02-22-1968 Packet
. "
bOOK 948 ?~.CE 41.9
THIS DEED, ~de this 20th day of February, 1969, between
JOHN A. and JUNE P. SIMMONS,. LAWRENCE E. and DORIS P. HAMM and
RUTH B. POND, widow, parties of the first part, and the COUNTY
OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, party of the second part, -
WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum
of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties of the
first part do grant and convey unto the County of Chesterfield,
Virginia, its successors and assigns, with GENERAL WARRANTY, the
following described property:
ALL that certain piece or parcel of land lying
and being in Matoaca Magisterial District,
Chesterfield County? Virginia, outlined in red
on a plat entitled 'Map Showing Proposed Road
to Ettrick Cemetery, Matoaca District, Chester-
field County, Virginia, II made _.by LaPrade Bros.,
Civil Engineers and Surveyors, Richmond, Virginia
and dated February 2, 1967, said plat attached
hereto and.made a part hereof.
BEING a portion of the same property conveyed to
Meredith M. Pond from Robert L. Pond and Beatrice
B. Pond, his wife, by deed dated June 12, 1959
and recorded August 13, 1959 in the Clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County
in Deed Book 595, page 136; the said Meredith M.
Pond having since departed this life and by will
recorded in said Clerk's Office in Will Book 77,
page 503, having left said Ruth B. Pond a life
estate in said property and upon. her death the
remainder to go to pis daughters, June P. Simmons
and Doris P. Hamm.
The parties of the first part coven~nt that they have
i
the right to convey the said land to the grantee; that they have
done no act to encumber the said land; that the grantee shall hav
quiet possession of said land, free from all encumbrances; and
that they, the parties of the first part, will execute such
further assurances of said land as may be requisite.
This conveyance to the County of Chesterfield, Virginia,
is made in compliance with Section 15.1-286 of the Code of Vir-
,
ginia, 1950, as amended, and is approved by the. Commonwealth's
Attorney as to form,.and accepted on behalf of the Board of
-Supervisors by resolution of-the Board duly adopted, as certified
by its Clerk, authorized to so act, as evidenced by their affixin
their signatures to this deed.
BOOK 948 PAGE 420
WITNESS the following
J
(SEAL)
~
~~~
ne . Sl.mmons
(SEAL)
~ ,c:o~
I~~e.>d~
Lawrence E. Hamm
(SEAL)
APpnOVED AS TO FORM
AS T. COMMON'~,/EAllH ATTORNEY
?-- - -z,s. cP"
~ 0: ~ (SEAL)
DORIS P. HAMM' ,"
ct~tt4 a cP~
Ru . Pond
(SEAL)
STATE OF VIRG,INIA,
hi" - ""'/3p/l-:-G
COUNTY OF ~E~~IELD, to-wit:
I
I, />J 1J..L./4A lA. IIflwj(j/yS
, a Notary Public in
and for the County and State aforesaid, do c~~tify that JOHN A.
and JUNE P. SIMMONS, his wife, whose names are signed to the
foregoing Deed bearing date the 20th day of February, 1969 have
each acknowledged the same before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid.
My Commission expires: 7/13Jf12-
Given under my hand this ~ day
I, t.olt.LlRPI fA. #~Wl1lt11.s ; a
1969.
STATE OF VIRGINIA,
p/?t/IJe.R Cct>!?C/i
COUNTY, OF 61lEst'ERFIELB, to~it :
'i:;'"' ,
for the County and State aforesaid, do certify:thatLAWRENCE E.
and DORIS p. HAMM, his wife, whose namesSare signed to the fore-
going Deed bearing date the 20th day of February, 1969 have each
acknowledged the same before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid.
My Commission expires: 7/;,3/1 J-
Given under my hand this :2.2- day
- 2 -
1969.
STATE OF VIRGINIABOlJK 948 PAGE 421
,
COUNTY OF ~F.ffI:fJtB', to-wit:
I,
, '
WfuIIJA {p. H-I1W/[JAl5
, a Notary Public in
and for the County and State aforesaid, do certify that RUTHB.
POND, widow, whose name is signed to the foregoing Deed bearing
date the 20th day of February, 1969 has acknowledged the same
before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid.
My commission expires: 7j16/1~
'.
Given under my hand this ~ day
1969.
I. M. IV. BU.\N!TT. EXECUTIVE SECRmRY. AUTlmr:ZED ASENT.
Of THE BOUD Of SUP,RVISORS Of CHESHiiflE'.D CCU;',TY,
m"NIA. 00 HEREBY ACCEPT TH:S C~Nvm:m ON BE::AlF OF
THE BOARD Of SUPERVISORS PURSUANT TO AUTHOftlTY VESTEd
IN ME BI RESOLUTION OF THE BOARO Of SUPERVISORS D~Lf
:~~~~
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
VIRGINIA:
.Jt the Clerk's Office ~f the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, the
.7._huhday o&~, 19f.n th,' D d
o 0 no"_- Q __ h,<-"m_, _Vl__:!n, S ee was presented and
with the certlflcate~dmitted to record aL'-'-;'Q_~no'clock______(LnMo
Teste: -/dd /) , . ,/
;vP-~ . ~ Clerk
- 3 -
. ~.-. ..
-..~..
~-
'-
VIRGINIA: At an adjourned meeting of the
Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County, held at the Courthouse on
February 22, 1968 at 9:00 A.M.
Present:
Mr. Irvin G. Horner, ~airman
Mr. H. o. Browning, Vice-Chr.
Mro J.Ruffin Apperson
!l1r. C.J. Purdy
Mr. Fo F. Dietsch
Mr. A. R. Martin
Mr.
Hr.
Mr.
Mr.
Howard A. Mayo,JroCo.Planner
John Eo Longmire,Asst.Exec.Sec'y.
Robt. A. Painter,. Co. .Engineer
Lee R. Gordon, Comm. Atty.
,.
This being the time and day set to hear the County Court Judges express
their opinions concerning House Bill No.828, the Honorable County
Judge Do W. Murphey and the Honorable Associate County Judge W. R.
Shelton come before the Board and states that a Legislative Committee
is already in existence studying this situation and is due to report
six months before this Bill would become law if it passed. They ask
the Board not to support House Bill N00828.
Mr. John Thomas, substitute Judge, speaks against the proposed House
Bill, stating that consideration should be given to the existing
Committee's findings.
Mr. John Daffron, Attorney, also asks the Board not to support House
Bill No. 828.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Dietsch, seconded by
Hro Martin, it is resolved that the motion supporting House Bill No.
828 as noted in the minutes of February 14, 1968, be, and it hereby is
resdindedo
On motion of Mr. Dietsch, seconded by Mr. Apperson, it is resolved
that Delegate John So Hansen be requested to withdraw House Bill
Noo 828 and further be it resolved that he be requested to support
the study of House Joint Resolution NOo390
A discussion arose concerning the large number of Bills in the ~ate
Legislature and the need for the Board to review each Bill that could
~ffect Chesterfield. The Commonwealth's Attorney is asked to review
legislative action and to inform this Board of Bills affecting the
County.
A resolution from the Planning Commission is received recommending
that Mr. Gordon B. Marshall be appointed to the Richmond Regional
Planning Commission. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of
. --. ..
.
e
r.r. Purdy, seconded by Nr. Martin, it is resolved that Mr. Gordon B.
Marshall be appointed as the Planning Commission member to the Richmond
Regional Planning Commission.
Mr.Robert Painter, County Engineer, advises the Board of the Richmond
Metropolitan ~thority's intent to let bids for the Powhite phase
of road construction on March 15, 1968. He cites that there had been
no provisions made by the Authority for the proposed sewage treatment
plant for the County, that no agreement had been reached with the City
of Richmond although negotiations started in December, 1966. At the
present time plans are being made and the program is proceeding without
the knowledge or the consent of the County.
There have been several meetings held with County and City representativ~s
but there has been no agreement reached at this time. The ~ty is
unwilling to relea~e the rate study by which it is recommending a
price for the treatment of sewage.
Mr. Painter states that in his opinion the project should not be
advertised until some agreement between the County and City has been
reached.
Mr. Horner states that if necessary the County will have to get an
injunction to force the general agreement to this question.
It is the general consensus of the Board that the County should proceed
with negotiations, taking every precaution to protect the County in
its right to construct its own sewage treatment facilities.
There was read a letter from Mr. Harold B. Walker, Commissioner of the
Revenue, concerning ce~tain appropriation request. It was generally
agreed that Mr. Walker be requested to meet with the Board at its
next meeting on February 29, 1968.
On motion of Mr. Apperson, seconded by Mr. Martin, it is resolved that
this Board adjourns at 10:30 A.M. until 7:00 P.M.,February 29, 1968.
-2-
..........
;
-----
-
'-
Two hundred thlrty~five
T 2/16/68 i'c
A
B ILL
,
T u amend the Code of Virgini4 by adding a BectUm fttembered
.
16.1-50.1, relating to judges of county courl8in cerl4m COWItiu;
f'Tohibition on practice of law 07' holding of otk6r olftu while """xg
48 IfUch judge; sal4f'ie8,
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of ViJ'ginia:
1. That the Code of Virginia be amended by adding a section nwnbered
16.1-50.1, as follows:
G 16.1-50.1. In any county having a population in excess at seventy
thousand, but not exceeding one hundred thousand persons, according to
the last preceding United States census, the judge ot the county court of
such county shall not practice law during his continuance' in office nor hold
any other office of public trust during his continuance in office,
Not\vithstanding provisions in ~~ 14.1-40, 14,1-41, 14.1-42 and 16.1-50
to the contrary, the salary payable to such judge shall not exceed
fourteen thousand four hundred fifty dollars
annually; provided. however, that such county
shall be permitted to supplement such salary in
/
an amount to be determined by the governing bOdy
of such county.
The provisions at this section shall be deemed to take eifect in an)'
such county only upon the expiration of the term of office of the county
jud~e in office in such county on the effective date of this aec:tion.
#
.
.
.
t
HOUSE BILL NO, 828
1
2 Offered February 9, 1968
3 A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered
4 16,1-50,1, relating to judges of county courts in certain counties;
5 . prohibition on practice of law or holding of other office while serving
6 as such judge; salaries.
7
8 Patron-Mr. Hansen .
9
10 Referred to the Committee for Courts of Justice
11
12 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
13 1. That the Code of Virginia be amended by adding a section numbered
14 16.1-50.1, as follows:
15 ~ 16,1-50,1. In any county having a population in excess of seventy
16 thousand, but not exceeding one hundred thousand persons, according to
17 the last preceding. United States census,C!0judge of the county court of
18 such county shall not practice law during his continuance in office nor hold
19 any other office of public trust during his continuance in office.
20 Notwithstanding provisions in ~~ 14,1-40, 14.1-41, 14,1-42 and 16,1-50
21 to the contrary, the salary payable to such judge shall be fifteen thousand
22 dollars annually.
23 The provisions of this section shall be deemed to take effect in any
24 such county only upon the expiration of the term of office of the county
25 judge in office in such county on the effective date of this section.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
.
.
.
.
0\. I .,:; :/.: j; i i f ~):';!1 i;:;'
,: ;";' .~~- ~: ~. '. '"
, . .
'HOUSE:B'ILt'NO. '696
... . T': ~-;\ i (i,~ '.\ t: i ;.' v', ".
- <'
~":."1:Y. ,ny.,~ :. ~~ 7;,J
;".'
>,,""
j !.;
1/":: ;";\
... ~. '.:';,; "
Offered February 7, 1968
1
2
..,'
3
,<l
5.
6
: ' ~
7
. ~ . .,Re~erred to~~e;Committeeon GaI?e and.Inland Fisheries
,.9..
to . Be, it enacted.?y-.the G~neral Assembly of Virginia:
11 1. That ~~ 29-184 and 29':185 as severally am,end,ed, of, the Code. o,f
12, Virginia IJ~ ameIlded~~d reenacted as follows: . .
13 . ~ 29-184. .AInollnt of Jicense,-Except as hereinafter provided,:,it
14.sl}all be unlawful for any person to own a dog six months ol? .01' overjl}
..,', .;,. . ..; .' ... .. ,". .'
15th~s.State unless such dog is licensed, as required by the provisions .oj
16 this chapter, Dog licenses shall run * for one year *. from * April fir~tt9
17 * Ma?'ch thirty-first, inclusive, and the license tax, which shall be the on~y
18 license tax on dogs in this State, shall be payable at the offiJe of the
19 treasurer and shall be as follows :
20 Male.-For a male dog, one dollar,
21 Unsexed female.-For an unsexed (successfully spayed) female dog,
22 one dollar,
23 Female.-For a female dog, three dollars,
24 Kennel, for twenty dogs,-For a kennel of twenty dogs, fifteen dollars,
25 Kennel, for fifty dogs,-For a kennel of fifty dogs, twenty-five dollars,
26 Provided that the governing body of any city or county, which has
27 assumed responsibility for enforcement of the dog laws under ~ 29-184,2
28 or 29-184,5, may prescribe by ordinance a single license tax for all dogs
29 regardless of sex, the amount of which shall not exceed five dollars,
30 In any county having a population of more than twenty-one thousand
31 but not more than twenty-one thousand two hundred the governing body
32 may, at such time as it deems proper, increase such tax, but in no event
33 shall such tax exceed the following amounts:
34 Male.-For a male dog, one dollar fifty cents.
35 Unsexed female,-For an unsexed female dog, one dollar fifty cents,
36 Female,-For a female dog, four dollars; provided that no ordinance
37 adopted by a city or county under the provision of this section shall
;','i.,":
"
,',
'.- .~. ~"'.'
." _ "1_~'.-~' ", ':; "\,,
" t:: ,'i !~ . ~:.::
.';.: :.-, :,:", ~.;',_;i:.,.;: -\ ,n':,' ~ ..
A BILL to amend and reenact ~~ 29-184 an,d,~9,Tl,~5,.'f'S:;~e1!~rallya~nded,
.of,t~eC.odeof Virginifk, relating to the, effective,~atf18.:Qf dog lice~e8,
.. ,"." ." _. . '. .'_ .. ..~"_' . .; '. , . ".1 v.. ,. .' '., .
; .:;.:
.';;,
. .pil-tron-Mr, .Gwathmey f~yRequest)
;." .'. ... .. __. . .. c.. ," .". . _ .' .. " " '.' '. .. ~
'i'
').
.
.
House Bill No. 696
2
1 provide for kennel fees in, excess of those provided by State law.
'; '!. '} l' Ii:., '. ..1 .' . ~
2 In any such county the license tax on kennels shall be as provided
3 above. "'.'
4 ~ 29-185. When license tax payable.-License tax on dogs .shall 'be
"'5"due and payable as; follows: ,. .,
;"~F'."C\ '(a) On 'or' before *.Aprllfirstof each year'andnotlater than * APra
7 thirty-first of * the following year, the owner of any dog six months old or
8 older shall pay 'a license tax as prescribed'in the preceding section (~ 29-
9 184).
10 (b:> If a 'dog' shall beCome six months of age or come into the
11 possession of any person between * April first and * February first of any
12 license year, the license tax for the current * license year ~hall be paid
13 forthwith oy the 'oWner." "
14 (c) If a dog shall become six months of age 'or' come' into the' posses-
15,is'idir of: any ipefson between * January thirty-first and ',j, Mar~h thirty-
16 first' of inyiicense year;'the license tax for the succeeding * licenSe year
17sh~li'be!paid! forthwith by the owner and such license shall p~otect ~uch
18! dog frOIri the date of purchase. '
1!}Ci';: ,:',",' .,
2'0' ".j;, :.:.j
21
22
23"
24
25
26
.
:r,I,:.jf'
.., .r..
.
.
.
.
HOUSE BILL NO, 494
1
2
3 A
4
5
6
Offered January 30, 1968
BILL to amend and reenact SS 29-184.2, 29-184,3 and 29-184,4, as
amended, of thc Code of Virginia, 1'elating to enforcement of dog
laws in counties and cities by dog wa1'dens; and deputies thereof;
how such dog wa1'dens shall be appointed; and their compensation
fixed.
7
8
9 Patrons-Messrs. Dalton, G. W., and Philpott
10
11 . Referred to the Committee on Game and Inland Fisheries
12
13 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
14 1. That SS 29-184.2, 29-184,3 and 29-184.4, as amended, of the Code of
15 Virginia be amended and reenacted as follows:
16 S 29-184.2. Enforcement of dog laws in counties by dog wardens;
17 license tax rates and disposition of proceeds.- (a) Notwithstanding any
18 other provision of law, except S 29-184.3, in any county or city, the
19 enforcement of the dog laws and local ordinances enacted pursuant to
20 S 29-184.4 * shall be vested in a dog warden and deputy dog wardens,
21 and upon the appointment therein of a dog warden and deputy dog
22 wardens the game warden shall have no jurisdiction as to the enforcement
23 of the dog laws. * The judge of the circuit or c01'7Jomtion court of the
24 county a')' city shall appoint an officer to be known as the dog warden, who
25 shall have exclusive jurisdiction as to the enforcement of the dog laws in
26 sllch county 01' city; the judge may also appoint one or more deputy dog
..
27 wardens to assist the dog warden in dog inspection activities and in dog
28 law enforcement. Provided, however, that in any county having a popu-
29 lation in excess of twenty-three thousand three hundred fifty but not in
30 excess of twenty-three thousand three hundred seventy, the circuit court
31 shall appoint the dog warden and any deputy recommended by the gov-
32 'erning body of such county. Provided, further that in any county having
33 a population of not less than seventeen thousand three hundred nor more
34 than seventeen thousand four hundred, the circuit court shall appoint th,e
35 clog warden and may appoint any deputy recommended by the dog warden,
:36 and shall fix the salaries of such dog warden or deputy so appointed; the
:37 maximum and minimum salary brackets shall be determined by the gov-
.
.
House Bill No. 494
2
1 erning body. Provided, however, that any county which has adopted the
2 county manager form of organization and govenunent provided by chap-
3' tel' 13 (~ 15,1-582 et seq,) , Title 15.1, or any county having a population
4 of more. than ninety-eight thousand but less than ninety-nine thousand,
5 shall appoint such dog warden and deputy dog wardens in the same
6 manner as are other employees as provided in ~ 15,1-634, and that in any .
7 county which has adopted the county manager form of organization and
8 government provided by chapter 14 (~ 15,1-669 et seq,) , Title 15,1, shall
9 appoint such dog warden and deputy dog wardens in the same manner as
10 are other employees as provided in ~ 15.1-687, Such deputy dog warden
11 shall have the powers and duties of a dog warden, The dog warden and
12 deputy dog wardens shall have all the powers and duties of a game warden
13 in the enforcement of the dog laws where such dog wardens and deputy
14 dog wardens serve only one county or city. In all other cases, such dog
15 warden and deputy dog wardens shall have all the powers and duties of
16 a game warden. The dog warden and deputy dog wardens shall be paid
17 such compensation as the governing body of the county may prescribe.
18 Provided that in the county of Wise such compensation shall not be less
19 than four hundred dollars per month nor more than five hundred dollars
20 pel' month; and provided, further, that in the county of Dickenson such
21 compensation shall be not less than three hundred thirty-three dollars per
22 month nor more than four hundred dollars per month, The governing
23 body of any county in which a dog warden or deputy dog wardens hiwe
24 been appointed may contract with one or more additional counties for
25 enforcement of the dog laws in such counties by such dog warden or
26 deputy dog wardens. Any such contract may provide that the county em-
27 ploying such dog warden or deputy dog wardens shall be reimbursed a
28 portion of the salary and expenses of such dog warden or deputy wardens,
29 (b) The appointments shall be made by the court or judge thereof .
30 in vacation on or before the thirtieth day of June for one, two, three, or
31 foul' years, whichever is deemed appropriate in the sole discretion of the
32 court or judge thereof in vacation, commencing on the first day of July
33 and ,expiring on the thirtieth day of June of the year of expiration.
34 (c) In such county the amount of the dog license tax, which in no
35 event shall be more than five dollars per dog, shall be fixed by ordinance
36 adopted by the governing body of such county, and thereafter the tax
37 imposed under ~ 29-184 shall not apply therein. The funds collected for
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
.
.
3
House Bill. No, 494
dog license taxes shall be paid into a special fund and may be disposed
of as provided in this section and in ~~ 29-206 and 29-209, except that
the county treasurer shall not be required to remit any portion of such
funds to the State Treasurer nor shall the governing body be required to
supplement the salary of the game wa'rden, The county shall pay the
salaries and expenses of the dog warden and deputy dog wardens from
such special fund, Any sum. remaining may be transferred, in whole or
in part, to the general fund of the county at the end of the fiscal year,
(c1) The Governor is hereby authorized to transfer at one time or
( ,
from time to time from the unappropriated balance in the Game Protec-
tion Fund such sum as may be necessary and recommended by the Director
of the Budget for the revision of the salary of the game warden in any
county adopting the provisions of this section,
(d) All other provisions of chapter 9 (~ 29-183 et seq,) of this title
shall apply mutatis mutandis to any such county and dog wardens and
deputy dog wardens therein.
~ 29-184.3. Same; certain counties.-(a) Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, in the counties of Augusta and Roanoke, and in the
counties of Orange, Fairfax, Giles and Spotsylvania, * the enforcement
of the dog laws shall be vested in a dog warden and deputy dog wardens,
and upon the appointment therein of a dog warden and deputy dog wardens
the game warden shall have no jurisdiction as to the enforcement of the dog
laws. In such county the judge of the circuit court shall appoint from a
list of not less than three nor more than five persons nominated by the
governing body of the county an officer to be known as the dog warden,
who shall have exclusive jurisdiction as to the enforcement of the dog
laws in the county; the judge may also so appoint, from a similar list of not
less than three nor more than seven persons, such number of deputy dog
wardens as are requested by the governing body. Such deputy dog
wardens shall have the powers and duties of a dog warden. The dog
warden and deputy dog wardens shall have all the powers and duties of
a game warden in the enforcement of the dog laws, The dog warden and
deputy dog wardens shall be paid such compensation as the governing
body of the county may prescribe.
(b) The lists of nominations so made by such governing body shall
be submitted to the court or the judge thereof in vacation not later than
the fifteenth day of June of each year and the appointments shall be made
.
.
.
.
HOUSE BILL NO, 494
1
2
3 A
4
5
6
Offered January 30, 1968
BILL to amend and reenact ~~ 29-184.2, 29-184.3 and 29-184,4, as
wrnended, of the Code of Virginia, 1'elating to enf01'cement of dog
laws in counties and cities by dog wa1'dens; and deputies thereof;
how such dog wardens shall be appointed; and thei1' compensation
fixed.
7
8
9 Patrons-Messrs. Dalton, G. W., and Philpott
10
11 . Referred to the Committee on Game and Inland Fisheries
12
13 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
14 1. That ~~ 29-184,2, 29-184.3 and 29-184.4, as amended, of the Code of'
15 Virginia be amended and reenacted as follows:
16 S 29-184,2. Enforcement of dog laws in counties by dog wardens;
17 license tax rates and disposition of proceeds.-(a) Notwithstanding any
18 other provision of law, except ~ 29-184.3, in any county or city, the
19 enforcement of the dog laws and local ordinances enacted pursuant to
20 S 29-184.4 " shall be vested in a dog warden and deputy dog wardens,
21 and upon the appointment therein of a dog warden and deputy dog
22 wardens the game warden shall have no jurisdiction as to the enforcement
23 of the dog laws. * The judge of the circuit or C01'poTation court of the
24 county O'I' city shall appoint an officer to be known as the dog warden, who
25 shall have exclusive jurisdiction as to the enforcement of the dog laws in
26 such county 01' city; the judge may also appoint one or more deputy dog
..
27 wardens to assist the dog warden in dog inspection activities and in dog
28 law enforcement. Provided, however, that in any county having a popu-
29 lation in excess of twenty-three thousand three hundred fifty but not in
30 excess of twenty-three thousand three hundred seventy, the circuit court
31 shall appoint the dog warden and any deputy recommended by the gov-
32 'el'lling body of such county. Provided, further that in any county having
33 a population of not less than seventeen thousand three hundred nor more
34 than seventeen thousand four hundred, the circuit court shall appoint the
,
35 dog warden and may appoint any deputy recommended by the dog warden,
:36 and shall fix the salaries of such dog warden or deputy so appointed; the
37 maximum and minimum salary brackets shall be determined by the gov-
-
,
VIRGINIA: At an adjourned meeting of the
Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County, held at the Courthouse on
February 22, 1968 at 9:00 A.M.
Present:
Mr. Irvin G. Horner, Chairman
Mr. H. O. Browning, Vice-Chairman
Mr. J. Ruffin Apperson
Mr. C. J. Purdy
Mr. F. F. Dietsch
Mr. A. R. Martin
Mr. Howard A. Mayo, Jr., Co. Planner
Mr. John E. Longmire, Asst._Exec. See'y
Mr. Robt. A. Painter, Co. Engineer
Mr. Lee R. Gordon, Comm.'Atty.
This being the time and day set to hear the County Court Judges express
their opinions concerning House Bill No. 828, the Honorable County
Judge D. W. Murphey and the Honorable Associate County Judge W. R. Shel-
ton come before the Board and state that a legislative committee is
already in existence studying this situation and is due to report six
months before this bill would become law if it passed. They ask the
Board not to support House Bill No. 828.
Mr. John Thomas, substitute judge, speaks against the proposed house
bill, stating that consideration should be given to the existing com-
mittee's findings.
Mr. John Daffron, Attorney, also asks the Board not to support house
bill No. 828.
Upon consideration whereof and on motion of Mr. Dietsch, seconded by
Mr. Martin, it is resolved that the motion supporting House Bill No.
828 as noted in the minutes of February 14, 1968, be and it hereby is
rescinded.
On motion of Mr. Dietsch, seconded by Mr. Apperson, it is resolved that
Delegate John Hansen be requested to withdraw House Bill No. 828 and
further be it resolved that he be requested to support the study of
House Joint Resolution No. 39.
A discussion arose concerning the large number of bills in the State
Legislature and the need for the Board to review each bill that could
effect Chesterfield. The Commonwealth Attorney is asked to review
legislative action and to inform this Board bills ~fecting the County.
, 1 ~
Commission is received recommending
appointed to the Richmond Regional
,In motion of Mr. Purdy, seconded by Mr. Martin, it is resolved that
Mr. Gordon B. Marshall be appointed as the Planning Commission member
to the Richmond Regional Planning Commission.
X
On motion of Mr. Apperson, seconded by Mr. Martin, it is resolved 'that
this Board adjournrat 10:30 A.M. until 7:00 P.M., February 29, 1968.
.
.
House Bill No. 494
2
1 erning body, Provided, however, that any county which has adopted the
2 county manager form of organization and government provided by chap-
3 tel' 13 (~ 15.1-582 et seq,) , Title 15.1, or any county having a population
4 of more, than ninety-eight thousand but less than ninety-nine thousand,
5 shall appoint such dog warden and deputy dog wardens in the same
6 manner as are other employees as provided in~ 15.1-634,'and that in any .
7 county which has adopted the county manager form of organization and
8 government provided by chapter 14 (~ 15,1-669 et seq.), Title 15,1. shall
9 appoint such dog warden and deputy dog wardens in the same manner as
10 are other employees as provided in ~ 15.1-687. Such deputy dog warden
11 shall have the powers and duties of a dog warden, The dog warden and
12 deputy dog wardens shall have all the powers and duties of a game warden
13 in the enforcement of the dog laws where such dog wardens and deputy
14 dog wardens serve only one county or city, In all other cases, such dog
15 warden and deputy dog wardens shall have all the powers and duties of
16 a game warden. The dog warden and deputy dog wardens shall be paid
17 such compensation as the governing body of the county may prescribe,
18 Provided that in the county of Wise such compensation shall not be less
19 than four hundred dollars per month nor more than five hundred dollars
20 per month; and provided, further, that in the county of Dickenson such
21 compensation shall be not less than three hundred thirty-three dollars per
22 month nor more than four hundred dollars per month, The governing
23 body of any county in which a dog warden or deputy dog wardens hiiVe
24 been appointed may contract with one or more additional counties for
25 enforcement of the dog laws in such counties by such dog warden or
26 deputy gog wardens, Any such contract may provide that the county em-
27 ploying such dog warden or deputy dog wardens shall be reimbursed a
28 portion of the salary and expenses of such dog warden or deputy wardens.
29 (b) The appointments shall be made by the court or judge thereof .
30 in vacation on or before the thirtieth day of June for one, two, three, or
31 four years, whichever is deemed appropriate in the sole discretion of the
32 court or judge thereof in vacation, commencing on the first day of July
33 and expiring on the thirtieth day of June of the year of expiration.
34 (c) In such county the amount of the dog license tax, which in no
35 event shall be more than five dollars per dog, shall be fixed by ordinance
36 adopted by the governing body of such county, and thereafter the tax
37 imposed under ~ 29-184 shall not apply therein. The funds collected for
_OUNTY OF CHESTERFIEL~ e
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE
CHESTERFIELD. VIRGINIA
H. B. WALKER
COM"'ISSION.R
February 21, 1968
Mr. M. W. Burnett
Executive Secretary
Board of Supervisors
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear Mr. Burnett:
Due to the change in sending out tax
forms made up by IBM, it was necessary to get larger
envelopes at a greater cost than anticipated.
The bill from Double Envelope Company
amounts to $1 848.00, and other bills outstanding
amounts to $363.00. Also ~ue to the increase in postal
rates in January, !he appropriation in the budget for
postage has been used up for the year.
I would appreciate it very much if the
Board of SSp per visors would increase the Commissioner of
Revenue's planned budget as follows:
Postage - 11-021-218 - Additional $500.00
Office Supplies - 11-021-319 - Additional $4,000.
Hl B. Walker
Commissioner of the Revenue
tt~"~1928'?11-~.>" ,
~ 4. '(~",
_.;:}..,j F R~ \
iiJ !!.E~8, 968 ~ \
'~.~~~I
'~~~~J
9/ ""ffff!l ~
",~~' f~7J \/
-- __ u'::.-----
-'
At", cg"V''1,~ H
.
.
M10
VIRGINIA: At an adjourned meeting of the
Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County, held at the Courthouse on
February 22, 1968 at 9:00 A.M.
Present:
Mr. Irvin G. Horner, Chairman
Mr. H. O. Browning, Vice-Chairman
Mr. J. Ruffi n Apperson
Mr. C. J. Purdy
Mr. F. F. Dietsch
Mr. A. R. Martin
Mr. Howard A. Mayo, Jr., Co. Planner
Mr. John E. Longmire, Asst. Exec.Sec'y.
Mr. Robt. A. Painter, Co. Engineer
Mr. Lee R. Gordon, Comm. Atty.
Mr. D. W. Murphey, Co. Court Judge
Mr. W. R. Shelton, Co. Ct. Assoc.Judge
Mr. John Thomas, Co. Ct. Sub. Judge
Mr. John Daffron, Attorney
This being the time and day set to hear the County Court Judges express
their opinions concerning House Bill No. 828, the Honorable Judge Murphey
opens the discussion.
He states that the bill was presented yesterday (Wednesday) at the re-
quest of Del. John Hansen without notice to those effected but with
full coverage by the news media. The bill as presented only effects
Chesterfield and he points out that had Mr. Hansen conferred with the
Board and the judges of the Circuit and County courts before submitting
the bill many qu~stions could have been answered. It is his opinion
that the bill should have included the Commonwealth Attorney and the
Associate County Court Judge and the endorsement of the Bar Association.
He cites that a committee is already in existence studying this situation
and is due to report six months before this bill would become law if it
passed.
He speaks of the present court load noting that there is very little
time f~r private practice to supplement the poorest paid judges in the
entire area. The city pays $21,346.00 and Henrico supplements the
salaries of their judges. With nine years on the bench he feels he is
too far along the route to retirement to make a change but that Judge
Shelton with only two years service will most likely quit.
The present situation could have been resolved, he states, had the
board mentioned it to him. Since a matter of ethics was involved,
Judge Shelton and he requested a ruling. He cites that he has not
taken a zoning case since the board's feeling became known to him.
Mr. Martin states that he feels ashamed and that Mr. Hansen also came
up short, but he did believe at the time that judges would be happy;
.
.
Judge Murphey notes that he would be, if under the same conditions as
the city, that he advocated the study he previously mentioned. The
thing should be state-wide. The study committee will hold public hear-
lngs and it is possible the state might pay the entire salaries or
work out some combination method.
It is Mr. Horner's opinion that the board went through channels and
asks if Mr. Burnett had talked to him.
Judge Murphey states that it was when Mr. Burnett informed him of the
situation that they wrote off for the ruling.
Mr. Shelton, Associate County Court Judge, states that the proportions thi~
thing has taken disturbs him. He questions why it is in the General
Assembly, why the Board cannot settle its own problems. He cites that
the Board goes into depth on the construction of courtrooms and other
matters but spends only fifteen minutes on the necessity of this bill.
It is hisJunderstanding that the supervisor~ are' concerned about the
judges practicing before the board and that they should know that there
are laws which control the local judges practice. He states that if
the supervisors feel that he makes his decisions from the bench based
on his practice he should be removed. On the basis of the reported
salary he would quit. As an attorney he is concerned as to why all
effected did not sit down and discuss this. Without knowing what the
work load is, it is difficult to understand the present determination;
one full time judge might be able to do the job.
Mr. Browning and Mr. Horner feel the main concern is the practice of
law before the board.
Mr. Martin states that it does,not look right; the propriety of it. He
was thinking about the salary, not just the board caies.
Judge Murphey feels that communications broke down.
Concerning Del. Hansen's appearance before the board, Mr. Dietsch states
that he had asked for copies of certain bills to be presented and that
he did not mean for it to be personal. He notes that he had requested
that the board be allowed~to supplement the salaries in that he knows
you cannot live on $14,000, for he has been trying to do just that.
Upon receiving a call from Mr. Hansen about yesterday, he requested
that consideration of the bill be continued as he wished to hear the
judges comments.
The discussion continues on such points as the pension as related to
a supplemental salary, lack of support by the Bar Association, and the
fact that the bill has little chance of being passed.
Judge Murphey states that 'regardless of the o~tcome he will not be
before the board practicing law again.
2
.
.
Upon consideration whereof and on motion of Mr. Dietsch, secbnded by
Mr. Martin, it is resolved that the motion supporting House Bill No. 828
as noted in the minutes of February 14, 1968, be and it hereby is
rescinded.
All vote aye.
v
On motion of Mr. Dietsch, seconded by Mr. Apperson, it is resolved that
Delegate John Hansen be requested to withdraw House Bill No. 828 and
further be it resolved that he be requested to support the study of
House Joint Resolution No. 39.
The Commonwealth Attorney is asked if the board can be appraised of
bills effecting the county. The bill having to do with line item
cutting which is before the legislat~re being an example.
v-
A resolution from the Planning Commission is received in which they
note their unanimous recommendation that Mr. Gordon B. Marshall be
appointed to the Richmond Regional Planning Commission.
On motion of Mr. Purdy, seconded by Mr. Martin, it is resolved that
Mr. Gordon B. Marshall be appointed as the Planning Commission member
to the Richmond Regional Planning Commission.
All'vote aye.
Mr. Painter, the County Engineer, appraises the board of the Richmond
Metropolitan Authority's intent to let bids for the Powhite phase of
their project on March 15, 1968. He points out that no provisions have
been made for the. County treatment plant, that no agreement has been
reached with Richmond although negotiations started in December of
1956. At this time action is proceeding without the County being in
on it. He states that meetings were held in April 1967, January 29,
1968 and at the last meeting on February 19, 1968, representatives of
the Authority, the City and the County were present. It is his opinion
we are still poles apart and that the County has yet to see the rate
study but have been told we must accept it. It is his feeling that
we cannot afford to pay but so much. Mr. Painter then refers to cor-
respondence with the Authority and with Mr. Faller of the consulting
engineering firm. It is his opinion that this phase of the R. M. A.
should not be advertised until an agreement is reached.
Mr. Horner points out that Mr. Painter has put them on record and if
necessary we will have to get an injunction.
It is the consensus of the board they should go ahead full steam.
Mr. Painter in ans0er to a question concerning cost states that without
the rate study he does not know but does feel that over the long pull
the County could do it cheaper.
3
.
.
Mr. Horner reminds the board that they are to meet at the State
Treasurer's Office at noon on February 29 and at the Courthouse for
a meeting to begin at 7:00 P.M.
On motion of Mr. Apperson, seconded by Mr. Martin, it is resolved
that this board adjourn at 10:30 A.M. until 7:00 P.M., February 29,
1968.
Note: To be placed on agenda for 29 February 1968
(1) Fund requests of Mr. Walker
(2) Credit Cards for Fire Departments
4