing Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNT% BOARD OF SUPERVISORS July 26, 1995 AGENDA Item Number: Page 16 .E. Subiect: Public hearing on the County's 1995-96 Community Development Block Grant and HOME Consolidated Plan. Count~ Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: ~ BoardAcfion Requested: Adopt the County's 1995-96 CDBG and HOME Consolidated Plan, authorize an increase in appropriations in the amount of $625,000 for HOME grant funds, and the creation of one new full-time position in the CDBG Office. Summar~ of Information: The County's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Consolidated Plan for 1995-96 is required to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development by July 28, 1995. The submission must follow a required public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. HUD then has 45 days to review the program. A CDBG review committee comprised of County staff and citizen representatives has made its recommendation to the County Administrator on the County's 1995-96 CDBG Program including HOME funding. The attached material is the County Administrator's recommended CDBG and HOME Investment Program for 1995-96 including 38 projects to be funded with the County's 1995-96 allocation of $1,454,000 in CDBG and $500,000 in HOME funds. ~-JLewis C. Wendell Attachments: Yes ~-~ No Title: CDBG Director The Chesterfield County CDBG review committee consisting of representatives from county departments and target area business and residential civic groups is pleased to submit a recommended 1995-96 Community Development Block Grant program. The review committee considered a total of 62 requests submitted by various groups and county departments. The review committee agreed it was important to articulate the philosophy underlying the choices that were made. With over $11 million in requests and only $2 million in available funds, those choices were difficult to make. Primary elements of the philosophy are as follows: The intent of the CDBG program is to help revitalize deteriorated neighborhoods with the most demonstrated need. Priority was given to projects in those areas exhibiting the greatest extent of physical deterioration. Projects clearly within the scope or mandate of other county, state, or federal agencies were given a lower priority. A greater priority was given to projects providing a more direct stimulus to neighborhoods to become physically, economically, and socially healthier places in which to live and work. Projects that demonstrated the greatest ability to provide permanent improvement to neighborhoods on a long-term basis were given a higher priority. Projects that increased the self-sufficiency of individuals and organizations were given the higher priority. Recommended Projects 1995-96 CDBG and HOME Program Sollrces CDBG $1,454,000 HOME Federal 379,000 State 121,000 County match * 125,000 TOTAL $2,079,000 Uses Public Improvements Housing HOME Contingency Public Services Code Enforcement Special Economic Development Administration and Planning TOTAL $ 656,000 726,000 65,000 218,000 34,000 96,000 284,000 $2,079,000 *Required for HOME funds Recommended Projects 1995-96 CDBG Program PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::5::::::. ====================================================== .. Requested $200,000 Recommended $200,000 This project would provide funding for the construction of the Ettrick Community Building. The project bids came in $300,000 over budget. Funds were used from program income and other CDBG budget line items to cover the costs. $140,000 would be used to pay for construction management, telephones, and building furnishings. $50,000 would be returned to the Business Loan Program and $10,000 returned to the Ettrick Historic Study accounts. Requested $200,000 Recommended $100,000 A consultant has been working with the community to design streetscaping plans for Chesterfield Avenue. The funds would pay for the first phase of a multi-phase program to pro-fide special streeflighting, landscaping, and other amenities. Requested $100,000 Recommended $100,000 A study is currently underway to assess the need for and feasibility of a satellite government services facility in the Jeff Davis Corridor area. This project would provide fimding for design and engineering of a facility if one is recommended. This project would also incorporate a community center for use by area neighborhoods including Kingsdale. ~ii:~i~:.~~i~ Requested Recommended $125,000 ~ 7 5~oo~ This project would pay for ADA facility improvements county-wide so that general fund dollars can be freed up to be used as required county match for $500,000 in HUD HOME funds. -2- Requested Recommended $20,000 $20,000 This funding .would make improvements to the areas adjacent to Falling Creek that have been included in the Parks and Recreation Greenway Plan for Falling Creek. Requested Recommended $2,000 $2,000 Landscaped rest area along the walking trail consisting of two benches, graveled area, and landscaping. Requested Recommended $15,000 $15,000 A sidewalk to connect the sidewalk at Allerton Street to the Bensley Fire Station at Wentworth Street. Requested Rec0mmcnded $30,000 $20,000 Landscaping the Route 1 intersection with Route 288. Requested $174,000 Recommended $74,000 Funds to begin sidewalk and lighting improvements in the Meadowdale area. Requested $50,000 Recommended $25,000 Funds for a multi-purpose, barrier-free dining/kitchen facility for campers with mental retardation and severe physical disabilities or other medical conditions. -3- HOUSING PROJECTS ::::::::::::::::, 5::: ::::::::: ::::% :::::::::~ ::'. ::::::::::: ::::::::::: :::::::::::::::: :5::::::::::::: :5::::: Requested $225,000 (HOME) Rehabilitate 15 single family homes in CDBG target areas. Recommended $225,000 (HOME) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::~::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Requested $75,000 (HOME) Rehabilitate 5 single family homes county-wide. Recommended $75,000 (HOME) Requested $39,000 (CDBG) Recommended $39,000 (CDBG) Funding to retain the Residential Revitalization Coordinator. The Residential Revitalization Coordinator provides staff support to carry out residential improvement projects including housing and public infrastructure. The Residential Coordinator also provides substantial staff support to neighborhood civic groups. Requested $60,000 (CDBG) Recommended $30,000 (CDBG) Funds to pay administrative costs for this non-profit housing organization. Requested $15,000 (CDBG) Recommended $12,000 (CDBG) Funds to offset costs to CARES for homeless individuals and families from Chesterfield County. 229 -4- Requested $34,000 (HOME) Recommended $34,000 (HOME) Funds to pay half the cost of mortgage down payment/closing costs for low to moderate income families. Requested $100,000 (HOME) Recommended $100,000 (HOME) Funds to construct 4 new homes for low to moderate income families in target areas. Requested $104,000 (HOME) Recommended $104,000 (HOME) Funds to assist families with mortgage down payment. ·:~~.:~:~~~:+:~:~:~:~:~:.:~:~:~:~~~;~~~~~:~:+~~:~:~:~:~:~~`~~~~:~:~:~:~:~:.~~:~:`:~:`~`:~:.:::::::::::::::::::::::: Requested $10,000 (CDBG) Recommended $10,000 (CDBG) Funds for Interfaith Housing to hire a person to coordinate client intake and market properties. Requested $22,000 (HOME) Recommended $22,000 (HOME) Funds to provide support to the activities of HABITAT in Chesterfield. Requested $15,000 (CDBG) Recommended $15,O00 (CDBG) Funds to support the operations of CARITAS - homeless assistance. -5- Requested $42,000 (CDBG) Recommended $20,000 (CDBG) Funds to support HOME activities related to the County CDBG Program. :::; ::: ::;:;::::: :5 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Requested $80,000 (CDBG) Recommended $40,000 (CDBG) Funds to support the activities of a non-profit housing provider assisting low income families in Chesterfield become self-sufficient. PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS ,'"' ::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::: :"'"::::::::::::: ::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: '":::;:::::~: ' ::::' ':he::::;:::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: :: :,:: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..::::::::::::: :...::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .... Requested Recommended $56,000 $50,000 Funds to operate programs in the newly constructed Ettrick Community Building. Requested Recommended $40,000 $40,000 Funds for the fourth year of VITAL, a Social Services dropout prevention program for at-risk children from families on AFDC, at Falling Creek Middle School. Requested Recommended $6,000 $6,000 Funds to purchase uniforms and equipment. Requested $40,000 Recommended $30,000 Funds to provide scholarships and organizational funding for youth recreation and athletic programs. -6- Requested Recommended $36,000 $20,000 Funding for mentoring and educational support programs at Chalkley and Bellwood Elementary Schools. $22,000 ~ Funds to continue the work being done at Dupont Square Apartments to help residents of the Jeff Davis Corridor that have limited English speaking skills. Requested Recommended $2,000 $2,000 Scholarships to athletic programs for low and moderate income participants in CDBG target areas. Requested Recommended $30,000 $30,000 Funds to continue the Bensley Seniors Recreation program. Requested $450,000 Recommended $20,000 Additional personnel, technology, and other instructional materials to better assist the at-risk four year old student population. -7- ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING :::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Requested $224,000 Recommended $224,000 Administration costs to nm the County's CDBG program. Costs include salaries, benefits, computers, rent, utilities, telephone, advertising, equipment, automobile, and other administrative costs. The CDBG Office is requesting 1 additional full-time position (planner) and 1 part-time clerical position to cope with a 35% increase in funding and significant increase in projects and programs administered. Positions are contingent upon approval of grant. Requested Recommended $50,000 $40,000 Funds to reimburse the County for budgeting, accounting, payroll, legal, and other costs associated with the CDBG program. Requested $41,000 Improvements to the Falling Creek Ironworks historic site. Recommended $20,000 CODE ENFORCEMENT Requested Recommended $34,000 $34,000 Funds to continue position devoted to code enforcement in Jeff Davis and Ettrick areas. Z33 -8- SPECIAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT !" =================================================== ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ==================================== :::::::::5:::::::::::::::::::::: 5: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Requested Rec0mmended $46,000 $46,000 Funds to continue position devoted to special economic development and working with business groups in CDBG target areas. Requested $50,000 Recommended $50,000 Funds to hire engineering consultant to study feasibility of building access road along 95 and Route 1 to provide access to industrial property in Enterprise Zone. 234 County Administrator's Recommended Changes Take $25,000 out of ADA Improvements and fund Camp Baker's request for funds for a kitchen facility at $25,000 ($50,000 requested). Take $10,000 from Youth Programs and $10,000 from Indirect Costs to fund $20,000 of School Administration program for at-risk four year olds. Lqx~FUNDED REQUESTS (low pfiori~ projects) In order of priority: Ampthill/GatesMill Park Traffic Control Devices Kingsdale Community Center DARE Ettrick Raikoad Station Study Gateway Homes Chesterfield Alternatives HOME Fair Housing Rosy Grier Pavilion Bensley Parent Coordinator Ettrick Bus Service Jeff Davis Bus Service Cardiac Defibrillator - Ettrick Schools Funding Jeff Davis Sidewalks Ettrick Sidewalks Chalkley Storage Camp Baker Dundas & Strathmore Jeff Davis Road Improvements Dupuy Drainage Ettrick Park Improvements Matoaca Park Improvements Winfree Avenue Drainage Harrowgate & Treely Lanes Rowanty Court Grange Hall Elementary Improvements Millside Access TOTAL UNFUNDED $ 20,000 28,000 100,000 6,000 15,000 32,000 87,000 30,000 25,000 22,000 170,000 565,000 12,000 430,000 425,000 50,000 8,000 25,000 750,000 390,000 395,000 50,000 35,000 200,000 250,000 50,000 15,000 4,800,000 $ 8,985,000 (CDBG) (CDBG) (CDBG) (CDBG)