Loading...
2008-07-30 Packete RCN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 2.A. Subject: County Administrator's Comments County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: The Government Finance Officers Association recently notified the Accounting Department that the County's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007 received a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The Certificate recognizes that the County's CAFR is a high-quality, easily readable and understandable document designed to meet the information needs of citizens, investors, and other financial report users. This is the 27t'' consecutive year that the Accounting Department has achieved this highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting. Preparers Mary Lou Lyle Title: Director of Accountin Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No 000001 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY _ .,~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 « AGENDA h~~~ Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 2.B. Subject: County Administrator's Comments County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Summary of Information: Chesterfield County was recently honored when First Lady Laura Bush, Honorary Chair of the Preserve America initiative, designated it as one of the nation's newest Preserve America Communities. In order to receive this designation, the County had to meet three general criteria: • The community has recently supported a historical or cultural preservation project that has promoted and/or is promoting heritage tourism or otherwise fostering economic vitality, and involved a public-private partnership between government entities and at least one civic association, non-profit, and/or business enterprise. • The governing body of the community has adopted a resolution indicating its commitment to the preservation of its heritage assets. • The community meets at least five criteria specified in three broad categories: discovering heritage through historic places, protecting historic resources, and promoting historic assets. Preparers Kirkland A. Turner Title: Director of Planning Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No # (~®~®~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA The County will receive a certificate of designation signed by Mrs. Bush announcing Chesterfield is now a Preserve America Community. Communities designated through the program receive national recognition for their efforts. Benefits include the right to use the Preserve America logo on signs and promotional materials; eligibility for Preserve America Grants; notification to state tourism offices; and listing in a Web-based directory that showcases Chesterfield's preservation efforts and heritage tourism destinations. Preserve America Communities are also featured in National Register Travel Itineraries and in "Teaching With Historic Places" curricular materials created by the National Park Service. In addition, designated communities are able to apply for grants that support research, planning, marketing, interpretation, and training efforts. These grants of $20,000 to $250,000 are awarded on a competitive, matching fund basis to help communities develop sustainable management strategies and sound business practices for the continued preservation and use of their heritage assets. The Preserve America initiative is a Presidential effort to encourage and support community efforts to preserve and enjoy America's priceless cultural and natural heritage. The goals of the initiative include a greater shared knowledge about the nation's past; strengthened regional identities and local pride; increased local participation in preserving the country's cultural and natural heritage assets; and support for the economic vitality of our communities. ~~~~~~ - a.~~ y~~N.a CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 2.C. Subject: County Administrator's Report County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: The County Administrator will update the Board on the progress of various projects as requested by the Board of Supervisors. Preparers Janice Blakley Attachments: ^ Yes Title: Clerk to the Board County Administrator's Report to the Board July 30, 2008 Critical Projects/Activities 1. Amelia Reservoir Project 2. Board's Appointments Process 3. Business Climate Survey 4. Capital Improvement Program 5. Capital Regional Collaborative Focus Group 6. Potentia12009 Cash Proffer Legislation 7. Chippenham Place 8. Citizen Satisfaction Survey 9. Countywide Comprehensive Plan 10. Countywide Property Maintenance and Neighborhood Preservation 11. Efficiency Studies -Countywide Efficiency Study - Fire Department Efficiency Study - Fleet Management Efficiency Study 12. Emergency Preparedness Steering Committee 13. Financial/Budget Issues 14. Fort Lee Expansion 15. Employee Health Benefits -Contract Renewal 16. 2009 Impact Fee Legislation 17. 2007 Impact Fees for Roads 18. In-Focus Implementation 19. 2009 Legislative Program 20. Magnolia Green 21. Meadowville Interchange 22. Midlothian Turnpike/Courthouse Road Streetscape Improvements 23. Multi-Cultural Commission 24. Planning Fees 25. ^ Postal Zip Codes 26. Public Facilities Plan 27. 2011 Redistricting 28. Regional Workforce Investment Initiative 29. Richmond Braves/Minor League Baseball 30. RRPDC Large Jurisdiction Committee 31. RRPDC Transportation Funding Strategies Work Group 32. Private Sewer Treatment Facility 33. Southwest Corridor Water Line 34. Sports Tourism Program with Metropolitan Richmond Sportsbackers 35. Ukrop's Kicker Complex/Poseidon Swimming -Stratton Property 36. Upper Swift Creek Water Quality Ordinances 37. Utilities Policies and Managed Growth 38. Watkins Centre 39. Website Redesign 40. Wireless Internet Access in County Facilities ~~~P CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 5.A. Subject: Resolution Recognizing Thomas H. Berry, Utilities Department, Upon His Retirement on August 1, 2008 County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff requests the Board adopt the attached resolution. Summary of Information: Staff requests that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognize Mr. Thomas H. Berry for his 38 years of service to the Utilities Department and the citizens of Chesterfield County. Preparers Roy E. Covington Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No OO6fii35 Title: Director of Utilities RECOGNIZING MR. THOMAS H. BERRY UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Mr. Thomas H. Berry will retire from Chesterfield County's Department of Utilities on August 1, 2008; and WHEREAS, Mr. Berry began his public service with Chesterfield County on September 14, 1970, as a meter reader for the Department of Utilities; and WHEREAS, in recognition of his dedication, skills and exceptional job performance, Mr. Berry, throughout the course of his career, has received several promotions and certificates of recognition for individual performance, teamwork and customer service; and WHEREAS, in recognition of his unique aptitude and ability related to reading water meters and executing service orders, volunteering for additional duties, and working many hours of overtime, Mr. Berry was promoted to senior meter reader in the field services section of the Utilities Department, and has diligently served in that capacity since July 1, 1976; and WHEREAS, Mr. Berry has exhibited pride and quality in the work he has performed at the Utilities Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Berry willingly served customers in the most courteous and professional manner during his employment with the Utilities Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Berry has assisted in the training and development of new employees in the field services section because of his significant knowledge and skills. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 30`h day of July 2008, publicly recognizes Mr. Thomas H. Berry and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for his thirty-eight years of service to the County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution is presented to Mr. Berry, and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. ~~®Q~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 3 AGENDA ~~~~•a Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: s.A.7. Subject: Nominations/Appointments/Reappointments to the Youth Services Citizen Board County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: uestea: Nominate/appoint/reappoint members to serve on the Youth Services Citizen Board. Summary of Information: The purpose of the Youth Services Citizen Board is to advise the Board of Supervisors regarding planning and policies affecting youth development and to provide a community forum to focus on youth issues. Bermuda District. Supervisor Jaeckle recommends that the Board reappoint Christian Garland, a student at Thomas Dale High School, to the Youth Services Citizen Board for a term from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009. Supervisor Jaeckle also recommends that the Board nominate and appoint Kristen Follo, a student at Thomas Dale High School, to the Youth Services Citizen Board for a term from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009. Ms. Garland and Ms. Follo meet all eligibility requirements to fill the vacancies and have indicated their willingness to serve. Preparers Jana D. Carter Title: Director, Juvenile Services Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No #000007 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 3 AGENDA Clover Hill District. Supervisor Warren recommends that the Board reappoint Kathleen Kraines, a student at Clover Hill High School, and Amanda Hopkins, a student at Monacan High School, to the Youth Services Citizen Board for a term from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009. Mr. Warren also recommends that the Board nominate and appoint John Fitzgerald, a student at Clover Hill High School, and Matthew Butta, a student at Monacan High School, to the Youth Services Citizen Board for a term from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009. Mr. Warren also recommends that the Board nominate and appoint Joel Bradner, an adult representative from the Clover Hill District, to the Youth Services Citizen Board for a term from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2011. Ms. Kraines, Ms. Hopkins, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Butta and Mr. Bradner meet all eligibility requirements to fill the vacancies and have indicated their willingness to serve. Matoaca District. Supervisor Durfee recommends that the Board reappoint Matthew Pulley, a student at Matoaca High School, and Kellan Latif, a student at Manchester High School, to the Youth Services Citizen Board for a term from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009. Supervisor Durfee also recommends that the Board nominate and appoint Steven Bond, a student at Matoaca High School, Andrew Bennett, a student at Cosby High School, and Stephen Quinn, a student at Cosby High School, to the Youth Services Citizen Board for a term from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009. Mr. Pulley, Ms. Latif, Mr. Bond, Mr. Bennett and Mr. Quinn meet all eligibility requirements to fill the vacancies and have indicated their willingness to serve. Dale District. Supervisor Holland recommends that the Board reappoint Matthew Harris, a student at L.C. Bird High School, to the Youth Services Citizen Board for a term from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009. Mr. Harris meets all eligibility requirements to fill the vacancies and has indicated his willingness to serve. Midlothian District. Supervisor Gecker recommends that the Board reappoint Rachel Rodini, a student at Midlothian High School, and Jess-Mara Jordan, a student at James River High School, to the Youth Services Citizen Board for a term from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009. 0~~(.~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 3 of 3 AGENDA Supervisor Gecker also recommends that the Board nominate and appoint Anastacia Martyn, a student at Midlothian High School, and Katherine Hillgrave, a student at James River High School, to the Youth Services Citizen Board for a term from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009. Ms. Rodini, Ms. Jordan, Ms. Martyn and Ms. Hillgrave meet all eligibility requirements to fill the vacancies and have indicated their willingness to serve. Under existing Rules of Procedure, appointments to boards and committees are nominated at one meeting and appointed at the subsequent meeting unless the Rules of Procedure are suspended by a unanimous vote of the Board members present. Nominees are voted on in the order in which they are nominated. 00000' CHESTERFIELD COUNTY _ , BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 ~AP~~Ntip.' AGENDA Meeting Date: ~uiy 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.6.1 .a. Subject: Request for Music/Entertainment Festival Permit from the Chesterfield County Fair Association County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Reauested. Staff recommends that the Board grant a music/entertainment festival permit to the Chesterfield County Fair Association for the annual Chesterfield County Fair subject to compliance with staff recommendations. Summary of Information: The 94th annual Chesterfield County Fair ("Fair") will be held at the fairgrounds complex from August 22nd through August 30, 2008. Because the Fair includes musical events, exhibitions and rides, the Fair Association must obtain a music/entertainment festival permit. The Fair Association has subcontracted the responsibility for amusements and midway rides to Jolly Shows, a Maryland company with over 40 years of experience in providing amusements and rides throughout the Mid-Atlantic region. The Fair Association has agreed that the following health and safety requirements will remain in effect during the Fair's operation: 1. 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. One person from the Fair Association must be present during all set up and take down hours. Preparers Steve Micas Title: County Attorney 0505:79076.1 Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # 0000.0 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 2. 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, Jolly Shows. 3. Public telephones must be functioning during all hours that the Fair is open and while the Fair is being set up and taken down. 4. 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. 5. Fair Association personnel and their subcontractors must promptly comply with all County requests for action necessary to protect the County from liability for violations by the Fair Association or its agents and employees of any rights guaranteed by Constitutional, federal or state laws. 6. Fair Association personnel must properly dispose of cooking grease in accordance with the recommendations and regulations of the Health Department during and after the conclusion of the Fair. The plans for this year's Fair are consistent with plans approved by the Board in previous years. Prior to the commencement of the Fair, staff will meet with representatives from the Fair Association to confirm that the plans contain adequate measures for public safety, fire prevention, medical protection, sanitation, traffic control, insurance, bonds and building and ride safety. Staff recommends the Board grant the Fair Association a music/entertainment festival permit subject to adherence to all staff recommendations and the representations contained in the Fair Association's application. The $100 entertainment permit application fee will be paid from the Board's annual budget appropriation to support the operation of the Fair. Staff will monitor compliance with the conditions of the permit prior to opening day, and for the duration of the Fair. ®~~~~.~. APPLICATION FOR ENTERTAINMENT FESTIVAL PERMTI' A. The Chesterfield County Fair Association, 1nc.,10300, Courthouse Rd., Chesterfield, Va.23832 wilt hold the annual Chesterfield County Fair. The purpose being to promote agriculture, education, industry, business and the general betterment of Chesterfield County and its rural heritage . B. The Chesterfield County Fair Association, Inc, is the promoter and financial sponsor of the Fair. Chesterfield County provides financial sponsorship. See Exhibit A for a listing of the entertainment during the Fair C. The Fair will be held August 22, 2008 through August 30, 2008 at the Chesterfield County Fairgrounds. Hours of operation will be 4:00 p.m.--11:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 11:00 a.m.--11:00 p.m. Saturday and 1:00 p.m.--11:00 p.m. on Sunday. D. The Chesterfield County Fairgrounds is located at 10300 Courthouse Road. The property is owned by Chesterfield County. E. The number of tickets to be offered for sale will be unlimited. Weather permitting, we would estimate an expected attendance of 50,000. F. Sanitation facilities will consist of ladies' & men's restrooms in both permanent buildings; two crowd pleaser toilets with running water and flush stools, divided into a ladies' & men's restroom; and, at various locations on the grounds, six (6) portable toilets. The rest rooms will have assigned personnel for routine clean-up. A written cleaning schedule will be established and signed as performed. The portable toilets will be emptied and cleaned daily. Garbage and trash will be picked up daily. Designated person(s) will pick up trash from the fairgrounds and parking areas each morning before the gates open. The Fair will have persons (normally 6 people) who will clean the grounds after the closing of the Fair. G. Various food vendors will be available with a variety of food. Public water is supplied to the fairground. There is a campground with water, sewer and electricity available for the vendors and concessionaires and the carnival employees. ~o~~~iZ H. The Fair will provide a first aid station. Volunteer rescue squad units will be on the fairgrounds when available. 911 service will be available at all times. Police officers will be on premises at all times. All are trained in first aid. A courtesy cart will be available. I. The Chesterfield County Fire Department will supervise fire safety. There will be fire extinguishers in all tents and food vendors. There are four (4) fire hydrants on the premises and one (1) across the street. Also, 911 service will be available. Fire and rescue squad arrangements are all coordinated through the Volunteer Coordinator with the Chesterfield County Fire Department. J. Parking facilities at Bird High School, Chesterfield Technical Center, and O. B. Gates Elementary School will be utilized. The Chesterfield County Police Department will handle traffic control. K. All lighting and electrical work is handled by Tilghman Electric. The carnival is in charge of their own electrical work and lights. All outdoor lights are on permanent poles; it is basically the same lighting plan that has been in use since 1990. L. As in previous years, every effort will be made to control the sound by the performers so as not to be a nuisance to adjacent property owners. M. Risk Management (Melvin Hodges) obtains our liability insurance for the Fair. The county is reimbursed for the premium. Jolly Shows carries its own insurance. N. We authorize the Board, the County, its lawful agents, employees, designees or law enforcement officers to enter the property at any time prior to or during the Fair to determine compliance with any state or local statute, ordinance or regulation. Doug Salvers with Parks & Recreation will be setting up a meeting of all department heads involved with the Fair, and our General Manager. We also understand that Assistant County Attorney Stylian P. Parthemos, will be attending this meeting and can ascertain first hand who is coordinating each activity. OOOO~L3 ADDENDUM TO APPLICATION FOR ENTERTAINMENT/FESTIVAL PERMIT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY FAIR ASSOCIATION The following information is provided to supplement the information contained in our application for entertainment/festival permit: 1. The nine day estimated fair attendance, weather permitting, is approximately 50,000. We anticipate our highest daily attendance to be approximately 4,000 on Saturday Sept. 29 ,2008, weather permitting. 2. The number of assigned personnel for restroom cleanup is typically 2 per day. The number of assigned personnel to pickup trash around the fairgrounds each day is 4. These persons are Fair Volunteers and the Sheriff's work force and the number will vary from time to time. 3. The daily morning trash pick-up from the fairgrounds and parking areas will be performed by County Building & Grounds employees. Typically, two employees perform this service. 4. The Fair will have six persons clean the grounds after the Fair. Cleanup will be accomplished to the satisfaction of the County within 12 days of the Fair's conclusion. 5. The number of County police officers typically available to assist with crowd control, first aid and emergency services is generally nine or ten. Additionally, five auxiliary police officers are typically available to assist, usually with traffic control.. 6. One volunteer rescue squad ambulance crew, consisting of 3-4 trained personnel, is available and normally on site each day of the Fair, except when dispatched to an emergency. The County also provides one fire company crew of five to six trained firefighters on site each day. 7. Regarding sound control, we will lower the sound level if required to do so by the police Department in response to specific complaints from citizens in the neighborhood of the Fair. 8. Four County Building Inspectors and the Coumy's Risk Management Loss Prevention Inspectors are either on site or available for quick response to the site when needed at all times during the Fair's operation. The Building Inspectors are available to confirm the continuing safety of the rides, tents and other structures. The Loss Prevention Inspectors provide general advice and instruction with regard to Fair safety. The Fair will comply with all instructions and advice of the Building Inspectors or Loss Prevernion Inspectors. 9. Insurance obtained by the County's Risk Management Departme~ on behalf of the Fair consists of Workers' Compensation insurance in the statutorily required amounts; Employer's Liability of $500,000 each accident/disease; property insurance of $6,000 on the fair trailer and $10,000 for personal property; general liability insurance of $1,000,000 for each occurrence and $5,000,000 product liability; excess liability of $1,000,000 for each occurrence; and employee theft of $200,000. The Fair will reimburse the Couny's Risk Management Department for the purchase of this insurance. 10. Insurance carried by Jolly Shows consists of workers' compensation coverage in the statutorily required amounts; $5,000,000 per occurrence for general liability coverage; and $1,000,000 per occurrence for automobile liability. o ~ ~ o a.,' 11. The number of personnel provided by the County as described in paragraphs 3, 5, 6 and 8 of this addendum represent the County's determination of the number of personnel necessary to perform these functions satisfactorily. If the County determines that either fewer or more people are necessary to perform those functions, the County will adjust the number of people whom it provides to perform each function. The Fair will abide by the County's determination of the number of people necessary to perform these functions. Similarly, the amount of insurance carried on behalf of the Fair, as described in paragraph 9, is determined by the County's Risk Management Department and is subject to adjustment if the County determines that a greater or lesser amount is necessary. The Fair will abide by the Risk Management Department's determination in this regard. 'Thanks again for your cooperation , Robert Sheffield resident and General Manager Chesterfield County Fair Association, Inc. 0000~..~' EXHIBIT A ENTERTAINMENT FOR 2008 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY FAIR Friday Aug. 22 -Aug. 30, 2008: Midway by Jolly Shows. Hogway Racing Pigs. Almost Amazing Rex. Magic 4 U. Richmond Discoveries (Civil war Display). Mechanical Bull Riding Friday Aug. 22, 2008 Sat. Aug. 23, 2008 Sunday Aug. 24, 2008 Monday Aug. 25, 2008 Tuesday Aug. 26, 2008 Wed. Aug. 27, 2008 Thru. Aug 28, 2008 Friday Aug. 29, 2008 Sat. Aug 30, 2008 Keith Henderson 8:00 P. M. Illusions of The King(Elvis). Diane Bailey 8:00 P. M. Country Music. Christian Music: Red Lane Baptist Church 1:30 P. M. Chester Methodist Church 3:00 P. M. Nikki Headley Southern Gospel 7:00 P. M. Bak N Da Day 8:00 P. M. Russell Bennett and Group The Southland Band 8:00 P. M. Country Music Mozely Rose Band 8:00 P. M. Southern Rock KYDA Professional Wrestling 7:OO P. M. Big "G" Soul Music 8:00 P. M. ARMA 1:00 P. M. Lawnmower Racing Patron Band 8:00 P. M. Country and classical rock. o~aoo~.s CHESTERFIELD COUNTY o~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Pa e 1 of 2 = ~ ~~N~ AGENDA Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.1.b. Subject: Request for Music/Entertainment Festival Permit from the Chesterfield County Chamber of Commerce "Celebration of the Vine" Wine Festival to be held April 25, 2009 County Administrator's Comments• County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board grant a music/entertainment festival permit to the Chesterfield County Chamber of Commerce "Celebration of the Vine" Wine Festival to be held on April 25, 2009 subject to (1) the Chamber obtaining coverage for itself and the County in the amount of $2 million and (2) the Chamber posting a $1,500 bond for clean up costs. Summary of Information: The Chesterfield County Chamber of Commerce ("Chamber") would like to hold the "Celebration of the Vine" wine festival on April 25, 2009, from 11:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., on the grounds of the County Government Complex, Chesterfield County, located at 10011 Ironbridge Road, Chesterfield, VA 23832. The festival will feature representatives from Virginia wineries Preparers Michael Golden Title: Director - Parks and Recreation 0505:79307.1 Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No ooo0i'7 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA showcasing and selling their wines. The event will feature musical performances by a live band, as well as art, crafts and food vendors. With the exception of possible County assistance in set up and clean up for the event, the Chamber is assuming full financial responsibility for the wine festival. The Chamber is currently seeking business sponsors to offset some of the major costs including entertainment. The festival capacity is about 5,000 people, attending throughout the day. Pre-sale tickets will be available for both tasters and non-tasters. Tickets will also be sold at the gate. The Chamber will have a contractor provide portable bathroom facilities. The Chamber is negotiating for on-site trash, recycling, and post-event clean-up and trash disposal for the event. The Chamber will have food vendors to provide food and beverages, including water which will be provided free to all attendees and participants. The vendors will obtain permits from the Health Department. The local Rescue Squad and Chesterfield Fire and EMS will be alerted of the event date and time and a First Aid station will be set up. Adequate parking facilities are available. Cars will be parked in the Chesterfield Administration Complex buildings parking lots and adjacent parking areas. Music played at the event will be played in such a manner that will not be audible beyond the property and constitute a nuisance to adjacent property owners. Off-duty police officers are being employed to handle all security components of the event. The Chamber of Commerce carries a general $1 million liability insurance policy to insure against injury or damage. Chesterfield County is named as an additional insured. Since this event will take place on County property and will involve the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages, staff recommends the amount of this policy should be increased to $2 million. The music/entertainment arrangements have been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office and meet the substantive requirements of the ordinance. These arrangements provide adequate measures to insure public safety, fire prevention, medical protection, sanitation, traffic control, insurance coverage, relevant permits and security. The Board is permitted to require permit applicants to cover the costs of clean-up after the festival. has required applicants who conduct a festival on $1,500 bond for clean-up costs, and staff believes in this case. 0505:79307.1 to post a bond sufficient Traditionally, the Board County property to post a that amount is appropriate 000~~.8 Wine Festival -Alcohol Consumption Area Chesterfield Government Center, Virginia May 20, 2008 ^ .. I 1' ~~ ,, I ' • COMMUNITY `~#~NE~UP E M NT ~~"~~` "~ °~I'BUILDING ,- p UTItITI ~.:- .. ~MMS DR COUNTY --~ ADMINISTRATION ~` FI NG LDING ND ~ARKIN~ I r ~` ~~'~ SCHOOL O BOARD U US ~ BUILDING eO ^ ~ DL LAVyN * Jy~ . e4 .~ •I` •~'~ ~ I ~ N DGE RO BRIDGE RD 0 90 160 360 Feet 20a)Aenal PhmagraphY Dirclaima: All dsn r provided "AS I8."The CommonwWN of Virgws, We Vvginia Gaogr.phic lNormatian Nmvak and theirrepctivc oRcen, agmtaaM cmployen joindy end eevmlly disclaim Copyright02008 Chestertetd County. Virginia Chemerlield CeunN eawmea no legal responsibiliry for the information my and all npn.ewtiom m wamm0m, exprme m implied wnncn mono in factor wining by opinion of I.w, 2002 Aerid Photography ~ Public Domain contained on [his map. This map is not be used for lend convryence. including any wamntie. ofmcrchmnbJity, Mea. fm a peniau W prpoea acwnoy, canenq, commmcial rams, Punted by ESRIT" ArcGlgrn Horizontal date is based on the VA Sm¢ Plane Coordinate system. NAD83. m 5xdmn ofd.o h® infn'ngm~mt deny sAiN pray innllecnal pronmtY dghu. Topographic information is bared on 1989 phomgmmmetrv. NAV29. 000019 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY .,~~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 AGENDA h~~~ Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.6.2. Subject: Award of Paving Contracts for the Matoaca and Dutch Gap Fire and Emergency Medical Services Stations County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board is requested to award a contract to Llewlyn & Sheffield in the amount of $26,619.00 for maintenance and repairs at the Matoaca Fire and EMS station and to Enviroscape in the amount of $176,600.00 for maintenance and repairs at the Dutch Gap Fire and EMS station. Summary of Information: The Matoaca and Dutch Gap fire stations have been identified as facilities where the apparatus ramps, sidewalks, parking lots and driveways have deteriorated over time. This deterioration has lead to potholes, standing water and presents an increased risk of damage to fire apparatus and other vehicles using these paved surfaces. The contractors will replace two of the front ramps at the Matoaca Station and will replace or repair the rear ramp, side driveway and front ramp at the Dutch Gap Station. A total of five bids were received and at the recommendation of Purchasing, two different vendors were chosen. Each is the lowest, responsive and responsible bidder for the listed fire station. Preparers Paul W. Mauger Title: Chief, Chesterfield Fire and EMS Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No # 000024 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA v/RC[N1P Page 2 of 2 Budget and Management Comments: This item requests that the Board award two paving contracts for the Matoaca Fire EMS Station and the Dutch Gap Fire and EMS Station. The FY2009 Adopted Capital Improvement Program included $250,000 for fire station repairs. Five bids were received and each bid came in below project estimates. Neither of these stations is scheduled for replacement and investment in maintenance of these facilities will continue to ensure site operability. Additional paving maintenance projects will need to be completed in the future as funding becomes available. Preparers Allan M. Carmody 000~2~. Title: Director, Budget and Management CHESTERFIELD COUNTY _ ~.,~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 3 ~~, AGENDA ~.- hRC~xu Meeting Date: ~uiy 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.3. Subject: Approval of Use of Property at 19300 Church Road for the Chesterfield County Schools Technical Center Build-A-House Project County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The School Board and the Community Services Board are requesting that the Board of Supervisors approve the use of county property located at 19300 Church Road, for the Chesterfield Technical Center Build-A-House project. Summary of Information: In May, staff advised the Board of Supervisors of the Build-A-House project, a proposed collaboration between the schools and county. The Chesterfield Community Services Board (CSB) has a long-standing partnership with Chesterfield Alternatives Inc. (CAI), a private non-profit corporation that acquires and manages properties for the CSB residential programs. The Chesterfield County Schools Technical Center also has a working relationship with the CSB due to the longstanding efforts to assist disabled students with the necessary support and training when they graduate through Chesterfield Employment Services. These working relationships are the basis for a recent proposal originally made by the Tech Center's Executive Principal to develop a project where students would build homes in Chesterfield County as part of their vocational training. Preparers George Braunstein Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No Title: Executive Director. MHSS 000022 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 3 AGENDA Summary of Information: (Continued) Over the years, the Tech Center has partnered with various organizations to provide students with this experience including Interfaith Housing and Habitat for Humanity. For two years, beginning in 2003, the Tech Center built affordable housing under the direction of Interfaith Housing. This was a successful partnership but after several changes in management, in 2006, Interfaith went out of business. Habitat became the next partner with the Tech Center allowing students to work on projects including a house in Bellwood. In 2007, Habitat came under new management and they now ask the organizations building houses to become sponsors and to raise money for needed building supplies. In addition, Habitat ran out of land in Chesterfield this past school year and the students had no house to build. School staff decided that working with Habitat was too costly since they wanted the school to raise $65,000 per year for building supplies and, in addition, Habitat's completion schedule was often too accelerated to allow students to get experience in all parts of a building project. Consequently, during the Spring of 2007, schools convened a committee of staff, teachers, and community members to determine the best approach to provide sustainable real world building opportunities for its construction division students. The recommendation of this committee was for the Tech Center to start its own in-house building program. From this recommendation, the CSB and the Tech Center began to discuss a partnership possibility. For over twenty years, the CSB's non-profit organization, Chesterfield Alternatives Inc., has bought or leased homes from private builders for citizens over the age of 18 who are elderly or disabled. CAI group homes are well-run with good community records. Under this partnership, CAI would pay for the supplies and building costs thus resulting in more affordable homes than can be bought by CAI on the private market. This project presents some unique benefits to all the agencies involved: 1) The Technical Center students have an opportunity to build an entire house under the supervision of a contractor instead of their past experience of participating in a small renovation project or a Habitat for Humanity project with many others; 2) Construction costs will be the responsibility of Chesterfield Alternatives, Inc. who ordinarily would be buying homes anyway; 000023 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 3 of 3 AGENDA Summary of Information: (Continued) 3) The finished homes will not result in new county programs and therefore a growth in county jobs. The new CAI homes will replace group homes currently being leased on the commercial market by the CSB, and 4) Each home will be a separate project that will receive the full due diligence of the county planning and zoning processes, ultimately approved by the Board of Supervisors. The executive principal of the Tech Center has been working with the county Right of Way Office to identify county owned land that would be suitable for this project but not currently planned for any other use. That process has led to the identification of three sites, 19300 Church Road, 3800 Cougar Trail, and Coghill Road property next to Meadowbrook High School. The parcels are not suitable for any other county facilities. The School Board has been briefed on the proposed plan and they have endorsed it. At their June 24t'' Board meeting, they voted to ask the Board of Supervisors to designate the Church Road parcel as the first site for the program. The Church Road parcel was selected for the first project since it meets all current zoning requirements to acquire the necessary building permits and requires practically no site preparation for public facilities. Staff will provide more detail on the other two sites considered as the development of those sites is evaluated in the future. 000024 LLW 1~ W 1 Q 1 J m W _~ I- tJ W G~ C) Il ~~~ 0 0 000025 O ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ `: ~ ~ ~~. ~ ~ ~ / O ~ ~ f r t!? ~ r `r 00 rv r ~? ti ~ ~~ W fl! ~ W ~ ~ IA ~2~[ 2 ~ ,~ a ~ ~ N N _ ~ t•. #.~ ~ .. op? M W d. O'1 ~ e- Q a o~ d 0 t~ CD O r O va O ~? Q) ~p r O ~ Cw} +~7' ~} 0 c C3} ~~ L, ~ ~ ~' ~ •~ ~~ . ~~` 0 00002 ~ s- y~~,~* Meeting Date: Subject: 30. 2008 Page 1 of 1 Item Number: s.B.4.a. Resolution Recognizing Mr. James M. Fultz, Jr., Upon His Installation as President of the Auxiliary to the American Medical Association, Incorporated County Administrator's Comments• County Administrator: Board Action Requested: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Mr. Gecker requests that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution recognizing Mr. James M. Fultz, Jr. Summary of Information: This resolution recognizes and congratulates Mr. James M. Fultz, Jr. as he assumes his role as president of the Auxiliary to the American Medical Association, Incorporated. Preparers _ Donald J. Kappel Title: Director. Public Affairs Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # 0000'7 RECOGNIZING MR. JAMES M. FULTZ, JR. UPON HIS INSTALLATION AS PRESIDENT OF THE AUXILIARY TO THE NATIONAL MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED WHEREAS, Mr. James M. Fultz, Jr. is a resident of Chesterfield County's Midlothian District; and WHEREAS, Mr. Fultz is affiliated with the Auxiliary to the National Medical Association, Incorporated; and WHEREAS, the Auxiliary to the National Medical Association, Incorporated is a 501(c)3 organization consisting of spouses of members of the National Medical Association, Incorporated; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the ANMA is to operate exclusively for charitable and educational purposes in the areas of consumer health and healthcare issues; and WHEREAS, the organization serves the public in matters of consumer health and health concerns, and plans and executes related national programs; and WHEREAS, the ANMA has student chapters in many of the nation's medical schools; and WHEREAS, the ANMA provides scholarship assistance to worthy medical school students, nursing school students and students in allied health; and WHEREAS, the ANMA advocates for equity in health care, works to reduce the health effects of poverty, promotes cultural sensitivity, and serves its constituency, physicians of African American descent; and WHEREAS, Mr. James M. Fultz, Jr. will become the first male president of ANMA in a ceremony to be held in Atlanta, Georgia on July 31, 2008. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby recognizes Mr. James M. Fultz, Jr., congratulates him as he assumes his role as president of the Auxiliary to the National Medical Association, Incorporated, thanks him for his civic-minded service, and extends best wishes for continued success. ~~0~~8 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY .~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ~; AGENDA y~~N Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.6.4.b. Subject: Resolution Recognizing Mr. Reginald R. Williams, Sheriff's Office, Upon His Retirement County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff Requests the Board adopt the attached resolution. Summary of Information: Staff requests the Board adopt the attached resolution recognizing Reginald R. Williams for 18 years of service to the Chesterfield County Sheriff's Office. Preparers Dennis S. Proffitt Title: Sheriff Attachments: ^ yes ~ No # 000029 RECOGNIZING MR. REGINALD R. WILLIAMS UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Mr. Reginald R. Williams began working for the Chesterfield County Sheriff's Office on December 18, 1989, serving on midnight shift at the County Jail working with inmates entrusted to the custody of the Sheriff; and WHEREAS, after five and one-half years, Deputy Williams was assigned to Quartermaster at the Jail where he was responsible for inmate property, clothing, and .linen; and WHEREAS, Deputy Williams was transferred to the Courts Division on February 2, 2002 where he worked in the courtrooms and at the front magnetometer; and WHEREAS, Deputy Williams was awarded several commendations and letters of appreciation, with the most notable for his actions during a fire inside the Chesterfield County Jail on March 21, 1993; and WHEREAS, Deputy Williams' friendly demeanor and dedication to teamwork has been recognized by his supervisors, coworkers, judges, attorneys, court clerks, and citizens. NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes the contributions of Deputy Reginald R. Williams, expresses appreciation for his dedicated and loyal service to the county and congratulations upon his retirement, as well as best wishes for a long and happy retirement. QO~~~® -~. !Rcn±v~+ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.4.c. Subject: Resolution Recognizing August 5, 2008, as "National Night Out" in Chesterfield County County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: This resolution is to recognize August 5, 2008, as "National Night Out" in Chesterfield County. Preparers Bryan Miltenberger Title: Crime Prevention Officer Attachments: ^ Yes No # 000031 RECOGNIZING AUGUST 5, 2008 AS "NATIONAL NIGHT OUT" IN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY WHEREAS, each year in August, communities across the nation band together to demonstrate their unity in the fight against crime; and WHEREAS, this show of solidarity by law-abiding citizens has been named "National Night Out"; and WHEREAS, the National Night Out event taking place on August 5, 2008 will be the 24th annual event of this type; and WHEREAS, last year's National Night Out campaign involved citizens, law enforcement agencies, civic groups, businesses, neighborhood organizations and local officials from 10,000 communities in 50 states, U.S. territories, Canadian cities and military bases worldwide; and WHEREAS, National Night Out is designed to heighten crime and drug prevention awareness; and WHEREAS, this event also generates support for, and participation in, local anti-crime programs; and WHEREAS, National Night Out strengthens neighborhood spirit and the relationships between police and the communities; and WHEREAS, these events send a message to criminals that the communities are organized and fighting back against crime; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County has as one of its strategic goals: "To be the safest and most secure community compared to similar jurisdictions"; and WHEREAS, National Night Out is an important component in the effort to achieve that goal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby recognizes August 5, 2008, as "National Night Out" in Chesterfield County, Virginia; thanks police, neighborhood watch groups and all others who have joined to prevent crime; and urges all residents and businesses in Chesterfield County to turn on their porch lights and other exterior lights and to gather with friends and neighbors on August 5, 2008 to demonstrate their unity in the fight against crime. 000032 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY r BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 y~~~ ~ AGENDA Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: s.6.4.d. Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Electing an Option for Chesterfield County to Satisfy its Share of a Statewide $50 Million Reduction in State Revenue for Local Governments in both FY2009 and FY2010 County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ues~ea: Approve the attached resolution specifying the county's plan to address the impact of the statewide reduction in state aid for local programs by election of the option for the county to reimburse the state up to $1.5 million. Summary of Information: During the 2008 General Assembly session, the Commonwealth of Virginia elected to reduce state aid to local governments in response to downward adjustments in state general fund revenues due to a slowing economy. The Commonwealth's FY2008-FY2010 biennial budget was adopted with a $50 million reduction in each of the two years. Furthermore, the State Department of Planning and Budget has notified local governments that these reductions should be treated as permanent unless the General Assembly reverses this decision in the 2009 or later sessions. Because of the Commonwealth's actions, Chesterfield will lose an estimated $1.5 million in state aid in FY2009 and again in FY2010. As a result, the county now is funding a larger share of these state aid programs with local revenues so as not to decrease service levels. Preparers Allan M. Carmody Title: Director Budget and Management Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # 000033 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA Summary of Information: (Continued) Language in the Commonwealth's budget bill provides the locality three options with respect to how local governments may address the local impact of the Commonwealth's reduction. Local governments may 1) make a reduction in one state aid program from the list of reduced state aid programs provided by the state, 2) reduce multiple state aid programs on a proportional basis or by a specified percentage amount or 3) reimburse the Commonwealth for the full amount thereby keeping state aid programs at an unreduced level. Localities are required to advise the Commonwealth on how it plans to address the shortfall in state aid by August 30, 2008 by certifying its choice to the state's director of the Department of Planning and Budget. Without any action by the county, the state is authorized to determine how the local government reduction in state aid will be proportioned among local programs. Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution approving option 3. The county's adopted FY2009 budget reflects an unreduced amount for state aid programs. Furthermore, the county's budget includes a reimbursement to the Commonwealth in the amount of $1.5M that must be paid to the Commonwealth by January 9, 2009. The county was able to fund state aid programs at an unreduced level with savings in general fund expenses which resulted from a lower than expected cost for employee VRS retirement expenses and minimal growth in new positions. 000034 RESOLUTION OF THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO PROVIDE LOCAL AID TO THE COMMONWEALTH WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia chose to respond to declining state general fund revenue growth by shifting to local governments the responsibility for reducing a combined $100.0 million of state aid funding for core services over fiscal years 2009 and 2010; and WHEREAS, a bill was signed into law approving a combined $100.0 million appropriation reduction for local governments over fiscal years 2009 and 2010 without identifying the programs to be reduced; and WHEREAS, because the Commonwealth did not identify which specific program funds to be reduced, the Commonwealth permitted local governments to choose to make a payment in the amount specified as reductions; and WHEREAS, these reductions or payments to the Commonwealth, are in addition to those reductions made by the General Assembly and signed into law affecting state funding for law enforcement, profits from the Alcoholic Beverage Control Enterprise Fund and distributions of wine liter tax collections, constitutional offices, the upgrade of wastewater treatment facilities in conformance with the water quality standards and goals to name but a few; and WHEREAS, the $100.0 million reduction or payments to the Commonwealth will likely be continued forward into future biennia constraining the county's ability to maintain service levels. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors does hereby support the recording of this payment to the Commonwealth as "Local Aid to the Commonwealth" and furthermore elects to pay the Commonwealth in FY2009 and FY2010 for its proportionate share of the $100.0 million reduction in accordance with the State Appropriation Act. 000035 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY yew BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - AGENDA yRCIN~* Page 1 of 3 Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.5.a. Subject: Set a Public Hearing to Consider the Creation of a New Regional Workforce Investment Area and Consortium to be Known as the Capital Region Workforce Partnership for the Purpose of Delivering Workforce Services to the Region County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board is requested to set a public hearing for August 27, 2008 to consider the attached ordinance which creates a new Regional Workforce Investment Area and workforce Investment Partnership for the purpose of overseeing and delivering workforce services in the region. This new entity consolidates the existing seven-member Capital Area Consortium with the City of Richmond's stand alone entity. The seven-member consortium includes Chesterfield, Henrico, Hanover, Charles City, Goochland, New Kent and Powhatan. Summary of Information: In 1983, Chesterfield became a member of a Capital Area Training Consortium (CATC) under the Federal Jobs Training Partnership Act-a federal jobs program. The consortium also included Henrico, Hanover, Charles City, Goochland, New Kent and Powhatan. The City of Richmond created its own workforce area to serve the City. In 1998, Congress through the Workforce Investment Act began providing federal funds for workforce investment activities. As a result, in 1999, a new multi-jurisdictional agreement for the purpose of delivering workforce services and receiving federal funds was executed by all the localities in Preparers Rebecca T. Dickson Title: Deputy County Administrator Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No #00~®~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 3 AGENDA Summary of Information: (Continued) the Chesterfield consortium. The seven-member locality consortium has been operating under this agreement ever since and receives approximately $l.l million annually in Federal funds for specific workforce activities for its members. Henrico County is the fiscal agent for this seven-member consortium. The City continued operating as a single jurisdiction consortium known as the Richmond Workforce Investment Board receiving about $1.7 million annually. It is the mission of the CATC to help assure the continued economic vitality of the Richmond region through the coordination of workforce services that prepares a skilled and qualified workforce. Activities of the CATC are guided and implemented by an oversight Policy Board and a Workforce Investment Board. Generally, the Policy Board sets strategic direction for the Workforce Board who deals more specifically with workforce skills and employer workforce needs in the region. Most recently, the goals of the consortium have been aligned with those of the Governors Workforce Development Strategic Plan. Federal funds are the primary source of the Capital Area's funding. Use of the workforce investment funds is fairly restricted. Funds generally support employers, youth, adults, and dislocated workers who meet the funding stream's eligibility requirements. Chesterfield is one of the two jurisdictions in the seven-member consortium with a full service Workforce Center accessible to its citizens. Henrico County also has a full service center. The Federal Act requires these "one- stop centers which provide training and resources for people seeking employment. Chesterfield's Center is located in the Industrial Airpark at 7333 Whitepine Road. The City also has a one-stop center located downtown but it does not provide services to non-Richmond residents. The CATC is required to regularly report performance outcomes to the State and Federal government. Employment rates, employment retention rates, earnings replacement rates and credential attainment rates are examples of some of the outcomes measured and reported from the one-stop center. There have been several attempts over the years to consolidate Chesterfield's consortium with the City's entity without success. The last attempt was several years ago. This region appears to be the only region in the country to have two stand alone workforce/consortiums . o0~o~i~I CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 3 of 3 AGENDA Summary of Information: (Continued) Last year, at the urging of the Federal Department of Labor and the State, officials in the region agreed to consider consolidation once again. The State provided grant funds to retain a consultant to work on the effort since past attempts had failed. Since about January, representatives from the region's consortium members and the City have met to work out the proposed details of a consolidation. The benefits of a consolidated entity include a more comprehensive regional approach and perspective on the issues of workforce availability, training and needs, and on business closures in the region and the ability to combine forces to address these issues. In addition, there will be more flexibility to address funding needs of a particular area or circumstance from a regional perspective. Employers and the regions customers will receive more flexible customer service. The single entity will be eligible to receive grant funds not available currently as two separate entities. A consolidated entity could have a greater role in economic development for the entire region. An example is the recent announcement of Cannon, Inc. in Newport News where the Workforce Investment Board in that region played a role in assuring Cannon, Inc. that the region could provide the needed workforce training. In addition, consolidation of the two entities will also allow the one-stop centers to serve residents from all around the region regardless of where they live. Henrico County has agreed to be the designated grant recipient and fiscal agent for the new entity. If approved, new Boards would be created to oversee consolidated workforce activities similar to the Boards that exist now. One Board would be the oversight/policy making Board with members being elected officials or their designees and the other Board known as the Workforce Board, would be directly involved in overseeing specifics of the work and projects in the region. The Policy Board appoints members to this Workforce Board. The Federal Workforce Investment Act requires an agreement for the creation of a new regional consortium. Elected bodies of each of the seven members of the Chesterfield consortium as well as the City's entity must all hold public hearings to consider an agreement that would allow for the consolidation of the two entities. 0~00.~8 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT AND APPLY TO THE GOVERNOR TO CREATE A CAPITAL AREA WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP FOR REGIONAL WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING WHEREAS, the Workforce Investment Act (the "Act") provides federal funding for workforce development activities including employment and training activities for adults and dislocated workers and services to eligible youth, rapid response and services designed to meet the workforce needs of business and economic development, and WHEREAS, the Act authorizes the establishment of workforce investment areas incorporating multiple jurisdictions that must be approved by the Governor, and WHEREAS, under the Act, localities that choose to establish a regional workforce investment area are required to develop an agreement among the partnering jurisdictions as to how the activities of the regional workforce investment area will be administered and services provided, and WHEREAS, the City of Richmond, and the Counties of Charles City, Chesterfield, Goochland, Hanover, Henrico, New Kent and Powhatan wish to form a regional workforce investment area to more effectively and efficiently deliver workforce services to job seekers and business and economic development, and WHEREAS, the localities wish to provide for the joint planning and delivery of workforce services in these localities through a workforce development consortium; and, WHEREAS, Virginia Code Section 15.2-1300 permits localities to enter into agreements with one another for joint action and requires the agreements to be approved by ordinance; and, WHEREAS, the parties have developed an agreement to establish procedures for the governance and operation of the consortium, including the creation of a consortium board; and, WHEREAS, the governing body of each participating locality must authorize the execution of the agreement by the chief elected official of the locality by ordinance to create the consortium. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors authorizes the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to execute the Chief Elected Official Agreement in a form approved by the County Attorney for the creation of the Capital Area Workforce Partnership and to submit an application to the Governor for approval of the newly configured regional workforce investment area. 0425:79312.1 0 ~ Q o Henrico County Attorney's :Jffice Draft Jv!y i Q: 2C?08 CHIEF LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS AGREEMENT 2 By and between the 3 CITY OF RICHMOND and the Counties of CHARLES CITY, CHESTERFIELD, 4 GOOCHLAND , HANOVER, HENRICO, NEW KENT, AND POWHATAN, 5 VIRGINIA 6 for the ~ CAPITAL REGION WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP 8 This Agreement is executed this day of July 2008, by and among the City of 9 Richmond, Virginia and the counties of Charles City, Chesterfield, Goochland, 10 Hanover, Henrico, New Kent and Powhatan, Virginia (hereinafter, the "Member 11 Jurisdictions"). 12 WHEREAS, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, codified at 29 U.S.C. S 2801 et 13 seq. (hereinafter the "Act"), provides federal funding to states for the delivery of 14 workforce training and other services; and 15 WHEREAS, 29 U.S.C. § 2831 requires that the governor of a state designate local 16 workforce investment areas to deliver such services within the state; and 17 WHEREAS, the Act requires that the governor consider and approve requests 18 made by a combination of local government units with a population of 200,000 19 or more; and 20 WHEREAS, Va. Code S 15.2-1300 provides that local governments may enter into 21 agreements for joint or cooperative exercise of any power, privilege or authority 22 which each is capable of exercising individually; and 23 WHEREAS, the Member Jurisdictions wish to jointly perform the responsibilities 24 prescribed for them individually under the Act; and 25 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richmond and the boards of supervisors 26 of the counties of Charles City, Chesterfield, Goochland, Hanover, Henrico, New 27 Kent, and Powhatan desire designation of a new regional workforce investment 28 area comprised of the Member Jurisdictions; and 29 WHEREAS, creation of the new regional workforce investment area to be known 30 as the Capital Region Workforce Partnership (hereinafter, the "Consortium") will 00000 Nenrico County Attorney's Office Draf July 10, 2008 31 permit the delivery and oversight of workforce services in a manner that will 32 ensure accountability to local elected officials of the Member Jurisdictions. 33 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do mutually covenant and agree as follows: 34 Article I 35 Section 1. Consortium Membership. The Consortium shall be composed of 36 the Member Jurisdictions. Subject to the approval of the Governor of 37 Virginia, these jurisdictions shall also comprise the boundaries of the 38 workforce investment area required by the Act, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 39 2831(a)(1). 40 Article II 41 Section 1. Consortium Board Membership. The Member Jurisdictions shall 42 establish a Consortium Board comprised of a representative from each 43 Member Jurisdiction to perform the duties of the chief elected official of 44 the Member Jurisdictions. The Member Jurisdiction's representative shall 45 be the chief elected official or designee. Each Member Jurisdiction shall 46 determine the length of term for its representative and shall fill any 47 vacancy. 48 Section 2. Consortium Board Duties. The Consortium Board shall do the 49 following: 50 1. Collectively perform the functions of the chief elected officials 51 of the Member Jurisdictions as permitted in 29 U.S.C. § 52 2832(c) (1) (B). For purposes of the Act, the Member 53 Jurisdictions shall act through the Consortium Board. 54 2. Apply for Workforce Investment Area designation by the 55 Governor of Virginia. 56 3. Appoint the members of the Regional Workforce Investment 57 Board as provided in Article III of this Agreement. 58 4. Execute an agreement with the Regional Workforce 59 Investment Board for the operation and functions of the 60 Regional Workforce Investment Board set out in 29 U.S.C. § 61 2832. 2 0~~~~~. Henrico County Attorney's Office Draft July10, 20~~8 62 5. Continually establish the vision and priorities of the Consortium 63 in conjunction with the Regional Workforce Investment Board. 64 6. Develop the region's strategic plan as the Local Plan under 65 the Act for Member Jurisdictions in partnership with the 66 Regional Workforce Investment Board. The plan shall be 67 submitted to the Virginia Workforce Council (hereinafter, the 68 "Workforce Council") in the manner prescribed by the 69 Workforce Council. 70 7. Review and approve the budget developed by the Regional 71 Workforce Investment Board. 72 8. Work with the Regional Workforce Investment Board and 73 Governor of Virginia to reach agreement on local 74 performance measures. 75 9. .Review and agree with the Regional Workforce Investment 76 Board's selection and designation of one-stop operator(s), its 77 evaluation of the performance of one-stop operator(s), and 78 its termination of their eligibility for cause as provided in 29 79 U.S.C. § 2841(d)(2). 80 Section 3. Consortium Board Meetings and Officers. The Consortium Board 81 shall meet as determined by its members. The Consortium Board shall 82 elect from its membership achairperson, avice-chairperson and other 83 officers provided in the by-laws to serve for a term of one year or until a 84 successor is elected and qualified. The Consortium Board shall fill any 85 vacancies in officer positions by election for the remainder of the 86 unexpired term. The chairperson shall appoint a board clerk. 87 Section 4. Consortium Board By-Laws. The Consortium Board may adopt 88 operational and procedural by-laws consistent with this Agreement, 89 applicable federal and state laws, and rules and regulations pursuant 90 thereto. 91 Section 5. Roberts Rules of Order. Roberts Rules of Order (revised) shall 92 govern the proceedings of the Consortium Board insofar as they do not 93 conflict with applicable law or administrative rules or by-laws duly 94 adopted by the Consortium Board. 3 0o(~~~ti~ Henrico County Attorney's Gffice Draft .luiy 10, 20Q8 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 Section 6. Weighted Voting. A simple majority of the representatives of Member Jurisdictions (5 jurisdictions) shall constitute a quorum. The Consortium Board shall use a weighted system of voting to conduct business. The weighted votes will be determined annually at the start of the fiscal year using the variables and data sources indicated in Table 1 below. The credits (to be rounded up to the nearest whole number) and weights shall be assigned as follows: TABLE 1: Weighted Voting Variable Source Credits Weighting factor (%) 1 credit per Weldon Cooper Population 100,000 4 (20%) annual estimate individuals Disabled 1 credit per Census Bureau 4 (20%) Population 10,000 individuals 1 credit per 1,000 Poverty Level Census Bureau 7 (35%) individuals 1 credit per 2,000 Unemployed Census Bureau 5 (25%) individuals 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 The weighted vote for each variable is the product of the credits for that variable and weighting factor. The total weighted votes for each Member Jurisdiction is the sum of weighted votes for each variable divided by ten, rounded to the nearest whole number. The weighted votes for fiscal year 2008-2009 are as follows: Richmond City Charles City County Chesterfield County Goochland County Hanover County 4 8 2 6 2 3 000043 Henrico County Attorney's Cffice Draft July10, 2008 114 Henrico County 7 115 New Kent County 2 116 Powhatan County 2 117 The weighted voting system shall be employed for all business of the 118 Consortium Board. 119 Section 7. Consortium Board Staff. The Consortium Board shall determine 120 its staffing needs and shall be responsible for determining the duties and 121 responsibilities of any staff appointed or hired. 122 Article III 123 Section 1. Regional Workforce Investment Board Membership. The 124 Consortium Board shall appoint the members of the Regional Workforce 125 Investment Board in accordance with the criteria in 29 U.S.C. § 2832(b). 126 The Consortium Board shall make every effort to appoint creative and 127 visionary individuals to the Regional Workforce Investment Board. Each 128 Member Jurisdiction shall recommend nominees and coordinate with 129 other jurisdictions to ensure appropriate representation of the Member 130 Jurisdictions, the regional labor market, and the mandatory partner 131 programs prescribed by the Act. 132 In making appointments, the Consortium Board shall insure that resources 133 and programs, although regional in nature, will address the critical needs 134 of each Member Jurisdiction. 135 The Regional Workforce Investment Board shall include: 136 1. Representatives of business in the region who are owners of 137 businesses, chief executives or operating officers of businesses, 138 and other business executives or employers with optimum 139 policymaking or hiring authority. Business representatives shall 140 comprise a minimum of 51 % of the Regional Workforce 141 Investment Board's membership 142 2. Representatives of local educational entities, including 143 representatives of local educational agencies, local school 144 boards, entities providing adult education and literacy activities, 145 and post secondary educational institutions (including 5 ~Q~O~~ Henrico County Attorney's Office Draft J u!y 10, 2008 146 representatives of community colleges), selected from among 147 individuals nominated by regional or local educational agencies, 148 institutions, or organizations representing such local educational 149 agencies 150 3. Representatives of labor organizations, nominated by local labor 151 federations, or other representatives of employees in instances 152 where no employees are represented by labor organizations 153 4. Representatives of community based organizations includin 154 , g organizations representing individuals with disabilities and 155 veterans 156 5. Representatives of economic development agencies, including 157 private sector economic development entities 158 6. Representatives of each of the one-stop partners 159 7. Other individuals or representatives of entities as the Consortium 160 Board may determine to be appropriate 161 Section 2. Regional Workforce Investment Board Duties. The Regional 162 Workforce Investment Board shall do the following: 163 1. Execute an agreement with the Consortium Board for the 164 operation and functions of the Regional Workforce Investment 165 Board set out in 29 U.S.C. § 2832. 166 2. Continually establish the vision and priorities of the Consortium in 167 conjunction with the Consortium Board. 168 3. Develop the region's strategic plan as the Local Plan for Member 169 Jurisdictions under the Act, in partnership with the Consortium 170 Board for submission to the Workforce Council. 171 4. Develop a budget to meet its functions and responsibilities, 172 subject to approval by the Consortium Board. 173 5. Work with the Consortium Board and Governor of Virginia to 174 reach agreement on local performance measures. 6 000045 Nenrico County Attorney's Office Draft July10, 2008 175 6. Select and designate one-stop operators as described in 29 176 U.S.C. § 2841(d) (2) (A) with the agreement of the Consortium 177 Board. 178 7. Evaluate and oversee the performance and operations of the 179 one-stop operators, including termination of the eligibility of such 180 operators for cause, with the agreement of the Consortium 181 Board. 182 8. Select eligible youth service providers based on the Regional 183 Youth Council's recommendations. 184 9. Direct disbursement of funds for workforce investment activities 185 pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2832(d) (3) (B) (III). 186 10. Identify eligible providers of intensive services for adults and 187 dislocated workers. 188 11. Identify eligible training providers and maintain training provider 189 lists with performance and cost information. 190 12. Assist the Governor of Virginia in developing a statewide 191 employment statistics system. 192 13. Coordinate workforce investment activities with local economic 193 development strategies and develop employer linkages. 194 14. Promote participation of private sector employers in the 195 statewide workforce system. 196 15.Conduct business in an open manner and make its activities and 197 information known to the public on a regular and continuing 198 basis. 199 Article IV 200 Section 1. Regional Youth Council Membership. The Regional Workforce 201 Investment Board, in cooperation with the Consortium Board, shall appoint 202 the members of the Regional Youth Council as described in 29 U.S.C. § 203 2832(h)(2). The Regional Youth Council members shall include: 204 1. Members of the Regional Workforce Investment Board with 205 special interest or experience in youth policy 7 oooo~s Henrico County Attorney's Office Dratt J u'y 10 2008 206 2. Representatives of youth service agencies, including juvenile 207 justice and local law enforcement agencies 208 3. Representatives of local public housing authorities 209 4. Parents of eligible youth seeking assistance under the Act 210 5. Individuals, including former participants, and representatives of 211 organizations, that have experience relating to youth activities 212 6. Representatives of Job Corps, as appropriate 213 7. Other individuals as the Regional Workforce Investment Board 214 and the Consortium Board determine to be appropriate. 215 Members of the Regional Youth Council who are not members of the 216 Regional Workforce Investment Board shall be voting members of the 217 Regional Youth Council and non-voting members of the Regional 218 Workforce Investment Board. 219 Section 2. Duties of the Regional Youth Council. The Regional Youth 220 Council shall perform the duties and responsibilities described in 29 U.S.C. § 221 2832(h)(4) which shall be included in the by-laws of the Regional 222 Workforce Investment Board. 223 Article V 224 Section 1. Allocation of Funds. Funds allocated under the Act shall be 225 expended for the mutual benefit of residents of the Member Jurisdictions 226 without regard to place of residence, except as determined by an 227 allocation formula adopted by the Consortium Board or as required by 228 applicable law, regulation or the approved Regional Strategic Plan. 229 The chief administrative officers or their designees may execute an 230 Operational Agreement to specify the use of general funds that each 231 Member Jurisdiction may provide for services and administration under the 232 Act. 233 Section 2. Designation of Grant Recipient and Fiscal Agent. The Member 234 Jurisdictions designate the County of Henrico as the grant recipient and 235 fiscal agent for all funds awarded by the federal government or the 8 0000'7 Henrica County Attorney's Office Draft J u!y i 0, 2008 236 Commonwealth of Virginia to the Member Jurisdictions for workforce 237 development activities, including Title I funds provided by the Act. 238 Section 3. Responsibility for Funds. The Member Jurisdictions shall be 239 responsible for the services funded by state or federal funds awarded to 240 them under the Act. Disallowed costs shall be allocated among the 241 Member Jurisdictions based upon their pro rata share of funds provided 242 under the Act. 243 Section 4. Return of Local Funds. If Member Jurisdictions contribute funds, 244 assets or resources to the programs of the Regional Workforce Investment 245. Board other than funds obtained under the Act, each shall be entitled to 246 the return of the pro rata portion of any remaining funds, assets and 247 resources under the control of the Regional Workforce Investment Board in 248 the event of the termination or expiration of this Agreement, 249 Section 5. Effective Date of Agreement. This Agreement shall be effective 250 upon approval by the governing bodies of all of the Member Jurisdictions 251 and execution by the chief elected officials thereof. This Agreement shall 252 repeal and supersede any and all prior written or oral agreements. 253 Section 6. Amendments. The Member Jurisdictions may amend this 254 Agreement upon approval of a written amendment by all of their 255 governing bodies and execution by the chief elected officials thereof. 256 Section 7. Dissolution of Consortium. This Agreement may be terminated 257 and the Consortium dissolved upon the occurrence of any of the following 258 events: 259 1. The Governor's re-designation of the regional workforce 260 investment area that excludes any of the Member 261 Jurisdictions, or includes any localities that are not Member 262 Jurisdictions 263 2. The cessation of funding under the Act 264 3. Ratification of an agreement which supersedes this 265 Agreement by all Member Jurisdictions. If the new agreement 266 alters the boundaries of the regional workforce investment 267 area, it shall not become effective prior to approval by the 268 Governor of Virginia. 9 ~o~o~~ Henrico County Attorney's Office Draft July10, 'Z003 269 Section 8. Implementation of Agreement. This Agreement shall be 270 implemented to insure that the new Consortium Board, Regional 271 Workforce Investment Board, and Regional Youth Council are in place 272 and the designation of one-stops and one-stop operators is complete by 273 July 1, 2009. 274 Section 9. Audits. There shall be a final audit of the financial and 275 programmatic operations of City of Richmond workforce area and the 276 Capital Area Training Consortium as necessary through June 30, 2009, and 277 each shall be liable for the results of its respective audit. 278 In Witness Whereof, the Chief Elected Officials of the Member Jurisdictions 279 execute this Agreement pursuant to an ordinance enacted by each of 280 the Member Jurisdictions. 281 City of Richmond 282 283 Mayor 284 285 I, ,Attorney for the City of Richmond, certify that 286 ,whose signature appears above, has the legal authority 287 under State and local law to enter into this multi jurisdictional agreement, 288 pursuant to Ordinance Number adopted 289 2008. 290 291 City Attorney 292 293 Charles City County 294 295 Chairman, Board of Supervisors 296 297 I, ,Attorney for the County of Charles City, certify that 298 ,whose signature appears above, has the legal authority under 299 State and local law to enter into this multi-jurisdictional agreement, pursuant to 300 Ordinance Number adopted , 2008. 301 302 County Attorney 10 000049 Henrico County Attorney's Office Draft July10, 2008 303 Chesterfield County 304 305 306 Chairman, Board of Supervisors 307 I, ,Attorney for the County of Chesterfield, certify that 308 ,whose signature appears above, has the legal authority under 309 State and local law to enter into this multi jurisdictional agreement, pursuant to 310 Ordinance Number adopted , 2008. 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 County Attorney Goochland County Chairman, Board of Supervisors 318 I, ,Attorney for the County of Goochland, certify that 319 ,whose signature appears above, has the legal authority 320 under State and local law to enter into this multi-jurisdictional agreement, 321 pursuant to Ordinance Number adopted 322 2008. 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 County Attorney Hanover County Chairman, Board of Supervisors 330 I, ,Attorney for the County of Hanover, certify that 331 ,whose signature appears above, has the legal authority 332 under State and local law to enter into this multi-jurisdictional agreement, 333 pursuant to Ordinance Number adopted 334 2008. 335 336 County Attorney ~D~~sa Henrico County Attorney's Office Draft July 10, 2008 337 Henrico County 338 339 340 Chairman, Board of Supervisors 341 I, ,Attorney for the County of Henrico, certify that 342 ,whose signature appears above, has the legal authority 343 under State and local law to enter into this multi-jurisdictional agreement, 344 pursuant to Ordinance Number adopted 345 2008. 346 347 County Attorney 348 349 New Kent County 350 351 Chairman, Board of Supervisors 352 353 I, ,Attorney for the County of New Kent, certify that 354 ,whose signature appears above, has the legal authority 355 under State and local law to enter into this multi-jurisdictional agreement, 356 pursuant to Ordinance Number adopted 357 2008. 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 County Attorney Powhatan County Chairman, Board of Supervisors 365 I, ,Attorney for the County of Powhatan, certify that 366 ,whose signature appears above, has the legal authority 367 under State and local law to enter into this multi jurisdictional agreement, 368 pursuant to Ordinance Number adopted 369 2008. 370 371 County Attorney 12 Qo~®~:~. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 AGENDA h~~ Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.6.5.b. Subject: Set a Public Hearing to Consider Amending the Public Facilities Plan County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Set a Public Hearing to review and consider the Public Facilities Plan Amendment for August 27, 2008. Summary of Information: At a Planning Commission meeting on June 17, 2008, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed Public Facilities Plan (revised 6/17/08). This document will replace the Public Facilities Plan that was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in April 2004. Some of the major changes from the current (2004) Plan and the proposed Plan include: - Libraries: level of service standard change from 0.6 square feet per capita to 0.82 square feet per capita - Parks: level of service standard change from 8 acres/1,000 persons to 9 acres/1,000 persons, in addition, an update to the Parks & Recreation Master Plan - General Services: Fleet facilities now included in Plan - Telecommunications: Tower Siting Policy now included in Plan Preparers Kirkland A. Turner Attachments: ~ Yes Title: Director of Planning ^ No # p00052 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA The Public Facilities Plan amendment, once adopted, will guide future decisions regarding the provision of identified public facilities, including: fire, police, library, parks, schools, transportation, jails, waste, airport, fleet, utilities and telecommunication facilities. Also included in the document is an update to the Parks & Recreation Master Plan as Appendix A. In addition, the background information for the draft Plan has been included in the document as Appendix B (Facility Information Report). The draft Plan provides general site criteria, timing and locations for identified facilities. The Plan does not identify or consider funding or specific facility designs. Recommendations included within the draft Plan were provided by their respective departments, with Planning staff coordinating, providing assistance, and guiding departments through the amendment process. 000053 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY I BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 ~~,~ AGENDA Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.6.5.c. Subject: Set Date for Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Amendment to County Code Section 19-6 Relating to Civil Penalties for Zoning Violations County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Re uest The Board is requested to set a public hearing to consider repealing County Code § 19-6. Summary of Information: In 1989, the Board of Supervisors amended the zoning ordinance to incorporate civil penalties to address violations of the zoning ordinance relating to: (1) operation of a business from the home, (2) failure to enclose a swimming pool with a security fence, and (3) violations of any condition of zoning, conditional use permit, or special exception that relates to the hours of operation or noise. Staff believed that by decriminalizing zoning violations and having a set fine for violations, enforcement would become more efficient. Unfortunately, the civil penalty process has not proved to be as effective as the criminal process. In prosecuting zoning code violators, we have found the court particularly prone to negotiate compliance with violators of the zoning ordinance. If a violation is not corrected, the criminal court judge Preparers Kirkland A. Turner Title: Director of Planning 0805(00):79299.1 Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # t~OO®54 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA cannot find the defendant guilty only of a criminal misdemeanor, but also can impose a fine of up to $1,000 as well as order the defendant to come into compliance with the zoning ordinance. Thereafter, further actions can be and are taken against a defendant who does not come into compliance with the zoning ordinance. The civil enforcement process takes significantly longer to obtain a court resolution and the potential maximum recovery is only a $150.00 civil penalty. Although the legal standard of proof is lower in civil actions, the county attorney's office reports that some of the general district civil division judges seem to be less amenable to these actions than their criminal counterparts have been. Staff proposes that Section 19-6. "Civil penalties for certain violations" of the Zoning Ordinance be repealed. The three areas currently enforceable by civil penalties would be enforced through other means, including criminal prosecutions and injunctions. 0805:79299.1 oooo5s AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND REPEALING SECTION 19-6 RELATING TO CIVIL PENALTIES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section 19-6 of the Code of the Count~of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Sec. 19-6. Reserved ~e~ ~ l i l a r + l~dn A~ TL7 D A if>~' A zrr~arir rvP cr -cc-E crr c-v vcr vr-ccvccst6 > > , , 1 ~.ao /1 \ TL, ,,.1 Saar ..F+i,o .. ..1..,«..o.l ~ v u v ~ r n ' r ~ ~zrczrra~cr~ --rvccrcr6~r--vvrrrE~i-t~2C- 2723 :77776.1 1 ~ ~ D ~ CJ > > ~ *; ,.,, ~. a - a ~ e~~e~~~,« ^~~ 2723 :77776.1 2 ~ ~ Q ®~ aY~ _;~~ h~tc~rnP~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: ~uiy 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.6.5.4. Subject: Set a Public Hearing to Consider Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute the Documents Required to Implement Changes to the Articles of Incorporation of the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: B Set September 24, 2008, for a public hearing to adopt a resolution authorizing and directing the County Administrator to execute all necessary documents required to implement the attached resolution subject to approval as to form by the County Attorney. Summary of Information: The Central Virginia Waste Management Authority (CVWMA) has requested that each of its thirteen (13) participating jurisdictions adopt a resolution approving certain changes to its Articles of Incorporation. The Board of Directors of the CVWMA has reviewed and approved updating and revising the articles as follows: 1) updating the Virginia Code Section under which the Authority was formed (formerly Chapter 28, Title 15.1 of the Virginia Water and Sewer Act, now Chapter 51, Title 15.2 of the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act); 2) updating current address, and other administrative information regarding the Authority (revising the language to reflect the preferred term "Member Localities" rather than the previous "participating political subdivisions," and consistently referring to "members" as "Board members," 3) strengthening the language (from "may" to "shall") that encourages localities to appoint alternate members to the Board to ensure full and proper representation at all times; and 4) adjusting the population Preparers Robert C. Key Title: Director of General Services Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA basis used for determining the number of Board members from each member locality to reflect the changes in population since inception in an effort to keep the membership and makeup of the Board in tact. These adjustments will not have any immediate impact on the membership of the Authority. State Code requires that a public hearing is set, and that public notice be posted not less than thirty days prior to the public hearing. The CVinTMA Board and staff have requested this action, and will post a joint public notice 30 days prior to the public hearings of the various member localities. ~®0~~9 RESOLUTION REVISING CENTRAL VIRGINIA WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION WHEREAS, the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority was created in 1990 pursuant to the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act (Chapter 51, Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended) (hereinafter the "Act") to facilitate improved waste management practices to protect the health, safety and welfare of citizens of the central Virginia region; and WHEREAS, the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority was formed pursuant to requirements of the Act by thirteen localities in the central Virginia region including the cities of Colonial Heights, Hopewell, Petersburg and Richmond, the Town of Ashland and the counties of Charles City, Chesterfield, Goochland, Hanover, Henrico, New Kent, Powhatan and Prince George, which still comprise the Authority; and WHEREAS, the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority developed, in accordance with the Commonwealth's Solid Waste Management Plan requirements, a comprehensive integrated solid waste management plan that at a minimum considers and addresses all components of the waste management hierarchy (source reduction, reuse, recycling, resource recovery, incineration and landfilling) for the twenty-year period 2004-2024 on behalf of all thirteen member localities; and WHEREAS, the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority, as the solid waste planning unit for the thirteen member localities, gathers the data necessary from recycling processors in the region and reports the annual recycling rate to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality; and WHEREAS, the central Virginia region's recycling rate (50.30 in 2007) has consistently exceeded the Commonwealth's requirements imposed on each locality to recycle 25 percent of the solid waste generated in each locality; and WHEREAS, the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority, since its inception in 1990, has successfully developed recycling and solid waste programs through cost effective and efficient contracts with the private sector to benefit the recycling and solid waste needs of its members; and WHEREAS, the original Articles of Incorporation of the Authority were adopted and approved by the governing bodies of each member locality and were then filed and approved by the State Corporation Commission on December 20, 1990; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority has reviewed and approved updating and revising the existing Articles of Incorporation to include: 1) updating Virginia Code Section under which the Authority was formed; 2) updating current address and other administrative information regarding the Authority; 3) strengthening the language encouraging localities to appoint alternate members to the Board to ensure full and proper representation at all times; and 4) adjusting the population basis used for determining the number of Board members from each member locality to reflect the changes in population since inception in an effort to keep the membership and makeup of the Board in tact; and ~0~®S® WHEREAS, the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act requires that any revisions to the existing Articles of Incorporation be ratified and approved by the governing bodies of all thirteen member localities prior to filing with the State Corporation Commission; and WHEREAS, the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority respectfully requests approval of the first revision to the Authority's Articles of Incorporation outlined above and authorization to file the amended Articles of Incorporation with the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Chesterfield Board of Supervisors approves the First Amended Articles of Incorporation of the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority, in accordance with the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall take effect from the date of its adoption. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors authorizes and directs the County Administrator to execute all necessary documents to implement this resolution subject to approval as to form by the Chesterfield County Attorney. ~D~o6~ FIRST AMENDED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION (DRAFT) OF CENTRAL VIRGINIA WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 1. The following political subdivisions hereby create an authority pursuant to the Virginia Water and Sewer Waste Authorities Act (Chapter ~8 51, Title ~-~1- 15.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended) (hereinafter the "Act") and are the incorporating political subdivisions of this authority: Charles City County, Chesterfield County, Goochland County, Hanover County, Henrico County, New Kent County, Powhatan County, Prince George county, City of Colonial Heights, City of Hopewell, City of Petersburg, City of Richmond and the Town of Ashland. The political subdivisions that have joined this authority either by incorporating it or later joining it in accordance with the Act and that have not subsequently withdrawn from this authority shall be referred to herein as the "Member Localities." 2. The name of the authority shall be the "Central Virginia Waste Management Authority" (hereinafter the "Authority") and the address of its i^~ principal office shall be "~^ `T"..'-~~ ^•'e~tte~~te~-2100 West Laburnum Avenue, Suite 105, Richmond, Virginia 23227. 3. The powers of the Authority shall be exercised by a Board of Directors "Board" . In accordance with paragraph 8 of these Articles, the governing body of each pag p Member Locality shall appoint at least one of its residents to the Board and ~y shall appoint an alternate for each Board member. Each alternate may attend meetings of the ~~he~ty Board but e~~shall be entitled to vote only in the absence of the alternate's designated Board member. All Board members and alternates appointed to succeed the initial Board shall be appointed to the ^ ~~~~ Board for a term of at least one year. The governing body of each Member Locality shall determine the term of the office of its designated Board members and alternates, which shall be for a term of years not to exceed four years. "~ a~~°°+°-"' °~ t~~;:~*~-t~ Each Board member and his/her alternate shall hold office until their successors have been appointed ~ the applicable Member Locality. Board members and alternates may also succeed themselves. 4. The names and addresses of the first Board members, the names of appointing P ~~+~^~~ ~,•~.a:.~~~~°N~ Member Localities and the dates of expiration of the terms of the first Board members, ~_ ~--~ ~ ~ +'' " +'' '+~'' ° '"'+' °' R°~, are as follows: Name and Address Appointing D. Expiration of Term SuberrMember Locality Fred A. Darden Charles City County 02-01-92 Rt. 1, Box 175-H Charles City, VA 23030 0505:79342.1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~ William H. Howell County of Chesterfield 12-31-93 2101 Gateshead Drive Richmond, VA 23235 Robert L. Dunn County of Chesterfield 12-31-93 4105 Millwood Road Chester, VA 23831 Stewart Pouliot County of Chesterfield 12-31-93 4030 Litchfield Drive Chesterfield, VA 23832 Gregory K. Wolfrey County of Goochland 12-31-93 518 Edgehill Wood Drive Manakin-Sabot, VA 23103 Virginia Curd County of Hanover 01-24-94 Route 1, Box 495-A Mechanicsville, VA 23111 Susan Brenzovich County of Hanover 03-30-94 5894 Tangle Ridge Drive Mechanicsville, VA 23111 P. T. Rutledge, Jr. County of Henrico 12-31-93 9350 Wallo Road Richmond, VA 23231 William S. Dewhirst County of Henrico 12-31-93 2408 Raymond Drive Richmond, VA 23228 John L. Joyner County of Henrico 12-31-93 12200 Country Creek Way Glen Allen, VA 23060 Robert A. Boroughs County of New Kent 12-31-93 HCR-O1, Box 95 Barhamsville, VA 23011 Paul N. Adkins County of Powhatan 12-31-91 2578 Judes Ferry Road Powhatan, VA 23139 John G. Kines, Jr. County of Prince George 12-31-93 10905 Appletree Lane Hopewell, VA 23860 0505:79342.1 2 ~~~Q~i3 Robert E. Taylor City of Colonial Heights 12-31-93 4523 Berkshire Lane Colonial Heights, VA 23834 Clinton H. Strong City of Hopewell 12-31-93 813 Smithfield Avenue Hopewell, VA 23860 Richard M. Brown City of Petersburg 12-31-93 1608 Drury Road Petersburg, VA 23803 Wayland W. Rennie, Sr City of Richmond 12-31-93 1401 Wilmington Avenue Richmond, VA 23227 Betty Byrne Ware City of Richmond 12-31-93 6317 Ridgeway Road Richmond, VA 23226 Charles M. Williams, Jr. City of Richmond 12-31-93 3818 W. Weyburn Road Richmond, VA 23235 David W. Reynal Town of Ashland 12-31-93 112 Five Oaks Lane Ashland, VA 23005 5. The Authority's purposes are to plan, acquire, construct, reconstruct, improve, extend, operate, contract for and maintain any garbage and refuse collection, transfer and disposal program or system including waste reduction, waste material recovery, recycling as mandated by law or otherwise, resource recovery, waste incineration, landfill operation, ash management, sludge disposal from water and wastewater treatment facilities, household hazardous waste management and disposal and similar programs or systems, within one or more of the Member Localities. 6. Except as otherwise provided in the following sentence, the Authority shall be an instrumentality exercising public and essential governmental functions to provide for the public health and welfare and, accordingly, the Authority shall have all the authority and all those powers set forth in the Act er as it may 1}erealte~ be amended from time to time. Unless the Board members unanimously vote otherwise, it shall not be an Authority purpose nor shall the Authority have any power or authority to create or operate a water system or wastewater or sewerage system, or to engage in any project which creates or operates a water system or wastewater or sewerage system, provided, however, that this limitation shall not be deemed to be applicable to sludge disposal from water and wastewater treatment facilities. Further, none of the powers granted by the Act shall be exercised by the Authority in the construction, improvement, maintenance, extension or operation of any water system or wastewater or sewerage system, which, in whole or in 0505:79342.1 3 ®0006` part, shall duplicate other authorities existing under this Act which serve substantially the same purposes and area. 7. The Authority's Fiscal Year ~"Fiscal Year") shall be July 1 through June 30. At the end of each of its Fiscal Years, the Authority shall cause to be made an annual audit of its books and records by an independent certified public accountant, to standards established by the Auditor of Public Accounts, as required by law, and a certified copy of same shall be filed within three (3) months thereof with the Auditor of the Public Accounts and with the governing body of each of the ~*~^~„^+~^R ~~'~+~^°' °~''"""'°'"~" Member Localities. 8. A majority of Board members ^~+''° ""''~~~~+~• shall constitute a quorum, and the vote of a majority of Board members shall be necessary for any action taken by the Authority, except as otherwise provided herein. Each of the Authority's r^~*~^~~^*~~^ „^'~+~^~' s~di~isiens Member Localities shall be entitled to no less than one (1) and to no more than three (3) members, all of whom shall serve on the Board. The number of Board members from each ~dc~ti33~c~ti^~~' ~"t,a:..:~:Gn Member Locality shall be determined as follows: County, City or Town Population Basis 8-- --~B;AAA > > c~~r 0 - 75,000 75,001 - 150,000 150,001 + Number of Members 2 3 9. During the pre-incorporation period from January 1, 1990 through the issuance of the Certificate of Incorporation by the State Corporation Commission, the Authority shall be financed by the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission and the Crater Planning District Commission. The amount of the financing shall be made available through special per capita dues assessed by the respective Planning District Commissions of the incorporating Member Localities. These funds shall be used to pay costs incurred by the respective Planning District Commissions to organize and incorporate the Authority and to support activities of the Authority's initial Board of Directors. 10. By the last day of December of the then current fiscal year, the Authority shall develop and adopt, by an affirmative vote two-thirds (2/3) of the Board members, an annual budget ("Annual Budget") for the subsequent fiscal year. The Authority's fiscal year shall be July 1 through June 30. The Annual Budget shall be developed and proposed by the Authority's Executive Director. The Annual Budget shall be comprised of a general operating fund (the "general operating fund") and of special project funds (the "special project fund"). The Authority's costs for administrative and operational activities, including advertisement, general planning, education and the promotion of recycling and waste management, shall be paid from funds in the general operating fund. The general operating fund for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 shall be funded by contributions from the Member Localities at a rate of $0.50 per person per Member Locality (the "general operating fund contribution rate"). The Board may thereafter increase or decrease the general operating fund contribution rate by an affirmative vote of three-fourths (3/4) of the ^~•~ Board members. 0505:79342.1 4 OOOO~S If the Certificate of Incorporation is issued by the State Corporation Commission between January 1, 1991, and June 30, 1991, the Authority shall adopt an Annual Budget for the Fiscal Year July 1, 1991 -June 30, 1992, by June 30, 1991, the contributions to which Annual Budget shall not exceed $0.50 per person per puiiici~~*~~^ "^'~*~~~~ subdi~is~ Member Locality. Population totals to determine both the number of Board members and the general operating fund contribution rate shall be based upon either the most recent decennial census or the most recent final population estimates from the Center for Public Service, University of Virginia, whichever population total is more current. Any increase or decrease to the number of members on the Board allocated to a Y~ :,,:^~*~~^ ~^~~*~~~~ s~d~tisien Member Locality caused by a population change shall be effective sixty (60) days following publication of the population estimates referenced herein. 11. The Authority from time to time may operate certain management projects (the "Special Projects") within one or more of the ~~~*~~~^°*~~^ „^'~*~~°~ ~„i.as~.;~:^~~ Member Localities. Each Special Project, including detailed planning, advertisement and promotion thereof, shall be funded on a basis separate and apart from the Authority's general operating fund, except for general operating fund overhead costs allocable to each Special Project. Each „~~*~~~„~*~~^ r^~~*~~~~ ~a:~*~^~ Member Locality may determine, in its sole discretion, whether to participate in any Special Project. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Authority may contribute general operating funds to Special Projects upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Authority's Board members, provided, however, that when a Special Project becomes operative, any sums so contributed shall be reimbursed to the general operating fund. No pa~~g pel-i~sd~t}en Member Locality shall impose or attempt to impose on the Authority any host community fee or payment in lieu of tax assessment related to a Special Project operated by the Authority. 12. Contributions to the Authority's initial general operating fund for the Fiscal Year 1990-1991 are as follows: Cost Per 1987 Person Per Year T,,,.:~a:,.*~^~ Member Population (1990-1991) Total Costs Locality Charles City County 6,500 $0.50 $3,250.00 Chesterfield County 179,400 0.50 89,700.00 Goochland County 13,300 0.50 6,650.00 Hanover County 51,540 0.50 25,770.00 Henrico County 202,000 0.50 101,000.00 New Kent County 10,600 0.50 5,300.00 Powhatan County 13,600 0.50 6,800.00 Prince George County 26,700 0.50 13,350.00 City of Colonial Heights 17,300 0.50 8,650.00 City of Hopewell 24,200 0.50 12,100.00 City of Petersburg 40,900 0.50 20,450.00 City of Richmond 215,200 0.50 107,600.00 Town of Ashland 4,960.00 0.50 2,480.00 TOTAL 806,200 $403,100.00 0505:79342.1 5 ~~0~~3~ 13. Expenses from the Authority's initial general operating fund for the Fiscal Year 1990-1991 are projected to be as follows: Activity Cost Direct Salaries $130,000.00 Fringe Benefits 49,400.00 Overhead 9,000.00 Direct Expenses ~ 38,200.00 Accounting, legal and other consultants 152,500.00 Furniture, Equipment, Automobile 24,000.00 TOTAL $403,100.00 The governing body of each ' Member Locality hereby finds that a preliminary estimate of capital costs, project proposals and project service rate estimates for specific projects is impracticable, as of the date of filing these Articles of Incorporation. 14. Member Localities may join or withdraw from the Authority in accordance with the requirements of the Act. 15. The Authority's Board of Directors may adopt and amend in the manner prescribed by the Act or by other applicable law, any and all bylaws, rules and regulations, not in conflict with these Articles or the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, which are necessary or desirable for the conduct of the Authority's business. 16. The Authority shall expire fifty (50) years from the date of issuance of its Certificate of Incorporation, unless extended as provided by the Act. 17. These Articles may be amended in the manner prescribed by the Act or by other applicable law. 0505:79342.1 6 Q 0 ~ ~s-7 h~~m~ Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Subject: Page 1 of 1 Item Number: s.B.5.e. Set a Public Hearing to Consider a Proposed Amendment to the Introduction to the Plan for Chesterfield Relative to Levels of Service for Schools Countywide County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Set August 27, 2008, for a public hearing to consider adoption of a proposed amendment to the Introduction to the Plan for Chesterfield relative to levels of service for schools countywide. Summary of Information: At a Planning Commission meeting on July 15, 2008, the Planning Commission recommended amending the Introduction to the Plan for Chesterfield to incorporate levels of service for schools countywide. This Amendment was initiated by the Planning Commission, which had instructed staff to advertise a countywide level of service for schools of 110% of functional capacity. At their July 15t'' public hearing, the Commission recommended language changes designed to facilitate implementation of the level of service standard, as well as recommended that the countywide level of service standard be adopted at 120% of functional capacity, and not at 110%. Although the Commission recommended a countywide level of service of 120% of functional capacity, should the Board set a public hearing to consider this item staff will advertise a level of service of 1100 of functional capacity, in order to give the Board maximum flexibility in the consideration of an appropriate level of service standard. Preparers Kirkland A. Turner Attachments: ~ Yes Title: Director of Planning ^ No cS~-~ ~ ~ 85e. BRENDA L. STEWART 5911 Woodpecker Road Chesten/e/d, VA 23838 Phone/Fax: (804) 590-2309 E-mail: bl-stewartC~comcast.net July 30, 2008 REMARKS TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON AGENDA ITEM 8.B.5.e., SET A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD RELATIVE TO LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR SCHOOLS COUNTYWIDE I asked to have this item pulled from the consent agenda to implore you not to set a public hearing date at this time. It appears that this proposed change is being rushed toward adoption. As far as I can determine, the only area where community meetings have been held on this change is the Upper Swift Creek area. That is certainly a significant departure from past practices. In the past, citizens in all areas of the county were afforded the opportunity to be briefed on, to discuss and to suggest changes to recommended comprehensive plan changes. Why not now? Preliminary data released last week by the Planning Department reveals that this change has the potential to shut down the residential development in almost all areas of this county. Some of us citizens want to have access to the data that should have been the basis for this change according to the statements in "A Guide to Comprehensive Planning in Chesterfield County." Where is the documented analysis and information collected on this topic? What assumptions were made? We would like to see the written objectives and goals for this change. We would like to see the alternative courses of action that were considered along with the advantages and disadvantages of those alternatives. What is the expected impact of this change on the county's residents and businesses? What economic impact is expected? How will this action affect ongoing efforts to attract business to Chesterfield? What is the effect on private property rights? Will taxation of real estate be addressed for those whose property is affected? More importantly, exactly how will this change solve the existing problem of overcrowded schools, and when will it help? Even if you Supervisors had answers to all these questions, it would be inappropriate to proceed without sharing that information with the taxpayers of this county. I am sure you do not want to appear to be pushing this new policy into effect without offering equal opportunity to citizens outside the Upper Swift Creek Plan area to review and discuss in their community meetings all the important data that support such a monumental change in direction for this county. I respectfully ask that you allow this proposed change to be presented, examined and discussed throughout the county as past practice has permitted. Please defer the setting of a public hearing date until the proposed changes have been properly presented to all communities in Chesterfield with an opportunity for public discussion of its merits and citizens' concerns. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 3 AGENDA h~,N~ Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.5.f. Subiect: Set Date for a Public Hearing to Consider Acceptance of Grants for Reimbursement of Thirty-Five Percent of the Eligible Project Costs for the Design and Installation of Nutrient Removal Technologies at the Proctors Creek and Falling Creek Wastewater Treatment Plants County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: on Keauestea: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors set August 27, 2008 as the date for a public hearing to consider acceptance of Virginia water Quality Improvement Fund Point Source Grants No. 440-S-09-06 and No. 440-S-09-07 for reimbursement of 350 of the Eligible Project Costs for the Nutrient Removal Facilities at the Proctors Creek and Falling Creek Wastewater Treatment Plants, authorize the County Administrator to execute the grant agreements and name the Director of Utilities, or his designee, as the Authorized Representative to execute the monthly requests for reimbursement. Summary of Information: The General Assembly created the Virginia Water Quality Improvement Fund to encourage the construction of nutrient removal facilities at wastewater treatment plants and management practices to reduce nutrient levels in storm water. The Fund authorized the Director of the Department of Environmental Quality to make Water Quality Improvement Grants related to point source pollution control. The Grant Agreement No. 440-5-09-06 and No. 440-5-09-07 are for the reimbursement of 35% of the Eligible Project Costs related to the Preparers George B. Haves Title: Assistant Director of Utilities Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # (~40Q6~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 3 AGENDA Summary of Information: (Continued) removal of nitrogen from the wastewater at the Proctors Creek and Falling Creek Wastewater Treatment Plants. The total estimated Eligible Project Cost for nitrogen removal at both plants is $74,982,434. The grants will reimburse 35% of the Eligible Project Costs, or an estimated $26,243,852, and will be adjusted to reflect actual as-bid costs. In accepting the grants the County agrees to meet specific limits for nitrogen and is subject to monetary assessments if the limit is exceeded and if construction schedules are not met. The amount of the assessments is based on the grant amount. 09~®~® CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 3 of 3 ~$''~ AGENDA h ~. Budget and Management Comments: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors set August 27, 2008 as the date for a public hearing to consider acceptance of Virginia Water Quality Improvement Fund Point Source Grants No. 440-5-09-06 and No. 440-5-09-07 for reimbursement of 350 of the Eligible Project Costs for the Nutrient Removal Facilities at the Proctors Creek and Falling Creek wastewater Treatment Plants, authorize the County Administrator to execute the grant agreements and name the Director of Utilities, or his designee, as the Authorized Representative to execute the monthly requests for reimbursement. The nutrient removal costs eligible for reimbursement are estimated to total $74,982,434. Therefore, the county estimates that it will receive a $26,243,852 grant reimbursement which is 350 of the eligible cost. All the costs for the nutrient removal projects are being funded through the Utilities CIP. Preparers Allan M. Carmody Title: Director Budget and Management (~000'~71 VIRGINIA WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FUND POINT SOURCE GRANT AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Contract#440-5-09-07 THIS AGREEMENT is made as of this TBD day of TBD, 2008, by and between the Director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality in his official capacity, or his designee (the "Director"), and Chesterfield County (the "Grantee"). Pursuant to the Virginia Water Quality Improvement Act of 1997, Chapter 21.1, Title 10.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended (the "Act"), the General Assembly created the Virginia Water Quality Improvement Fund (the "Fund"). The Director, in coordination with the Director of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, is authorized by the Act to make Water Quality Improvement grants related to point source pollution control, in accordance with guidelines established pursuant to Section 10.1-2129 of the Code, and enter into agreements with grantees under the Act which shall, in accordance with Sections 10.1-2130 and 10.1-2131, provide for the payment of the total amount of the grant and require proper long-term operation, monitoring and maintenance of funded projects. The Grantee has been approved by the Director to receive a Grant from the Fund subject to the terms and conditions herein to finance 35 percent (35%) of the cost of the Eligible Project, which consists of the design and installation of Nutrient Removal Technology as described herein. The Grantee will use the Grant to finance that portion of the Eligible Project Costs not being paid for from other sources as set forth in the Total Project Budget in Exhibit B to this Agreement. Such other sources may include, but are not limited to, the Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Fund, Chapter 22, Title 62.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. As required by the Act, this Agreement provides for payment of the Grant, design and construction of the Project, and proper long-term operation, monitoring, and maintenance of the Project. This Agreement is supplemental to the State Water Control Law, Chapter 3.1, Title 62.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, and it does not limit in any way the other water quality restoration, protection and enhancement, or enforcement authority of the Director, the State Water Control Board (the "Board") or the Department of Environmental Quality (the "Department"). ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS 1. The capitalized terms contained in this Agreement shall have the meanings set forth below unless the context requires otherwise and any capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning assigned to such terms in the Act: (a) "Agreement" means this Virginia Water Quality Improvement Fund Point Source Grant and Operation and Maintenance Agreement between the Director and the Grantee, together with any amendments or supplements hereto. (b) "Authorized Representative" means any member, official or employee of the Grantee authorized by resolution, ordinance or other official act of the governing body of the Grantee to perform the act or sign the document in question. -1- ~®~~~~ (c) "Eligible Project" means the particular Nutrient Removal Technology described in Exhibit A to this Agreement to be designed and constructed by the Grantee with, among other monies, the Grant, with such changes thereto as may be approved in writing by the Director and the Grantee. (d) "Eligible Project Costs" means costs of the individual items comprising the Eligible Project as permitted by the Act with such changes thereto as may be approved in writing by the Director and the Grantee. (e) "Extraordinary Conditions" means unforeseeable or exceptional conditions resulting from causes beyond the reasonable control of the Grantee such as, but not limited to fires, strikes, acts of God, and acts of third parties that singly or in combination cause material breach of this Agreement. (f) "Facility" means all plants, systems, unit processes, equipment or property related to the Project, and owned, operated, or maintained by the Grantee and used in connection with the treatment of wastewater. (g) "Grant" means the particular grant described in Section 4.0 of this Agreement, with such changes thereto as may be approved in writing by the Director and the Grantee. (h) "Monetary Assessment" means a contractual or stipulated penalty as described in Section 10.1-2130 of the Code. (i) "Nutrient Removal Technology" means state-of--the-art nutrient removal technology, biological nutrient removal technology, or other nutrient removal technology, as further described in Section 10.1-2117 of the Code. (j) "Preliminary Engineering Proposal" means the engineering report and preliminary plans for the Project as described in 9 VAC 25-790-110, as modified by the final engineering design approved by the Department. (k) "Total Eligible Project Budget" means the sum of the Eligible Project Costs as set forth in Exhibit B to this Agreement, with such changes thereto as may be approved in writing by the Director and the Grantee. (1) "Total Project Budget" means the sum of the Eligible Project Costs and any ineligible costs that are solely the responsibility of the Grantee, as set forth in Exhibit B to this Agreement, with such changes thereto as may be approved in writing by the Director and the Grantee. (m) "Project Engineer" means the Grantee's engineer who must be a licensed professional engineer registered to do business in Virginia and designated by the Grantee as the Grantee's engineer for the Project in a written notice to the Department. (n) "Project Schedule" means the schedule for the Project as set forth in Exhibit C to this Agreement, with such changes thereto as may be approved in writing by the Director and the Grantee. ARTICLE II SCOPE OF PROJECT -2- ~®®0'73 2. The Grantee will cause the Project to be designed, constructed and placed in operation as described in Exhibit A to this Agreement to meet effluent concentration limitations of 5.0 mg/1 for total nitrogen on an annual average basis. ARTICLE III SCHEDULE 3. The Grantee will cause the Eligible Project to be designed, constructed and placed in operation in accordance with the Project Schedule in Exhibit C to this Agreement. ARTICLE IV COMPENSATION 4.0. Grant Amount. The total grant award from the Fund under this Agreement is $10,324,928 and represents the Commonwealth's thirty five (35) percent share of the Total Eligible Project Budget. Any material changes made to the Eligible Project after execution of this Agreement, which alters the Total Eligible Project Budget, will be submitted to the Department for review of grant eligibility. The amount of the grant award set forth herein may be modified from time to time by agreement of the parties to reflect changes to the Eligible Project or the Total Eligible Project Budget. 4.1. Payment of Grant. Payment of the Grant is subject to the availability of monies in the Fund allocated to point source pollution control and Section 4.4 herein. Disbursement of the Grant will be in accordance with the payment provisions set forth in Section 4.2 herein and the eligibility determinations made in the Total Project Budget (Exhibit B). 4.2. Disbursement of Grant Funds. The Department will disburse the Grant to the Grantee not more frequently than once each calendar month upon receipt by the Department of the following: (a) A requisition for approval by the Department, signed by the Authorized Representative and containing all receipts, vouchers, statements, invoices or other evidence that costs in the Total Project Budget, including the applicable local share for the portion of the project covered by such requisition, have been incurred or expended and all other information called for by, and otherwise being in the form of, Exhibit D to this Agreement. (b) If any requisition includes an item for payment for labor or to contractors, builders or material men, a certificate, signed by the Project Engineer, stating that such work was actually performed or such materials, supplies or equipment were actually furnished or installed in or about the construction of the Eligible Project. Upon receipt of each such requisition and accompanying certificate(s) and schedule(s), the Director shall request the Comptroller to issue a warrant directing the State Treasurer to disburse the Grant to the Grantee in accordance with such requisition to the extent approved by the Department. Except as may otherwise be approved by the Department, disbursements shall be held at ninety- five percent (95%) of the total grant amount to ensure satisfactory completion of the Eligible Project. Upon receipt from the Grantee of the certificate specified in Section 4.5 and a final requisition detailing all retainage to which the Grantee is then entitled, the Director, subject to the provisions of this section and Section 4.3 herein, shall request the Comptroller to issue a warrant directing the State Treasurer to disburse to the Grantee the final payment from the Grant. -3- Qo®0~~ 4.3 Application of Grant Funds. The Grantee agrees to apply the Grant solely and exclusively to the reimbursement of Eligible Project Costs. 4.4. Availability of Funds. The Director and Grantee recognize that the availability of monies in the Fund allocated to point source pollution control is subject to appropriation by the General Assembly and allocations made by the Secretary of Natural Resources, and that at times there may not be sufficient monies in the Fund to permit prompt disbursement of grant funds due and owing the Grantee pursuant to this Agreement. To minimize the potential for such disruption in disbursements of grant funds and in satisfaction of its obligations under the Act, the Department covenants and agrees to (1) manage the allocation of grants from the Fund to ensure full funding of executed grant agreements, (2) forecast the estimated disbursements from the Fund in satisfaction of approved grants and make this forecast publicly available each year for use in the Commonwealth's budgetary process, and (3) promptly disburse to the Grantee any grant funds due and owing the Grantee pursuant to this Agreement when sufficient monies are available in the Fund to make such disbursements. The Department may determine that monies are not sufficient to promptly disburse grant funds when there are competing grant requests. To assist the Department in forecasting estimated disbursements, prior to September 30 of each year the Grantee will provide the Department with a written estimate of its projected expenditures on the Project during the next fiscal year using the same line item cost categories in the Project Budget. 4.5. Agreement to Complete Project. The Grantee agrees to cause the Project to be designed and constructed, as described in Exhibit A to this Agreement, and in accordance with (i) the schedule in Exhibit C to this Agreement and (ii) plans and specifications prepared by the Project Engineer and approved by the Department. 4.6 Notice of Substantial Completion. When the Project has been completed, the Grantee shall promptly deliver to the Department a certificate signed by the Authorized Representative and by the Project Engineer stating (i) that the Project has been completed substantially in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and addenda thereto, and in substantial compliance with all material applicable laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations; (ii) the date of such completion; (iii) that all certificates of occupancy and operation necessary for start-up for the Project have been issued or obtained; and (iv) the amount, if any, to be released for payment of the final Project Costs. ARTICLE V PERFORMANCE 5.0 The Grantee's Facility shall meet a total nitrogen effluent concentration limitation of 5.0 mg/1 on an annual average basis, except as provided in paragraph 5.1 and Article VIII of this Agreement. 5.1 If, pursuant to Section 10.1-1187.6 of the Code, the State Water Control Board approves an alternative compliance method to technology-based concentration limitations in Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, the concentration limitations in Section 5.0 above shall be suspended subject to the terms of such approval. The terms of approval shall include requirements for operation of the installed Nutrient Removal Technology at the treatment levels for which it was designed. ARTICLE VI OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE -4- ~-~~®~rJ 6.0 No later than ninety (90) days after issuance of a Certificate to Operate for the Project, the Grantee shall submit to the Department, for review and approval, an operation and maintenance manual for the Project. As required by the Grantee's VPDES permit, the Facility shall be operated and maintained in a manner consistent with the operation and maintenance manual as approved by the Department. ARTICLE VII MONITORING AND REPORTING 7.0. Monitoring. The Grantee shall monitor compliance with the numerical concentrations in Article V of this Agreement. Monitoring will be conducted at the final effluent from the facility and immediately prior to discharge to the James River. Sampling frequency and type shall be in accordance with VPDES permit requirements. In the absence of total nitrogen or total phosphorus VPDES permit monitoring requirements, monitoring shall consist of a sample type and collection frequency as specified in the Chesapeake Bay General Watershed Permit Regulation (9 VAC 25-820-70.Part 1.E.). Each sample will be analyzed for total nitrogen using EPA-approved test methods and reported to the Department. 7.1. Reportine. Beginning with the Project's first full calendar year of operation and each year thereafter, the Grantee will calculate the annual average concentration for total nitrogen and total phosphorus for the calendar year just ended by dividing the sum of the monthly average concentrations by twelve, and submit the results to the Department using the form attached as Exhibit E to this Agreement on or before February 1 of each year. Data excluded from the average based on the occurrence of extraordinary conditions will be identified in the report. ARTICLE VIII MATERIAL BREACH 8.0. Material Breach. Any failure or omission by the Grantee to perform its obligations under this Agreement, unless excused by the Department, is a material breach. 8.1. Notice of Material Breach. If at any time the Grantee determines that it is unable to perform its obligations under this Agreement, the Grantee shall promptly provide written notification to the Department. This notification shall include a statement of the reasons it is unable to perform, any actions to be taken to secure future performance and an estimate of the time necessary to do so. 8.2. Monetar~Assessments for Breach. In no event shall total Monetary Assessments pursuant to this Agreement exceed (i) $828,009 annually or (ii) $16,560,174 during the life of this Agreement. Monetary Assessments will be paid into the State Treasury and credited to the Fund. The Director's right to collect Monetary Assessments does not affect in any way the Director's right to secure specific performance of this Agreement using such other legal remedies as may otherwise be available. Within 90 days of receipt of written demand from the Director, the Grantee shall pay the following Monetary Assessments for the corresponding material breaches of this Agreement unless the Grantee asserts a defense pursuant to the requirements of Section 8.3 herein. (a) Beginning with the Project's first full calendar year of operation following issuance of a Certificate to Operate for the Project, for exceedance of one or both of the numerical concentration limitations applicable under Article V of this Agreement, except where the exceedance is no greater than 0.8 mg/L for total nitrogen or no more than 10%, whichever is greater, or no greater than 0.1 mg/L for total phosphorus or no more than 10%, whichever is greater, an assessment calculated as follows: -5- ~~o®~~ (i) For noncompliance with the total nitrogen effluent limitation in Article V, an assessment calculated using the formula in Exhibit F to this Agreement for each one-tenth of a milligram per liter of total nitrogen in excess of the limitation in Article V. (ii) For noncompliance with the total phosphorus effluent limitation in Article V, an assessment calculated using the formula in Exhibit F to this Agreement for each one-tenth of a milligram per liter of total phosphorus in excess of the limitation in Article V. (b) For noncompliance with any deadline in Exhibit C to this Agreement, Article VII of this Agreement, or the failure to submit the operations and maintenance manual in accordance with Article VI of this Agreement, an assessment in the amount of $500 per day for the first 10 days of noncompliance, and $1,000 for each day of noncompliance thereafter. Noncompliance with interim deadlines shall be excused where the Grantee complies with the final deadline in Exhibit C to this Agreement. (c) For noncompliance with the obligation to operate and maintain the Project in a manner consistent with the manual pursuant to Article VI of this Agreement, an assessment in the amount of $1,000 for each day of noncompliance. 8.3 Extraordinar~Conditions. (a) The Grantee may assert and it shall be a defense to any action by the Director to collect a Monetary Assessment or otherwise secure performance of this Agreement that the alleged non- performance was due to Extraordinary Conditions, provided that the Grantee: (1) takes reasonable measures to effect a cure or to minimize any non-performance with the Agreement, and (2) provides written notification to the Department of the occurrence of Extraordinary Conditions, together with an explanation of the events or circumstances contributing to such Extraordinary Conditions, no later than 5 days after the discovery of the Extraordinary Conditions and the resulting impacts on performance. (b) If the Department disagrees that the events or circumstances described by the Grantee constitute Extraordinary Conditions, the Department must provide the Grantee with a written objection within sixty (60) days of Grantee's notice under paragraph 8.3(a)(2), together with an explanation of the basis for its objection. 8.4 Resolution and Remedy. If no resolution is reached by the parties, the Director or Deparhnent may immediately pursue any remedy available at law or equity. In any such action, the Grantee shall have the burden of proving that the alleged noncompliance was due to Extraordinary Conditions. In addition to any other remedy that may be available to the Director or the Department, the Director or Department may bring an action in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond to enforce this Agreement by injunction or mandamus or stipulated penalties or to recover part or all of the grant funds. No such remedy of the Director or Department shall be deemed to be exclusive or to estop any other such remedy or the bringing of an action to enforce this Agreement. The Grantee agrees to venue to any such action in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, either north or south of the James River in the option of the Director. The Grantee further agrees that, in light of the public purpose of nutrient removal, any failure of the Grantee to perform its duties under this Agreement and any failure of the Project to meet the -6- ~~~~~~ requirements of this Agreement or the requirements of any permit that may be issued by the Board regarding the Project constitutes irreparable harm to the Commonwealth for which the Director or Department lacks an adequate remedy at law. ARTICLE IX GENERAL PROVISIONS 9.0. Effect of the Agreement on Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Permit. This Agreement shall not be deemed to relieve the Grantee of its obligations to comply with the terms of its VPDES permit issued by the Board. 9.1. Disclaimer. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as authority for either party to make commitments which will bind the other party beyond the covenants contained herein. 9.2 Non-Waiver. No waiver by the Director of any one or more defaults by the Grantee in the performance of any provision of this Agreement shall operate or be construed as a waiver of any future default or defaults of whatever character. 9.3. Integration and Modification. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the Grantee and the Director. No alteration, amendment or modification of the provisions of this Agreement shall be effective unless reduced to writing, signed by both the parties and attached hereto. The Department and the Grantee shall confer within six months after each reissuance of the Grantee's VPDES permit for the purpose of determining whether this Agreement should be modified or terminated. This Agreement may be modified by agreement of the parties for any purpose, provided that any significant modification to this Agreement must be preceded by public notice of such modification. 9.4. Collateral Agreements. Where there exists any inconsistency between this Agreement and other provisions of collateral contractual agreements which are made a part of this Agreement by reference, the provisions of this Agreement shall control. 9.5. Non-Discrimination. In the performance of this Agreement, the Grantee warrants that it will not discriminate against any employee, or other person, on account of race, color, sex, religious creed, ancestry, age, national origin or other non job related factors. The Grantee agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause. 9.6. Conflict of Interest. The Grantee warrants that it has fully complied with the Virginia Conflict of Interest Act as it may apply to this Agreement. 9.7. Applicable Laws. This Agreement shall be governed in all respects whether as to validity, construction, capacity, performance or otherwise, by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Grantee further agrees to comply with all laws and regulations applicable to the Grantee's performance of its obligations pursuant to this Agreement. 9.8. Records Availability. The Grantee agrees to maintain complete and accurate books and records of the Project Costs, and further, to retain all books, records, and other documents relative to this Agreement for three (3) years after final payment. The Department, its authorized agents, and/or State auditors will have full access to and the right to examine any of said materials during said period. Additionally, the Department and/or its representatives will have the right to access work sites during -7- Q~~~}~~ normal business hours, after reasonable notice to the Grantee, for the purpose of ensuring that the provisions of this Agreement are properly carried out. 9.9. Severability. Each paragraph and provision of this Agreement is severable from the entire Agreement; and if any provision is declared invalid, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless remain in effect. 9.10. Notices. All notices given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be sent by United States certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, and shall be deemed to have been received at the earliest of: (a) the date of actual receipt of such notice by the addressee, (b) the date of the actual delivery of the notice to the address of the addressee set forth below, or (c) five (5) days after the sender deposits it in the mail properly addressed. All notices required or permitted to be served upon either party hereunder shall be directed to: Department: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Chesapeake Bay Program P.O. Box 1105 Richmond, VA 23218 Attn: WQIF Program Manager Grantee: Chesterfield County P.O. Box 608 Chesterfield, VA 23832 Attn: Director of Public Utilities 9.11. Successors and Assigns Bound. This Agreement shall extend to and be binding upon the parties hereto, and their respective legal representatives, successors and assigns. 9.12. Exhibits. All exhibits to this Agreement are incorporated herein by reference. 9.13. Termination. This Agreement shall terminate 20 years after the Agreement is executed by both parties or by an earlier date by agreement of the parties; provided, however, that except for termination for cause due to Material Breach, the Director's obligation under Section 4.1 herein to pay the Grant amount shall survive termination if such amount has not been paid in full as of the termination date. ARTICLE X COUNTERPARTS 10. This Agreement may be executed in any number of Counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument. ARTICLE XI NUTRIENT CREDITS TO BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR EXCHANGE -8- ~0®®~~ 11. To aid in implementing the Nutrient Credit Exchange Program, the Grantee shall make all Point Source Nitrogen and Phosphorus Credits generated in a calendar year available for nutrient allocation compliance. "Point Source Nitrogen Credit" and "Point Source Phosphorus Credit" shall have the meaning as defined in Virginia Code §62.1-44.19:13. The amount of Credits and facilities authorized to generate Credits shall be governed by the Watershed General Permit Regulation for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Discharges and Nutrient Trading (9 VAC 25-820). The Department shall control Credits not otherwise used by the Grantee for waste load allocations or compliance purposes and will make such Credits reasonably available to other dischargers for nutrient allocation compliance through the Water Quality Improvement Fund. For purposes of this Agreement, "used by the Grantee" shall include any use whereby the Credits are applied to any compliance obligation of the Grantee, included within an individual compliance plan or basin-level compliance plan of the Virginia Nutrient Credit Exchange Association, or traded to and used by the owner or operator of another facility for nutrient allocation compliance. WITNESS the following signatures, all duly authorized. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY By: Date: GRANTEE'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE By: Date: -9- ©®~8® EXHIBIT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION Grantee: Chesterfield County Grant: #440-S-09-07 Chesterfield County owns and operates the Falling Creek WWTP, which provides secondary treatment for a permitted design flow of 10.1 MGD. The existing WWTP consists of: screening, grit removal, communition, flow equalization, primary sedimentation, activated sludge with seasonal denitrification, secondary clarification, chemical coagulation and sedimentation, chlorination, post-aeration, and dechlorination. Sludge is anaerobically digested and land applied. Under new nutrient discharge control regulations for the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, the County received a combined, bubble waste load allocation for nitrogen and phosphorus for its two treatment plants discharging within the James watershed. As per the Preliminary Engineering (Nutrient Compliance) Report revised in September 2007, the County will upgrade the existing secondary treatment process to an enhanced nutrient removal system designed for annual average effluent concentrations of 5.0 mg/1 total nitrogen. This project consists of various facilities included in the PER which are intended to achieve nutrient compliance. Processes being funded for nitrogen compliance are described as follows: Headworks and Primar~Treatment Areas: Fine screens are proposed in the plant upgrade. The screens provide protection to the Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) system in particular; but, they will also improve downstream processes (such as clarification and sludge handling). Due to lower maintenance requirements and owner preference, center flow band screens -installed upstream of the primary clarifiers -are anticipated for the final design. Influent flow to the screen facilities will be pumped from the existing pump station; but, a building will be required to house the center flow band screens and screenings handling equipment Secondary Treatment: Secondary treatment facilities and upgrades fora 4-stage activated sludge, biological nutrient removal process includes the following. A baffle wall will be placed in the initial chamber of each basin to provide aerobic and anoxic cells. The IFAS system is anticipated to operate using an initial anoxic zone, followed by aerobic conditions, a second anoxic zone, and then a small aeration zone at the end. The first anoxic zone would receive a recycle of nitrates from the tail-end of the first aerobic section, as well as the influent and the RAS flows. Mixers will be installed in the anoxic zones. The first aerobic compartment will contain the suspended IFAS media and retention screens. The existing aeration grid will require modification to maintain the media screen which keeps the media from traveling forward and to supply air via fine bubble, membrane diffusers for the increased biological activity. The second anoxic zone receives the forward flow and the supplemental carbon, associated with denitrification. The existing internal nitrate recycle pumps push flow through the wall. These pumps cannot remain in service, because the changing location of the aerobic environment will require similar pumps and additional piping to direct the flow. The aeration system will also require better control than is currently available at the plant. The existing blower ~~Q~81. building includes five multi-stage centrifugal blowers with space and piping connections for a sixth blower unit. The total blower capacity for the existing system is 16,000 scfm, with a firm capacity of 12,000 scfm (largest unit out of service). Existing blower No. 1, 2, and 7 were installed in the late 1970's; while existing blower No. 4 and 5 were installed in the mid-1990's. Although the existing blowers have a total design capacity of 16,000 scfm, new blowers are included due to concerns regarding age and reliable capacity of the existing blowers. As per SCAT Regulations, the blower system is designed for worst case (peak hourly) air demand. Five new multi-stage centrifugal blowers are proposed to meet the air demands for the IFAS system (4 duty and 1 standby). New above-grade process air piping is anticipated to avoid underground pipe conflicts. Each aeration tank lateral will be provided with an isolation butterfly valve, and will feed air drop legs with flow meters and control valves at each aeration zone. Clarifiers: The secondary clarifiers perform well and no modification is proposed. Use of an IFAS system may reduce the solids load to the clarifiers, as many of the solids will be attached growth. The tertiary clarifiers also perform well and no modification is proposed. Chemical Feed Systems: Carbon for denitrification will require chemical storage/feed and final design will identify the carbon sources for use. While methanol is the traditional chemical, the facility will be constructed so other formulations (acetic acid or sugar solutions) can be used. Process Piping Improvements: An existing 30-inch pipe line between two junction boxes at the west primary clarifiers may be utilized to send flow from the new screening facilities to the west primary clarifiers. However, a new routing on the south side of the primary clarifiers will be required to provide screened wastewater to the east clarifiers. Flow distribution from the screen facilities to both east and west clarifiers will be evaluated. Anew flow distribution chamber will likely be included in the final design. ~QO~Si~r EXHIBIT B TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET Grantee: Chesterfield County Grant: #440-S-09-07 ThP fnllnwing hud~et reflects the estimated costs associated with eligible components of the Project. PROJECT COMPONENT PROJECT COSTS 0 ELIGIBL E PROJECT COSTS NOTES(1) Fine Screen and Buildin $8,356,500 75% $6,267,375 1 Prim Distribution Structure $1,588,200 32% $508,224 2a Process Flow Control $942,000 70% $659,400 3 Process Blowers $3,180,960 95% $3,021,912 2b Biolo ical Basin Modifications $8 826 000 100% $8 384 700 4 Su lemental Carbon Stora e/Feed $4 896 000 100% 4 896 000 4 Construction Subtotal $27 789 660 85.4% $23 737 611 General Site Work & Pi in 360 000 .4° Nons ecific Construction Subtotal $360 000 85.4% $307 508 Construction Total 28 149 660 85.4% 24 045 119 re immary ngmeermg eport $282 899 85.4% $241 649 5 Final Design (Plans & Specs) $3,449,587 85.4% $2,946,598 5 nspection 1 243 722 ° En ineerin Total $4 976 208 $4 250 620 Construction Contingency $1,407,483 $1,202,256 5, 6 TOTALS $34 533 351 $29 497 995 GRANT PERCENTAGE 35% GRANT AMOUNT $10,324,298 Notes on costs attributable to Nutrient Removal Technology (NRT): 1. Similar to the membrane bioreactor, fine screening is needed ahead of the IFAS process. DEQ Guidance Memorandum (GM) #06-2012 allows a maximum eligibility for the membrane bioreactor as 75%; this was determined as appropriate. 2. a) Eligible percentage for the unit process, as determined per DEQ Guidance Memorandum (GM) #06-2012 (less 8% attributable to TP for which funding was not wanted). b) Eligible percentage for the unit process, as determined per DEQ Guidance Memorandum (GM) #06-2012 (less 5% attributable to TP for which funding was not wanted). Represents a negotiated value: RAS piping/meters are 100% eligible based on ammonia control requirement; influent control valves/meters are not eligible. 4. Considered to be 100% NRT; thus, Eligible percentage for the unit process, as determined per DEQ Guidance Memorandum (GM) #06-2012. 5. Represents the construction costs associated with NRT divided by the total construction cost, as per DEQ GM #06-2012. 6. Contingency costs are shown as 5%; contingency will be recalculated after bids after received. 00®U~3 EXHIBIT C PROJECT SCHEDULE Grantee: Chesterfield Countv Grant: #440-S-09-07 The Grantee has proposed the following schedule of key activities/milestones as a planning tool which may be subject to change. In particular, the Grantee acknowledges that the appropriate approval (Certificate to Construct) must be issued by the Department prior to proceeding with construction. Unless authorized by a grant modification, it is the responsibility of the Grantee to adhere to the anticipated schedule for the project as follows: Activi Date a. Submit A rovable Plans and S ecifications On or before Se t. 30, 2008 b. Issue Notice to Proceed for NRT ro'ect On or before Jan. 31, 2009 d. Submit letter of Substantial Com letion for the ro'ect On or before Jan. 31, 2011 * Date will be reevaluated relative to preceding milestones and contractual obligations at the time the agreement is also modified to reflect as-bid costs. ®Q~084 EXHIBIT D REQUISITION FOR REIMBURSEMENT (To be on Grantee's Letterhead) Department of Environmental Quality Chesapeake Bay Program P.O. Box 1105 Richmond, VA 2321 S Attn.: WQIF Program Manager RE: Virginia Water Quality Improvement Fund Grant Contract #440-S-09-07 Dear Program Manager: This requisition, Number , is submitted in connection with the referenced Financing Agreements between the Director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the Hampton Roads Sanitation District. The effective date of the grant agreement is [insert date of grant agreement]. Unless otherwise defined in this requisition, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the meaning set forth in Article I of the Grant Agreement. The undersigned Authorized Representative of the Grantee hereby requests disbursement of grant proceeds under the Grant Agreement in the amount of $ for the purposes of payment of the Eligible Project Costs as set forth on Schedule I attached hereto. Copies of invoices relating to the items for which payment is requested are attached. The undersigned certifies that the amounts requested by this requisition will be applied solely and exclusively to the reimbursement of the Grantee for the payment of Eligible Project Costs. This requisition includes (if applicable) an accompanying Certificate of the Project Engineer as to the performance of the work. Sincerely, (Authorized Representative of the Grantee) Attachments cc: DEQ-Regional CAP Engineer 000085 E--' z Qw ~W w `" w~ W O c~ a ~ w~~ QH.~~ d W ~' a z x¢ w~ 3~ d U zQ ~o x~ w O ~ U c Q b z ~~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~" Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ U ~ ~ w ~~ «; ~,W ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ U ~ ai id ~~Q ~ ~ ~~~ o ~ ~ U Q ~ ^o a~ o ~ ~ ~~ a ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ o~ •, ,~_ Ate, Q ~ ~ ° ~ o.. ~ ~ N 00 ~ 00 ~ N sue, vl O ~ ~ ~ M ~ N N ~ ~ 6 9 ~ fl 6A 69 a ~ ' ~ 3¢W V N ~D Op ~ ~ N N M 00 ,~ .O y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M M U ~ ~ N ° ``' ~n ~ H ~ ~ ~ ~ M 69 w 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ O U U O F- Y ~ ~% U ~ N U U ~ ~ ~ .~~ ~ a ~ U w U U U U ~ I Ff? ct~ 6R Q C o. ~~~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o (~ ~ a.~ ~ cr ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. +--~ ice.. VI CC L ~ ~, C7 o C7 ~ ~. ~'> ~ ~ ~ H ci E~-~ Fes- C7 000086 CERTIFICATE OF THE PROJECT ENGINEER FORM TO ACCOMPANY REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT Grantee: Chesterfield Countv Grant: #440-S-09-07 This Certificate is submitted in connection with Requisition Number ,dated 20_, submitted by the (the "Grantee") to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings set forth in Article I of the Grant Agreement referred to in the Requisition. The undersigned Project Engineer for hereby certifies that insofar as the amounts covered by this Requisition include payments for labor or to contractors, builders or material men, such work was actually performed or such materials, supplies, or equipment were actually furnished to or installed in the Project. (Project Engineer) (Date) ~~OQS~ W H C1i x w H W~ A4 d U F z d w O z H a a 0 U b ~. ~. v 0 rn 0 0 C ~ ~ W 0~ F W a a d ~~ d ~ dQ w p F .. ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ E E ~ E ~ ~ E z~ o ;~ `~ L z ~ ? L U ~ 0 o~ a w F W Q a ~ ^ ~ c ~ a a~ ^ a~ a a~ c a~ c a~ c a~ c ~ ^ ~ c a~ c a~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. z z z z z z z z z z z z z 0 H 0 H 0 ~ 0 H 0 H 0 H 0 ~ 0 H 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ x z `~ ~. ~. . > ~' ~ w+ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ , SC1 _ ~ ~ ~~ ~ o Tr ~ ~ ~ w ~ Q ~ ~ ti ~ ti ¢ , , ~ o z Q ¢ ()®®U~8 EXHIBIT E REPORTING OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS (continued) Grantee: Chesterfield County Grant: #440-S-09-07 Data Excluded Due to the Occurrence of Extraordinary Conditions: (if applicable; attach explanation) Date(s): Operator Responsible for Samples: Telephone: Certificate Number: Date: ~0~~~~ EXHIBIT F FORMULA FOR CALCULATING MONETARY ASSESSMENT FOR EXCEEDANCE OF NUMERICAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS Grantee: Chesterfield Countv Grant: #440-S-09-07 Section 1: Nitrogen Exceedances CN = (TNe/TNr) x AnPay x PerGrant where: CN = Assessment for Nitrogen Exceedance. TNe = Exceedance in tenths of a milligram per liter. TNr = Expected nitrogen removal (difference between "pre-nutrient removal" annual average concentration and 5.0 mg/1 limitation) in tenths of a milligram per liter. AnPay = Annual Payment on grant; assumes principal payments amortized over 20 years and an interest rate of 5 percent. Using these assumed values leads to a "cost recovery factor" of 0.0802. The "cost recovery factor" times the grant amount yields the Annual Payment amount. PerGrant = Percentage of grant received by year of exceedance. Values used for Grant #440-5-09-07: Pre-Nutrient Removal TN Concentration = 20.3 mg/1 Effluent TN Concentration Limitation = 5.0 mg/1 Total Grant Amount for TN Removal = $10,324,298 Useful Service Life = 20 years Interest Rate = 5 percent Calculated (assumes grant paid 100%): Expected Removal (TNr) = 15.3 mg/1 AnPay = $828,009 CN = $5,412 (for each 0.1 mg/1 TN exceedance) ©0~~~ VIRGINIA WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FUND POINT SOURCE GRANT AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Contract #440-5-09-06 THIS AGREEMENT is made as of this TBD day of TBD, 2008, by and between the Director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality in his official capacity, or his designee (the "Director"), and Chesterfield County (the "Grantee"). Pursuant to the Virginia Water Quality Improvement Act of 1997, Chapter 21.1, Title 10.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended (the "Act"), the General Assembly created the Virginia Water Quality Improvement Fund (the "Fund"). The Director, in coordination with the Director of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, is authorized by the Act to make Water Quality Improvement grants related to point source pollution control, in accordance with guidelines established pursuant to Section 10.1-2129 of the Code, and enter into agreements with grantees under the Act which shall, in accordance with Sections 10.1-2130 and 10.1-2131, provide for the payment of the total amount of the grant and require proper long-term operation, monitoring and maintenance of funded projects. The Grantee has been approved by the Director to receive a Grant from the Fund subject to the terms and conditions herein to finance 35 percent (35%) of the cost of the Eligible Project, which consists of the design and installation of Nutrient Removal Technology as described herein. The Grantee will use the Grant to finance that portion of the Eligible Project Costs not being paid for from other sources as set forth in the Total Project Budget in Exhibit B to this Agreement. Such other sources may include, but are not limited to, the Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Fund, Chapter 22, Title 62.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. As required by the Act, this Agreement provides for payment of the Grant, design and construction of the Project, and proper long-term operation, monitoring, and maintenance of the Project. This Agreement is supplemental to the State Water Control Law, Chapter 3.1, Title 62.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, and it does not limit in any way the other water quality restoration, protection and enhancement, or enforcement authority of the Director, the State Water Control Board (the "Board") or the Department of Environmental Quality (the "Department"). ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS 1. The capitalized terms contained in this Agreement shall have the meanings set forth below unless the context requires otherwise and any capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning assigned to such terms in the Act: (a) "Agreement" means this Virginia Water Quality Improvement Fund Point Source Grant and Operation and Maintenance Agreement between the Director and the Grantee, together with any amendments or supplements hereto. (b) "Authorized Representative" means any member, official or employee of the Grantee authorized by resolution, ordinance or other official act of the governing body of the Grantee to perform the act or sign the document in question. -1- ®~~~~1. (c) "Eligible Project" means the particular Nutrient Removal Technology described in Exhibit A to this Agreement to be designed and constructed by the Grantee with, among other monies, the Grant, with such changes thereto as may be approved in writing by the Director and the Grantee. (d) "Eligible Project Costs" means costs of the individual items comprising the Eligible Project as permitted by the Act with such changes thereto as may be approved in writing by the Director and the Grantee. (e) "Extraordinary Conditions" means unforeseeable or exceptional conditions resulting from causes beyond the reasonable control of the Grantee such as, but not limited to fires, strikes, acts of God, and acts of third parties that singly or in combination cause material breach of this Agreement. (f) "Facility" means all plants, systems, unit processes, equipment or property related to the Project, and owned, operated, or maintained by the Grantee and used in connection with the treatment of wastewater. (g) "Grant" means the particular grant described in Section 4.0 of this Agreement, with such changes thereto as may be approved in writing by the Director and the Grantee. (h) "Monetary Assessment" means a contractual or stipulated penalty as described in Section 10.1-2130 of the Code. (i) "Nutrient Removal Technology" means state-of--the-art nutrient removal technology, biological nutrient removal technology, or other nutrient removal technology, as further described in Section 10.1-2117 of the Code. (j) "Preliminary Engineering Proposal" means the engineering report and preliminary plans for the Project as described in 9 VAC 25-790-110, as modified by the final engineering design approved by the Department. (k) "Total Eligible Project Budget" means the sum of the Eligible Project Costs as set forth in Exhibit B to this Agreement, with such changes thereto as may be approved in writing by the Director and the Grantee. (1) "Total Project Budget" means the sum of the Eligible Project Costs and any ineligible costs that are solely the responsibility of the Grantee, as set forth in Exhibit B to this Agreement, with such changes thereto as may be approved in writing by the Director and the Grantee. (m) "Project Engineer" means the Grantee's engineer who must be a licensed professional engineer registered to do business in Virginia and designated by the Grantee as the Grantee's engineer for the Project in a written notice to the Department. (n) "Project Schedule" means the schedule for the Project as set forth in Exhibit C to this Agreement, with such changes thereto as may be approved in writing by the Director and the Grantee. ARTICLE II SCOPE OF PROJECT -2- ®®®~~e~ 2. The Grantee will cause the Project to be designed, constructed and placed in operation as described in Exhibit A to this Agreement to meet effluent concentration limitations of 5.0 mg/1 for total nitrogen on an annual average basis. ARTICLE III SCHEDULE 3. The Grantee will cause the Eligible Project to be designed, constructed and placed in operation in accordance with the Project Schedule in Exhibit C to this Agreement. ARTICLE IV COMPENSATION 4.0. Grant Amount. The total grant award from the Fund under this Agreement is $15,919,554 and represents the Commonwealth's thirty five (35) percent share of the Total Eligible Project Budget. Any material changes made to the Eligible Project after execution of this Agreement, which alters the Total Eligible Project Budget, will be submitted to the Department for review of grant eligibility. The amount of the grant award set forth herein may be modified from time to time by agreement of the parties to reflect changes to the Eligible Project or the Total Eligible Project Budget. 4.1. Payment of Grant. Payment of the Grant is subject to the availability of monies in the Fund allocated to point source pollution control and Section 4.4 herein. Disbursement of the Grant will be in accordance with the payment provisions set forth in Section 4.2 herein and the eligibility determinations made in the Total Project Budget (Exhibit B). 4.2. Disbursement of Grant Funds. The Department will disburse the Grant to the Grantee not more frequently than once each calendar month upon receipt by the Department of the following: (a) A requisition for approval by the Department, signed by the Authorized Representative and containing all receipts, vouchers, statements, invoices or other evidence that costs in the Total Project Budget, including the applicable local share for the portion of the project covered by such requisition, have been incurred or expended and all other information called for by, and otherwise being in the form of, Exhibit D to this Agreement. (b) If any requisition includes an item for payment for labor or to contractors, builders or material men, a certificate, signed by the Project Engineer, stating that such work was actually performed or such materials, supplies or equipment were actually furnished or installed in or about the construction of the Eligible Project. Upon receipt of each such requisition and accompanying certificate(s) and schedule(s), the Director shall request the Comptroller to issue a warrant directing the State Treasurer to disburse the Grant to the Grantee in accordance with such requisition to the extent approved by the Department. Except as may otherwise be approved by the Department, disbursements shall be held at ninety- five percent (95%) of the total grant amount to ensure satisfactory completion of the Eligible Project. Upon receipt from the Grantee of the certificate specified in Section 4.5 and a final requisition detailing all retainage to which the Grantee is then entitled, the Director, subject to the provisions of this section and Section 4.3 herein, shall request the Comptroller to issue a warrant directing the State Treasurer to disburse to the Grantee the final payment from the Grant. -3- (~~®~~~ 4.3 Application of Grant Funds. The Grantee agrees to apply the Grant solely and exclusively to the reimbursement of Eligible Project Costs. 4.4. Availability of Funds. The Director and Grantee recognize that the availability of monies in the Fund allocated to point source pollution control is subject to appropriation by the General Assembly and allocations made by the Secretary of Natural Resources, and that at times there may not be sufficient monies in the Fund to permit prompt disbursement of grant funds due and owing the Grantee pursuant to this Agreement. To minimize the potential for such disruption in disbursements of grant funds and in satisfaction of its obligations under the Act, the Department covenants and agrees to (1) manage the allocation of grants from the Fund to ensure full funding of executed grant agreements, (2) forecast the estimated disbursements from the Fund in satisfaction of approved grants and make this forecast publicly available each year for use in the Commonwealth's budgetary process, and (3) promptly disburse to the Grantee any grant funds due and owing the Grantee pursuant to this Agreement when sufficient monies are available in the Fund to make such disbursements. The Department may determine that monies are not sufficient to promptly disburse grant funds when there are competing grant requests. To assist the Department in forecasting estimated disbursements, prior to September 30 of each year the Grantee will provide the Department with a written estimate of its projected expenditures on the Project during the next fiscal year using the same line item cost categories in the Project Budget. 4.5. Agreement to Com lete Project. The Grantee agrees to cause the Project to be designed and constructed, as described in Exhibit A to this Agreement, and in accordance with (i) the schedule in Exhibit C to this Agreement and (ii) plans and specifications prepared by the Project Engineer and approved by the Department. 4.6 Notice of Substantial Completion. When the Project has been completed, the Grantee shall promptly deliver to the Department a certificate signed by the Authorized Representative and by the Project Engineer stating (i) that the Project has been completed substantially in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and addenda thereto, and in substantial compliance with all material applicable laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations; (ii) the date of such completion; (iii) that all certificates of occupancy and operation necessary for start-up for the Project have been issued or obtained; and (iv) the amount, if any, to be released for payment of the final Project Costs. ARTICLE V PERFORMANCE 5.0 The Grantee's Facility shall meet a total nitrogen effluent concentration limitation of 5.0 mg/1 on an annual average basis, except as provided in paragraph 5.1 and Article VIII of this Agreement. 5.1 If, pursuant to Section 10.1-1187.6 of the Code, the State Water Control Board approves an alternative compliance method to technology-based concentration limitations in Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, the concentration limitations in Section 5.0 above shall be suspended subject to the terms of such approval. The terms of approval shall include requirements for operation of the installed Nutrient Removal Technology at the treatment levels for which it was designed. ARTICLE VI OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE -4- ~~®(~~4 6.0 No later than ninety (90) days after issuance of a Certificate to Operate for the Project, the Grantee shall submit to the Department, for review and approval, an operation and maintenance manual for the Project. As required by the Grantee's VPDES permit, the Facility shall be operated and maintained in a manner consistent with the operation and maintenance manual as approved by the Department. ARTICLE VII MONITORING AND REPORTING 7.0. Monitories. The Grantee shall monitor compliance with the numerical concentrations in Article V of this Agreement. Monitoring will be conducted at the final effluent from the facility and immediately prior to discharge to the James River. Sampling frequency and type shall be in accordance with VPDES permit requirements. In the absence of total nitrogen or total phosphorus VPDES permit monitoring requirements, monitoring shall consist of a sample type and collection frequency as specified in the Chesapeake Bay General Watershed Permit Regulation (9 VAC 25-820-70.Part 1.E.). Each sample will be analyzed for total nitrogen using EPA-approved test methods and reported to the Department. 7.1. Reporting. Beginning with the Project's first full calendar year of operation and each year thereafter, the Grantee will calculate the annual average concentration for total nitrogen and total phosphorus for the calendar year just ended by dividing the sum of the monthly average concentrations by twelve, and submit the results to the Department using the form attached as Exhibit E to this Agreement on or before February 1 of each year. Data excluded from the average based on the occurrence of extraordinary conditions will be identified in the report. ARTICLE VIII MATERIAL BREACH 8.0. Material Breach. Any failure or omission by the Grantee to perform its obligations under this Agreement, unless excused by the Department, is a material breach. 8.1. Notice of Material Breach. If at any time the Grantee determines that it is unable to perform its obligations under this Agreement, the Grantee shall promptly provide written notification to the Department. This notification shall include a statement of the reasons it is unable to perform, any actions to be taken to secure future performance and an estimate of the time necessary to do so. 8.2. Monetary Assessments for Breach. In no event shall total Monetary Assessments pursuant to this Agreement exceed (i) $1,759,528 annually or (ii) $35,190,565 during the life of this Agreement. Monetary Assessments will be paid into the State Treasury and credited to the Fund. The Director's right to collect Monetary Assessments does not affect in any way the Director's right to secure specific performance of this Agreement using such other legal remedies as may otherwise be available. Within 90 days of receipt of written demand from the Director, the Grantee shall pay the following Monetary Assessments for the corresponding material breaches of this Agreement unless the Grantee asserts a defense pursuant to the requirements of Section 8.3 herein. (a) Beginning with the Project's first full calendar year of operation following issuance of a Certificate to Operate for the Project, for exceedance of one or both of the numerical concentration limitations applicable under Article V of this Agreement, except where the exceedance is no greater than 0.8 mg/L for total nitrogen or no more than 10%, whichever is greater, or no greater than 0.1 mglL for total phosphorus or no more than 10%, whichever is greater, an assessment calculated as follows: -5- ~~~®~~ (i) For noncompliance with the total nitrogen effluent limitation in Article V, an assessment calculated using the formula in Exhibit F to this Agreement for each one-tenth of a milligram per liter of total nitrogen in excess of the limitation in Article V. (ii) For noncompliance with the total phosphorus effluent limitation in Article V, an assessment calculated using the formula in Exhibit F to this Agreement for each one-tenth of a milligram per liter of total phosphorus in excess of the limitation in Article V. (b) For noncompliance with any deadline in Exhibit C to this Agreement, Article VII of this Agreement, or the failure to submit the operations and maintenance manual in accordance with Article VI of this Agreement, an assessment in the amount of $500 per day for the first 10 days of noncompliance, and $1,000 for each day of noncompliance thereafter. Noncompliance with interim deadlines shall be excused where the Grantee complies with the final deadline in Exhibit C to this Agreement. (c) For noncompliance with the obligation to operate and maintain the Project in a manner consistent with the manual pursuant to Article VI of this Agreement, an assessment in the amount of $1,000 for each day of noncompliance. 8.3 Extraordinary Conditions. (a) The Grantee may assert and it shall be a defense to any action by the Director to collect a Monetary Assessment or otherwise secure performance of this Agreement that the alleged non- performance was due to Extraordinary Conditions, provided that the Grantee: (1) takes reasonable measures to effect a cure or to minimize any non-performance with the Agreement, and (2) provides written notification to the Department of the occurrence of Extraordinary Conditions, together with an explanation of the events or circumstances contributing to such Extraordinary Conditions, no later than 5 days after the discovery of the Extraordinary Conditions and the resulting impacts on performance. (b) If the Department disagrees that the events or circumstances described by the Grantee constitute Extraordinary Conditions, the Department must provide the Grantee with a written objection within sixty (60) days of Grantee's notice under paragraph 8.3(a)(2), together with an explanation of the basis for its objection. 8.4 Resolution and Remedy. If no resolution is reached by the parties, the Director or Department may immediately pursue any remedy available at law or equity. In any such action, the Grantee shall have the burden of proving that the alleged noncompliance was due to Extraordinary Conditions. In addition to any other remedy that may be available to the Director or the Department, the Director or Department may bring an action in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond to enforce this Agreement by injunction or mandamus or stipulated penalties or to recover part or all of the grant funds. No such remedy of the Director or Department shall be deemed to be exclusive or to estop any other such remedy or the bringing of an action to enforce this Agreement. The Grantee agrees to venue to any such action in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, either north or south of the James River in the option of the Director. The Grantee further agrees that, in light of the public purpose of nutrient removal, any failure of the Grantee to perform its duties under this Agreement and any failure of the Project to meet the -6- ~®~0~~ requirements of this Agreement or the requirements of any permit that may be issued by the Board regarding the Project constitutes irreparable harm to the Commonwealth for which the Director or Department lacks an adequate remedy at law. ARTICLE IX GENERAL PROVISIONS 9.0. Effect of the Agreement on Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES Permit. This Agreement shall not be deemed to relieve the Grantee of its obligations to comply with the terms of its VPDES permit issued by the Board. 9.1. Prior Agreement Superseded. This Agreement shall supersede and replace any prior Agreement between the Director and the Grantee for the design and installation of Nutrient Removal Technology, together with any amendments or supplements thereto, with the exception that the Grantee shall continue to monitor and report performance of the Nutrient Removal Technology installed under the prior Agreement and comply with the performance requirements in Article V until the compliance period under this Agreement commences. 9.2 Disclaimer. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as authority for either party to make commitments which will bind the other party beyond the covenants contained herein. 9.3 Non-Waiver. No waiver by the Director of any one or more defaults by the Grantee in the performance of any provision of this Agreement shall operate or be construed as a waiver of any future default or defaults of whatever character. 9.4. Integration and Modification. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the Grantee and the Director. No alteration, amendment or modification of the provisions of this Agreement shall be effective unless reduced to writing, signed by both the parties and attached hereto. The Department and the Grantee shall confer within six months after each reissuance of the Grantee's VPDES permit for the purpose of determining whether this Agreement should be modified or terminated. This Agreement may be modified by agreement of the parties for any purpose, provided that any significant modification to this Agreement must be preceded by public notice of such modification. 9.5. Collateral Agreements. Where there exists any inconsistency between this Agreement and other provisions of collateral contractual agreements which are made a part of this Agreement by reference, the provisions of this Agreement shall control. 9.6. Non-Discrimination. In the performance of this Agreement, the Grantee warrants that it will not discriminate against any employee, or other person, on account of race, color, sex, religious creed, ancestry, age, national origin or other non job related factors. The Grantee agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause. 9.7. Conflict of Interest. The Grantee warrants that it has fully complied with the Virginia Conflict of Interest Act as it may apply to this Agreement. -7- ~~~~~~ 9.8. Applicable Laws. This Agreement shall be governed in all respects whether as to validity, construction, capacity, performance or otherwise, by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Grantee further agrees to comply with all laws and regulations applicable to the Grantee's performance of its obligations pursuant to this Agreement. 9.9. Records Availability. The Grantee agrees to maintain complete and accurate books and records of the Project Costs, and further, to retain all books, records, and other documents relative to this Agreement for three (3) years after final payment. The Department, its authorized agents, and/or State auditors will have full access to and the right to examine any of said materials during said period. Additionally, the Department and/or its representatives will have the right to access work sites during normal business hours, after reasonable notice to the Grantee, for the purpose of ensuring that the provisions of this Agreement are properly carried out. 9.10. Severabilitv. Each paragraph and provision of this Agreement is severable from the entire Agreement; and if any provision is declared invalid, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless remain in effect. 9.11. Notices. All notices given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be sent by United States certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, and shall be deemed to have been received at the earliest o£ (a) the date of actual receipt of such notice by the addressee, (b) the date of the actual delivery of the notice to the address of the addressee set forth below, or (c) five (5) days after the sender deposits it in the mail properly addressed. All notices required or permitted to be served upon either party hereunder shall be directed to: Department: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Chesapeake Bay Program P.O. Box 1105 Richmond, VA 23218 Attn: WQIF Program Manager Grantee: Chesterfield County P.O. Box 608 Chesterfield, VA 23832 Attn: Director of Public Utilities 9.12. Successors and Assigns Bound. This Agreement shall extend to and be binding upon the parties hereto, and their respective legal representatives, successors and assigns. 9.13. Exhibits. All exhibits to this Agreement are incorporated herein by reference. 9.14. Termination. This Agreement shall terminate 20 years after the Agreement is executed by both parties or by an earlier date by agreement of the parties; provided, however, that except for termination for cause due to Material Breach, the Director's obligation under Section 4.1 herein to pay the Grant amount shall survive termination if such amount has not been paid in full as of the termination date. -8- (~'~~®~~ ARTICLE X COUNTERPARTS 10. This Agreement may be executed in any number of Counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument. ARTICLE XI NUTRIENT CREDITS TO BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR EXCHANGE 11. To aid in implementing the Nutrient Credit Exchange Program, the Grantee shall make all Point Source Nitrogen and Phosphorus Credits generated in a calendar year available for nutrient allocation compliance. "Point Source Nitrogen Credit" and "Point Source Phosphorus Credit" shall have the meaning as defined in Virginia Code §62.1-44.19:13. The amount of Credits and facilities authorized to generate Credits shall be governed by the Watershed General Permit Regulation for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Discharges and Nutrient Trading (9 VAC 25-820). The Department shall control Credits not otherwise used by the Grantee for waste load allocations or compliance purposes and will make such Credits reasonably available to other dischargers for nutrient allocation compliance through the Water Quality Improvement Fund. For purposes of this Agreement, "used by the Grantee" shall include any use whereby the Credits are applied to any compliance obligation of the Grantee, included within an individual compliance plan or basin-level compliance plan of the Virginia Nutrient Credit Exchange Association, or traded to and used by the owner or operator of another facility for nutrient allocation compliance. WITNESS the following signatures, all duly authorized. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY By: Date: GRANTEE'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE By: Date: -9- ~®~~~9 EXHIBIT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION Grantee: Chesterfield County Grant: #440-S-08-20 Chesterfield County owns and operates the Proctors Creek WWTP, which provides secondary treatment and nutrient reduction technology (NRT) for a permitted design flow of 21.5 MGD. The existing WWTP consists of: screening, grit removal, communition, flow equalization, primary sedimentation, activated sludge with BNR mode up to 21.5 MGD (nitrification with seasonal denitrification only at flows from 21.5 - 27 MGD), backup chemical phosphorus removal, effluent filtration, chlorination, dechlorination, and post-aeration. Sludge is anaerobically digested and land applied. Under new nutrient discharge control regulations for the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, the County received a combined, "bubbled" waste load allocation for nitrogen and phosphorus for its two treatment plants discharging within the James watershed. As per the Preliminary Engineering (Nutrient Compliance) Report revised in September 2007, the County will upgrade the existing secondary treatment process to an enhanced nutrient removal system designed for annual average effluent concentrations of 5.0 mg/1 total nitrogen. This project consists of various facilities included in the PER which are intended to achieve nutrient compliance. Nutrient reduction technology (NRT) processes being funded for nitrogen compliance are described as follows: Headworks and Primary Treatment Areas: Fine screens are proposed in the plant upgrade. The screens provide protection to the Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) system in particular; but, they will also improve downstream processes (such as clarification and sludge handling). Due to lower maintenance requirements and owner preference, fine drum screens -installed upstream of the primary clarifiers -are anticipated for the final design. Influent flow to the screen facilities will be pumped from the existing pump station; but, a building will be required to house the drum screens and screenings handling equipment Secondary Treatment: The existing plant includes two distinctive process trains -commonly referred to as East and West sides -and relies on an existing 66:34 flow split. The secondary treatment facilities and upgrades fora 4-stage activated sludge, biological nutrient removal process includes the following. West Aeration Basins: The platforms and mechanical mixers must be removed from these basins and they will be replaced with a diffused aeration grid. A baffle wall will be placed in the initial chamber of each basin to provide aerobic and anoxic cells. The IFAS system is anticipated to operate using an initial anoxic zone, followed by aerobic conditions, a second anoxic zone, and then a small aeration zone at the 00®~®~ end. The first anoxic zone would receive a recycle of nitrates from the tail-end of the first aerobic section, as well as the influent and the RAS flows. Mixers will be installed in the anoxic zones. The first aerobic compartment will contain the suspended IFAS media and retention screens. The existing aeration grid will require modification to maintain the media screen which keeps the media from traveling forward and to supply air via ceramic, fine bubble diffusers for the increased biological activity. The second anoxic zone receives the forward flow and the supplemental carbon, associated with denitrification. East Aeration Basin: Nitrified recycle (NRCY) pumping currently is provided for each basin. The NRCY flows must be redirected to the first anoxic zones as part of this project and this will require reconfiguration of the existing piping. The IFAS system is anticipated to operate using an initial anoxic zone, followed by aerobic conditions, a second anoxic zone, and then a small aeration zone at the end. The first anoxic zone would receive a recycle of nitrates from the tail-end of the first aerobic section, as well as the influent and the RAS flows. Mixers will be installed in the anoxic zones. The first aerobic compartment will contain the suspended IFAS media and retention screens. The existing aeration grid will require modification to maintain the media screen which keeps the media from traveling forward and to supply air via fine bubble, membrane diffusers for the increased biological activity. The second anoxic zone receives the forward flow and the supplemental carbon, associated with denitrification. In addition to modifying the aeration grid, the existing baffles will require alterations and additional work is also required in these tanks to structurally brace the walls. Lastly, dewatering of individual basins was not included in the original designed; thus, pumps will be located at the end of each aerobic zone. The current blowers are not all operational for the proposed modifications. Replacement of the blowers will allow/incorporate piping and sizing adjustments; thereby, making a natural division between the two sides of the Proctors Creek plant. Clarifiers: The secondary clarifiers perform well and no modification is proposed. Use of an IFAS system may reduce the solids load to the clarifiers, as many of the solids will be attached growth. Chemical Feed Systems: Carbon for denitrification will require chemical storage/feed and final design will identify the carbon sources for use. While methanol is the traditional chemical, the facility will be constructed so other formulations (acetic acid or sugar solutions) can be used. t~0®~®1 EXHIBIT B TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET Grantee: Chesterfield County Grant: #440-5-09-06 The followin bud et reflects the estimated costs associated with eli ible NRT com onents of the Project. PROJECT COMPONENT PROJECT COSTS % ELIGIBLE PROJECT COSTS NOTES(1) Influent Meterin $759,092 0% $0 1 Fine Screen and Buildin $11,704,711 75% $8,778,533 2 Prim Flow Distribution $12,000 0% $0 3 New Prima Clarifier $3,819,360 0% $0 3 Prima Slud a Pum s West) $281,220 0% $0 3 Process Blowers $3,990,000 95% $3,790,500 4a East Biolo ical Basin Modifications $9 742 200 95% $9 255 090 4a Old West Biolo ical Basin Modifications $6 210 000 95% $5 899 500 4a West RAS Pum s $1 650 000 100% $1 650 000 4b Su lemental Carbon Stora e/Feed $5 796 000 100% $5 796 000 4b Construction Subtotal $43,964,583 80.00% $35,169,623 General Site Work Electrical & Pi in $2 400 000 79.99% $1 919 806 5 Construction Total $46 364 583 80.00% $37 089 429 re immary ngmeering eport $339,478 79.99% $271,555 5 Final Design (Plans & Specs) $5,337,352 79.99% $4,269,449 5 Value Engineering $150,000 100.0% $150,000 6 CM/Ins ection IC Di ester $2,312,152 79.99% $1,849,534 6 En ineerin Total $8 138 982 $6 540 538 Construction Contingency (NIC Digester) $2,318,229 $1,854,471 7 TOTALS 56 821 794 $45 484 439 GRANT PERCENTAGE 35% GRANT AMOUNT $15,919,554 Notes: (A) See next page for details about costs attributable to Nutrient Removal Technology. (B) Contingency set at 5%. (~®0~1..~iZ EXHIBIT B PROJECT BUDGET (continued) Grantee: Chesterfield County Grant: #440-S-09-06 Page B-2: Notes on costs attributable to Nutrient Removal Technology (NRT): Not considered to be NRT. 2. Similar to the membrane bioreactor, fine screening is needed ahead of the IFAS process. DEQ Guidance Memorandum (GM) #06-2012 allows a maximum eligibility for the membrane bioreactor as 75%; this was determined as appropriate. 3. While a portion of the cost would eligible, as determined per DEQ Guidance Memorandum (GM) #06-2012, the grantee has stated they do not wish to receive cost share for the unit process. a. Based on the proposed technology, the unit processes were considered to be 100% NRT; however, DEQ staff felt 5% of the process costs should be attributable to biological phosphorus reduction and the grantee does not wish to receive any cost share associated with phosphorus technology. b. Based on the ammonia control requirements and the proposed technology, the unit processes were considered to be 100% NRT. Thus, eligible percentage for the unit process, as determined per DEQ Guidance Memorandum (GM) #06-2012. Represents the construction costs associated with funding for NRT divided by the total construction cost, as per DEQ GM #06-2012. 6. Eligible percentage for the unit process, as determined per DEQ Guidance Memorandum (GM) #06-2012. 7. Contingency costs are shown as 5%; contingency will be recalculated after bids after received. l~0®x.03 EXHIBIT C PROJECT SCHEDULE Grantee: Chesterfield County Grant: #440-S-09-06 The Grantee has proposed the following schedule of key activities/milestones as a planning tool which may be subject to change. In particular, the Grantee acknowledges that the appropriate approval (Certificate to Construct) must be issued by the Department prior to proceeding with construction. Unless authorized by a grant modification, it is the responsibility of the Grantee to adhere to the anticipated schedule for the project as follows: Activi Date a. Submit A rovable Plans and S ecifications (Fine Screens On or before June 30, 2008 b. Issue Notice to Proceed for Fine Screen Contract On or before Oct. 31, 2008 c. Submit A rovable Plans & S ecifications for NRT On or before Ma 31, 2009 d. Issue Notice to Proceed for NRT On or before Nov. 30, 2009 e. Submit letter of Substantial Com letion for the ro'ect On or before Dec. 30, 2012 ~~Q~~'~ EXHIBIT D REQUISITION FOR REIMBURSEMENT (To be on Grantee's Letterhead) Department of Environmental Quality Chesapeake Bay Program P.O. Box 1105 Richmond, VA 23218 Attn.: WQIF Program Manager RE: Virginia Water Quality Improvement Fund Grant Contract #440-S-09-06 Dear Program Manager: This requisition, Number , is submitted in connection with the referenced Financing Agreements between the Director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the Hampton Roads Sanitation District. The effective date of the grant agreement is [insert date of grant agreement]. Unless otherwise defined in this requisition, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the meaning set forth in Article I of the Grant Agreement. The undersigned Authorized Representative of the Grantee hereby requests disbursement of grant proceeds under the Grant Agreement in the amount of $ for the purposes of payment of the Eligible Project Costs as set forth on Schedule I attached hereto. Copies of invoices relating to the items for which payment is requested are attached. The undersigned certifies that the amounts requested by this requisition will be applied solely and exclusively to the reimbursement of the Grantee for the payment of Eligible Project Costs. This requisition includes (if applicable) an accompanying Certificate of the Project Engineer as to the performance of the work. Sincerely, (Authorized Representative of the Grantee) Attachments cc: DEQ-Regional CAP Engineer 0(~0~~5 W Q W w `" H~ w~ w~ O ~ a~ W~~ QH~ O' w x Paz ~¢ wa 3~ dU z¢ ~ ~ O w U o E~ d -~ ~ z ~~:° ~ z ~~ o ~° ~ ~~~ z w ~, ~ a ~ a ~~~ ~~ ~_ a~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ U ~ c QH c -o ~ o a ~ ;~ ~ a ~~ ~ Q ~ °' ~~ o~ ~ ~ a Q <..a O~ v ~ ~ O o O o O c~ M ~o ~D v ~/"~ ~~~ O i M ~ M r M l~ O 01 ~ O~ ~ ~ O ~~V v O~ ~ ~ 01 ~ N ~n ~ ^ oo a, d' ~ ~ ~ a, p,,, ~, ~ ~ `~ ri ~ s9 v; ~ a o ~, 3¢w O ~ V1 OO ~ ~ N ~ U M _ O U O~ M O ~ ~ ~ N F" . ^ M M ~ ~ M M ~ a M `~ ~ . . `t' ~ N~ NC~ ~ Q F- O o ~ ~ ~ ~° ~~ '~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ v Q w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ \ .~, ~ U cW., w > U U U ~ ~ es Q Q N Q ~ ~ +--+ ~ N o C7 F a E~-~ ~~ Q ~ o. c '~ '~ 6, ~, N ~ ~ ~ ~ O C7 a E~ C7 t~0®~_~6 CERTIFICATE OF THE PROJECT ENGINEER FORM TO ACCOMPANY REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT Grantee: Chesterfield County Grant: #440-S-09-06 This Certificate is submitted in connection with Requisition Number ,dated 20_, submitted by the (the "Grantee") to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings set forth in Article I of the Grant Agreement referred to in the Requisition. The undersigned Project Engineer for hereby certifies that insofar as the amounts covered by this Requisition include payments for labor or to contractors, builders or material men, such work was actually performed or such materials, supplies, or equipment were actually furnished to or installed in the Project. (Project Engineer) (Date) ®~,..®~ F~ x w H d U F d z w O z a O a z~ O U ~o .b o ~ c` ~o ,y, v' ~~ U~ rN V W a N w a a d ~~ ~z a ~ ~w wp F o ;~ F L F _ z r z~ o~ U a w W ~ e ~ c ~ a ~ a a c a a c c ^ a c o L ~' 0 i.n . 0 i.r Y 0 4r ~' 0 it ~' 0 tr r 0 Lr Y 0 i.a Y 0 it . y 0 ~.+ 0 i.r ..~'.r 0 i.r r 0 ~i ..~ z z . n z . r z . .i z z .. . z .~ z . i z z z z z Y ~ A VV Y Y ~ ~ ~ Y i~~+ ~ Y H } + ~ ~ l^ ~ L F'^ ~ L l^ ~ L F'+ z 0 ~ L ~ ~ Q ~ U •--' Y ~ ~ a~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ N L~ ~ ~ w c0 ~ Q cC ~ C ti ~ ti ¢ a' ~ O Z Q ®~.~..~~ EXHIBIT E REPORTING OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS (continued) Grantee: Chesterfield County Grant: #440-S-09-06 Data Excluded Due to the Occurrence of Extraordinary Conditions: (if applicable; attach explanation) Date(s): Operator Responsible for Samples: Telephone: Certificate Number: Date: ®®`~..®~ EXHIBIT F FORMULA FOR CALCULATING MONETARY ASSESSMENT FOR EXCEEDANCE OF NUMERICAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS Grantee: Chesterfield County Grant: #440-S-09-06 Section 1: Nitrogen Exceedances CN = (TNe/TNr) x AnPay x PerGrant where: CN = Assessment for Nitrogen Exceedance. TNe = Exceedance in tenths of a milligram per liter. TNr = Expected nitrogen removal (difference between "pre-nutrient removal" annual average concentration and 5.0 mg/1 limitation) in tenths of a milligram per liter. AnPay = Annual Payment on grant; assumes principal payments amortized over 20 years and an interest rate of 5 percent. Using these assumed values leads to a "cost recovery factor" of 0.0802. The "cost recovery factor" times the grant amount yields the Annual Payment amount. PerGrant = Percentage of grant received by year of exceedance. Values used for Grant #440-S-09-06 Pre-Nutrient Removal TN Concentration Effluent TN Concentration Limitation Grant Amounts for TN Removal: • Original BNR Project • This NRT Project Total Grant Amount Useful Service Life: • Original BNR Project • This NRT Project Interest Rate = 18.7 mg/1 = 5.0 mg/1 _ $965,560 _ $15,919,554 _ $16,885,114 = 13 years remaining = 20 years = 5 percent Calculated (assumes grant paid 100%): Expected Removal (TNr) = 12.7 mg/1 AnPay = $1,759,528 CN = $10,054 (for each 0.1 mg/1 TN exceedance) h,~,na CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.6. Subiect: Approval of the Chesterfield County Police Department Towing Contract Fee Addendum County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Approval of the attached towing contract fee addendum as approved by the Chesterfield County Police Department Towing Advisory Board. Summary of Information: The Police Department contracts with towing companies to tow vehicles that are inoperable due to varying circumstances such as vehicle crashes and mechanical problems. These companies are called upon when the owner of the vehicle has no preference on a wrecker. Per Virginia Code section 46.2-1217, the Towing Advisory Board, which is appointed by the Board of Supervisors, must review and agree on any changes to the contract between the Police Department and the tow company owners. The Towing Advisory Board met and agreed on the attached fee addendum. The County Attorney's Office has approved the fee addendum. The Towing Advisory Board and the Police Department endorse the attached contract and price addendum and request approval by the Board of Supervisors. Preparers Thierry G. Dupuis Title: Chief of Police Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # Q®®~.1~3 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA In light of the increase in fuel cost the Towing Advisory Board proposes the attached fee increases. Attached is the current fee structure and proposed fees. After considerable research, the Towing Advisory Board agreed to propose an increase in the fees based on the Producers Price Index (PPI). The County Purchasing Department uses both the Producers Price Index and Consumers Price Index (CPI) to set fees within contracts. Both indexes are published by the Bureau of Labors Statistics. Numerous indexes published by Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) are utilized as a standard of practice to set prices in contracts. It was determined, through conversations with staff at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the most appropriate index to use. The index, "General Freight Local Trucking" was recommended by Bureau of Labor Statistics staff. This index is a barometer for the costs to companies who engage in this type of commerce. Towing fees have not increased in over two years. Therefore, the Towing Advisory Board based the increase on the PPI for the last two years. The Towing Advisory Board is also proposing that any future increases will be based on the annual PPI. At the time of contract renewal (which would be in April), the PPI for the previous year would be reviewed and any fee increase would be based on that PPI. We would use the Consumer Price Index as a floor. If the PPI was less than the CPI, the increase would be no less than the CPI. It should be noted that historical data reveal that the PPI has consistently been higher than the CPI. BLS staff advised that the practice of using the CPI as a floor is acceptable. Police Department staff are in agreement that the fee increases are acceptable and setting a standard for future increases is a preferable method for revising fees. 00®~.~.9 These are the maximum allowable charges to citizens as determined by the Chesterfield County Police Department. Services Current Day Current Night, Weekend, Holiday Proposed Day Proposed Ni ht g Weekend, Holiday 1. Towing wrecked asse hi l p nger ve c e, light duty pick-ups, SUVs and vans (glass, metal, plastic sweep-up fee included). $145 $175 $161 $194 2 Towin disabled a hi . g p ssenger ve cle, light duty pick-ups, SUVs and vans. Vehicles towed to Police impound lot. $70 $80 $78 $89 3 Traffic infractions . $100 $115 $111 $128 4 Towin wrecked ste l d . g p vans, un oa ed dump trucks, delivery trucks, pick-ups with dual rear wheels, or vehicles requiring a medium-duty wrecked (glass, metal, plastic sweep-up fee included . $200 $230 $222 $255 5 Towin disabl d t . g e s ep-up cans, unloaded dump trucks, delivery trucks, pick-ups with dual rear wheels, or vehicles re uirin a medium-du wrecker. $105 $120 $117 $133 6 Char e for dis i d i . g connect ng r ve shaft, transaxle, transmission, transmission linkage in order to prevent drive train dams e. Multi le char es are not allowed. $40 $40 $44 $44 7. Storage fee-No storage fee for the first calendar day the vehicle was towed. Fees begin at 12:01 am each calendar day after the first da the vehicle was towed. $35 $35 $39 $39 8. After-hour release fee-applicable from 5:01 pm to 6:59 am, Mon-Fri. Applicable Saturdays and Sundays and on a roved holida s*. $45 $45 $45 $45 9. DMV Title search, lien holder/owner notification fees. $85 $85 $85 $gs 10. One time charge per vehicle for use of winch for a vehicle with at least two wheels completely off the roadway, off the designated shoulder, or overturned. Multiple winching charges shall not be allowed. $60 $75 $67 $83 11. Charges per mile over three (3) miles from the `hoop-up' site if the final destination is other than our towin stora e lot. $3 $3 $4 $4 ®~~~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~,~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA ~xc~rn~ Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.7.a. Subject: Transfer $4,200 from the Bermuda District Improvement Fund to the Parks and Recreation Department for the Department to Purchase Materials to Erect a Press Box and Scoreboard at Elizabeth Scott Elementary School County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Reauested: Transfer $4,200 from the Bermuda District Improvement Fund to the Parks and Recreation Department for the Department to purchase materials needed to erect a press box and scoreboard at Elizabeth Scott Elementary School. Summary of Information: Supervisor Jaeckle has requested the Board to transfer $4,200 from the Bermuda District Improvement Fund to the Parks and Recreation Department for the purchase of materials to erect a press box and scoreboard at Elizabeth Scott Elementary School. The Scott Athletic Association originally requested funds from the County to purchase the materials. The County is not legally authorized to give money to private organizations like the Association but the County can give money to the Parks and Recreation Department to purchase building materials and make capital improvements on County property for a public purpose. The Department must purchase the materials in accordance with the Virginia Public Procurement Act and County purchasing polices. For information regarding available balances in the District Improvement Fund accounts, please reference the District Improvement Fund Report. Preparers Allan M. Carmody Title:_ Director, Budget & Management 0425:79261.1 Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No 000121 DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT FUNDS APPLICATION This application must be completed and signed before the County can consider a request for funding with District Improvement Funds. Completing and signing this form does not mean that you will receive funding or that the County can legally consider your request. Virginia law places substantial restrictions on tine authority of the County to give public funds, such as District Improvement Funds, to private persons or organizations and these restrictions may preclude the County's Board of Supervisors from even considering your request 1. What is the name of the applicant (person or organization) making this funding request? S c a T7~ V~ T H4 ~~ i ~ ~~• y¢ ~ So ~, 2. If an organization is the applicant, what is the nature and purpose of the organization? (Also attach organization's most recent articles of incorporation and/or bylaws to application. ~l~r~ Tif ~T/-/Lt~ i . c ~-~-Sc; 7}1g-7"~~~a v;'~>rs 3. What is the amount of funding you are seeking? ~ ~~ D; i_ S S ~ ~k ~~d 0 ~a. Sc c~~ ~d'of4~.~ 4. Describe in detail the funding request and how the money, if approved, will be spent. ~~~ ~P~ ,..ss ,t~~•. k f„~d . ,~ ~ rg~_ C,~;,..~ri in.,Jidir'•,> ~ 6/o a ~ ~ ~JG' ~ a r1f ~" j~/v 1`"d f T14i4L 1.. /~ ~ /= ~ t7 /4% ,~ [- i Z . 4~r4 ~1,`S ~. r! ~' .a>~~t,.t . ~'ffc~ c1 S~ a t/o cn ~ ~ ~ o /~_~ 2 //7 ~Tir,~ ~'~-~,s. ~7~ v a c~~~~3c~~~ /,~~ s ~ C d N ~T N ~ v~.~li`_"~~ ~ T' s>4r7>~ >~~ %~ ~ v~ r./o ~t ~~~ G u ~ 5. Is any County Department involved in the project, event or croaram for which you are seeking funds? 63533.1 Page 1 Q~Q~..e~~siZ 6. If this request for funding will not fully fund your activity or program, what other individuals or organizations will provide the remainder of the funding? 7. If applicant is an organization, answer the following: Is the organization a corporation? Yes / No Is the organization non-profit? Yes / No Is the organization tax-exempt? Yes No 8. What is the address of the applicant making this funding request? SC e)7 14 r17~1., ~ C/ j ; C ~4.SSe J~•r> ~y 3ai3 Ci .~Crzsi~ t/4~ . ~3~31 9. What is the telephone number, fax number, a-mail address of the applicant? ~`e c.p - -7 z ~ - 7 ~ ! q ~v ~ - $'z~ ~~~ ~~l Signature of applicant. If you are signing on behalf of an organization you must be the president, vice-president, chairman/director or vice-chairman of the organization. C ~~ ~~~.~G--- Signature U~.- ~.~~ Title (if signing on behalf of an organization) Printed Name ~-9 ~ a~' Date 63533.1 Page 2 oo®.~~..+c~.3 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 r AGENDA ~RCIT/V Meeting Date: ~uiy 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.7.b. Subject: Transfer a Total of $4,525 in Midlothian District Improvement Funds to the Police and Parks and Recreation Departments and to the School Board to Defray the Costs of the Midlothian Village Day Festival County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: n The Board of Supervisors is requested to transfer a total of $4,525 in Midlothian District Improvement Funds to the Police and Parks and Recreation Departments and to the School Board to rent space and equipment and to provide services for the Midlothian Village Day Festival. Summary of Information: Supervisor Gecker has requested that the Board transfer $4,525 in Midlothian District Improvement Funds to pay a portion of the costs incurred by the County to supply equipment; police and parks and recreation services; and school space for the Midlothian Village Day Festival on October 18, 2008. The Festival is a long-standing event that is co-sponsored by the County pursuant to a written agreement and is open to the general public. The Police and Parks and Recreation Departments and the School Board have traditionally given assistance to the Festival and the requested funds will help defray the costs incurred by these departments to rent equipment and space and to provide services and facilities, which the departments previously planned to provide. $2,200 of the amount will be transferred to the Police Department to provide uniformed officers. $1,675 will be transferred to Parks and Recreation to rent tables, chairs, a stage platform Preparers Allan M. Carmody Title: Director Budget and Management 0425:79264.1 Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # ,~ ®O V ~1Cr~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA and other equipment, pay for an off duty police officer, and to publicize the event as well as cover the expense of a U-Haul trailer to transport the items to the festival site. $350 will be transferred to the School Board for the cost of renting Midlothian Middle School and providing custodial services. This request originally came from the Midlothian Junior Women's Club. The County is legally prohibited from donating money to this organization. The Board is authorized, however, to defray the cost incurred by County departments and the School Board for civic events which the County has traditionally sponsored pursuant to a co-sponsorship agreement and which are open to the general public and serve a community-wide audience. For information regarding available balances in the District Improvement Fund accounts, please reference the District Improvement Fund Report. 00®x.25 Page 1 DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT FUNDS APPLICATION This application must be completed and signed before the County can consider a request for funding with District Improvement Funds. Completing and signing this form does not mean that you will receive funding or that the County can legally consider your request. Virginia law places substantial restrictions on the authority of the County to give public funds, such as District Improvement Funds, to private persons or organizations and these restrictions may preclude the County's Board of Supervisors from even considering your request. What is the name of the applicant (person or organization) making this funding request? Midlothian Junior Woman's Club (MJWC) and the South of the James Junior Chamber Jaycees (SOJJ) 2 If an organization is the applicant, what is the nature and purpose of the organization? (Also attach organization's most recent articles of incorporation and/or bylaws to application.) The MJWC is anon-profit civic organization that is composed of women dedicated to service of our community through volunteerism and various community projects. The South of the James Jaycees is also anon-profit civic organization for young leaders in the metropolitan Richmond area. 3. What is the amount of funding you are seeking? $4,525-Please see attachment for breakdown 4. Describe in detail the funding request and how the money, if approved, will be spent. The funding will be used to defray the costs of approximately twelve county policemen needed by the Jaycees to secure Midlothian Turnpike for the annual parade prior to the 27th Annual Fall Festival slated for October 18, 2008. The additonal funding will be spent on rental of stage, tables and chairs, rental of Midlothian Midldle School and fee for police security on site the day of the Festival. 5. Is any County Department involved in the project, event or program for which (~00~~~ Page 2 you are seeking funds? Yes-Department of Parks and Recreation, Chesterfield County Police Department and Midlothian Middle School 6. If this request for funding will not fully fund your activity or program, what other individuals or organizations will provide the remainder of the funding? Community Business Sponsors and Patrons, the Midlothian Junior Woman's Club and the South of the James Jaycees. 7. If applicant is an organization, answer the following: Is the organization a corporation? Yes ^ No Is the organization non-profit? Yes ® No ^ Is the organization tax-exempt? Yes ® No ^ 8. What is the address of the applicant making this funding request? Mary Eovino-2008 Festival Chairperson, 807 Ferrylanding Drive, Richmond, Va, 23236 9. What is the telephone number; fax number, e-mail address of the applicant? Home-804-897-8373/Cel I-804-366-7111 email: maryeovino@yahoo.com Signature of applicant. If you are signing on behalf of an organization you must be the president, vice-president, chairman/director orvice-chairman of the organization. ~®0..2'7 Page 3 ~~ Signature 2008 Festival Chairperson Title (if signing on behalf of an organization) Mary Eovino Printed Name June 28, 2008 Date ®001.2 Summary of Expenses for the 2008 Midlothian Village Day Festival Expense Item Cost Rental of Midlothian Middle $350 Fee for Off Duty Police Officer $300 Stage from County Parks & $900 Recreation Tables and Chairs from County $400 Parks & Recreation Dumpster Rental $375 Police Traffic Control for the Parade $2,200 Total Upfront Festival Costs $4,525 0©®~29 ~!Rc~r~* CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: .July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.6.7.c. Subject: Transfer $2,766 from the Matoaca District Improvement Fund to the School Board to Fund the Foster Grandparents Program at Ettrick Elementary School County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Re Transfer $2,766 from the Matoaca District Improvement Fund to the School Board to fund the Foster Grandparents Program at Ettrick Elementary School. Summary of Information: Supervisor Durfee has requested that the Board transfer $2,766 from the Matoaca District Improvement Fund to the School Board to fund the Foster Grandparents Program at Ettrick Elementary School. Under this School Board program, volunteer senior citizens will work with 25 kindergarten and first grade students who are experiencing reading difficulty. This early intervention has been proven to prevent future reading problems for such students later in their education. This request was originally made by the Foster Grandparents Program. The Board is not authorized to give public funds to organizations like the Foster Grandparent Program. The County can legally transfer public funds to the School Board to pay operating expenses of an education program which is sanctioned by the School Board, offered as part of the public school curriculum and operated in a public school facility. For information regarding available balances in the District Improvement Fund accounts, please reference the District Improvement Fund Report. Preparers Allan M. Carmody Attachments: ^ Yes Title: Director, Budget and Management 0425:79267.1 ^ No # ®®Q~..~~ DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT FUNDS APPLICATION This application must be completed and signed before the County can consider a request for funding with District Improvement Funds. Completing and signing this form does not mean that you will receive funding or that the County can legally consider your request. Virginia law places substantial restrictions on the authority of the County to give public funds, such as District Improvement Funds, to private persons or organizations and these restrictions may preclude the County's Board of Supervisors from even considering your request. 1. What is the name of the applicant (person? or organization) making this funding request? Foster Grandparent Program 2. If an organization is the applicant, what is? the nature and purpose of the organization? (Also attach organization's most recent articles of incorporation and/or bylaws to application.) The mission of the program is to provide opportunities for low-income seniors to volunteer in schools, child care centers, iuvenile detention centers, homeless shelters, institutions for the mentally retarded and group foster homes. 3. What is the amount of funding you are seeking? $2,766 4. Describe in detail the funding request and how the money, if approved, will be spent. The requested funds will be used to supplement the cost of stipends for 2 foster grandparents for a nine month period. They will serve as mentors or tutors for children with special problems. 5. Is any County Department involved in the project, event or program for which you are seeking funds? No 6. If this request for funding will not fully fund your activity or program, what other individuals or organizations will provide the remainder of the funding? Additional funds will be requested from other local sources, such as United Wav Services or federal funds. ®®~~~~ 7. If applicant is an organization, answer the following: Is the organization a corporation? Is the organization non-profit? Is the organization tax-exempt? 8. What is the address of the applicant making this funding request? 9. What is the telephone number, fax number, a-mail address of the applicant? Yes No_X_ Yes X No Yes_X_ No 23 Seyler Drive Petersburg, VA 23805 (804) 861-3185 Fax (804) 732-9459 FGPINC(~AOL.COM Title (if signify on behalf of an organization) ~~ ---/ ~/ -D R' Date 0508:23380.1 ~®~~..~~ Signature of applicant. If you are signing on behalf of an organization you must be the president, vice-president, chairman/director orvice-chairman of the organization. _ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA ~l__ fD1lP, Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.8.a. Subject: Acceptance of Parcels of Land Along Watkins Centre Parkway from Watkins Land, L.L.C. County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Accept the conveyance of parcels of land containing a total of 0.224 acres along Watkins Centre Parkway from Watkins Land L.L.C., and authorize the County Administrator to execute the deed. Summary of Information: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors accept the conveyance of parcels of land containing a total of 0.224 acres along Watkins Centre Parkway. This dedication is for the development of Watkins Centre Parkway. District: Midlothian Preparers John W. Harmon Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No Title: Right of Wav Manager # 000133 VICINITY SKETCH Acceptance of Parcels of Land along Watkins Centre Parkway from Watkins Land, L.L.G. 0 ?~ U~ ~ ~ ~ ~9iy r~ ~ ~'~' R~ 2 ~ n 3 d ~ x ~ Cl V l~V+! DR O D ~ ° ors s~ A ~ ~~~-~r11A TPK~ Q•014 Acre Dedication p~~ ~ M ~ ~ / ~ f~ '`~ .- ~' 0.4t14Acre Dedication ~~'~9~~i- ~~ s ~ ~~ ~~ 4.21Q Acre Dedication ~~ o ~o ro N ~ ~ ~a N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities 1~ w ;~J~E s I hcl eyrak6fibb7 Ret ~o®~~~ n o~ gip` ~M ~° Oyy~ o; O ~~ N s e N npfi Z f N ~~ ~ 1'I voz ~~ ems + Ln Wgo ~~~%~~~ ~ fJ~ suuq inn uppu ~~v0p V `+ C, . Q G ~ ~Yn O' Qj! ~ NT ~~ F~~ ~~ ~ L ~ ~~ ~N i~~F2 My0 3 ~~~ppl ~ $o _ ~ ~ ~ yp ~~i4 w iA a~~:~ ~9l~ L ~ .''. f~1 LN 14t oNNNi., g a I11 f1 ~ 97F.. ._.~~~..~.. LSO ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ .n N L 'y L5 LJ4 • CY _ rei ~ ~ Cl,i -~ ~ W "~ -° a ~ 11 1568.16 ~ A -"kis //~ e C50 ~. [:'y. _. l.b Alp b7`C~ '• ~y1Ei+(t rq ~ ` D. ut ATf P ~~J 7~E' ,'~ S ~ ~ ~ 71 V2 C11 SO I,:131i. ~.• • q~• j_~y ~~ j 9b~„ R '~RIC6YAy ~;. + 0 ~V '..~ .,~ .. ~ A,t J . ba 65l l9D H.... ail' (~~ p,44 AP J7r w_~ ~y~_..~ .~ a ~ *T a 22QQ$$$S5 r / ~ N ~ II. ay NV ~O ~... .~. I• +V G~ ~P 11 ~ , p Smg~ ~ If^ • y~oWj wee g$ I ~8~N~ L ~ %~ ~I Y ~JUarL ;Op o~ w.'' ~ ~~S~C ' F I ~ /, , ~ _i . t" A N G - .+ oO ~ V }an. ~ i o r C m y ~ a m~C ~ ~ pp 77 V~r 'A ~~~ vl O s 2+ ~ ' O m ~ e T~~~ Z b N ~ o~~ z oav~i ~. In~~~w D A ~ 1 ~~~rn u aae ~ ?PA ~ czms ~f>,: xxxx S3Ao~~ _~ OG y r uUb X000 1/! Q bud; n~ P88 w00 4 sg~V ± OsrNa non ~i ~~~~ N n gi ~i ~i ~ N U-Q'~Iqqw~ P fpCY NYC b$ O^'~V+~ Q~i y~0 ~O~ P ~P~P ~`~ p~p R s m=_~~~ m d/, d . r/ ~~ ..~ ~ ~` ~~ ~ ~a 1y a ? ~yC ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ?~~~' Z~~N A°r T~~ ~'° Y ~m0 .y l• S C !lIII ~n-, pi _ euc ea ~~ ~~ Z .y ~~~ x~~ x~ 't2 \ V ' r..... ~~ i f0 TAL}` .+ 1f l:l$ u'W ~..~ fL i 3c ~+~~ ~~ `i ~- ~5 ~b ,mm is r• u ~nNN N~~° „ ~. r'vnl. j+~ ~ VmV, •, ~O+,J Of i. D .r '; `1 u. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~~~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 - ~ AGENDA ,~ Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.8.b. Subject: Acceptance of a Parcel of Land Along Ecoff Avenue from Michael T. Cole County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Reauested: Accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.058 acres along Ecoff Avenue from Michael T. Cole, and authorize the County Administrator to execute the deed. Summary of Information: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.058 acres along Ecoff Avenue. This dedication is for the development of Hillendale Day Care. Approval is recommended. District: Bermuda Preparers John W. Harmon Title: Real Property Manager Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # 000.36 VICINITY SKETCH ACCEPTANCE GF A PARCEL GF LAND ALaNG ECraFF AVENUE FRaIYI MICHAEL T. CaLE "' ~~ . CHESTER VILLAGE DR `" ~' 2. FOUNTAIN SQUARE P fi ~ FESTIVAL DR .~. 4. RATION AVE ~ 5 AI UAR WAY ~ G VILLA a~ ~~~ Q.Q58 Acre Dedication 1. GRAND OAKS FOREST CIR 2. GRAND DAKS FOREST CT 3. CHESTER SQUARE AVE N Chesterfield County Department of utilities 1., w ;~~-1-E s 1 hcl eq~ak fi56b1 #et (~®®x.3'7 ~ +~rnnur Tnc~ ,k Y ~' a~9N ~ 14/~Y A'+9h+ ,iNi1°ya ~ gas-ash-s~3o-ao0iva a fro ~a~. Hers-sas-ae2f-o~o~o ~ yea-sae-ara9-ooaov Tt9TAL AlFfil Tt7 6L~' UEDM^.A78'O LOT 2 LOT J LOT f ~~P.B~. fEa P~S~Nl5~N LOT 3 LOT f0 fnay- Aby p1 ••/ • J - h V ~ V _a ~. ,~ m seE DE7~IGTED Q?3J Acne ac~a ~. 0.29f Acw ~~~ w~wrw . a~oenew ww..w . w.,w..,,, +~ia~w.~~" ~ wv~~+w~sn „o. aYT„s a,e. AwPw. N.yn~ 7+ots PMw: MW7M AYO -AR MO?T!-~DlO +~i~ cl~ PN Dlhi~ ~~ ~l Nrptir I70~~ N~u1~ ~OMlf.0137 FAM ~?{,MiGty~ 10~ M~fpYQ ~~~ ws~.w.o, ~.. swYo no.. aas+-owe wnr m~ FAY. MYO~Fi'Yt ~~~ /R'ADfO EL1~1~` ANE Q~.~p 1~ i7J f.Neht Ae Arreeegarr s~o~aiiaw 9atttas' u~~.~~a~ a~- a~T N17 A ~,-aooav ~~ r~e~cenw exscn~c • AasDr ace ar ~o EaaRs A1E RPM ~ a~ dNlf Ac ' .xf.3+f Ac AMnalah ~E51FRfTEYD ~ ~~ f}7.7f0 7fsa-Ltplp~q? 3 I~ Q ft0 Ac QeoMn~ lYorn ~ ~f ~b o/ (.1M~IM-1Wr ti i a:,ev Ac a b. s+• ~ a Ae ~i a ~~ Apongr Y~1o Aof. Lke~ Eaoarruvr!^~ D.B1dl' P~..~?9 fa• iw~. tM. za~~ PoPo+sv f' ~~ ~ ~ w ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ 4 td' MlHrr Lbe~ ~ Ewwnwnt ~ O.~F-I~ Pp.~99 t S irk B. Bsa11 No. ifi18 3/f9/20U8 ~ ~1 as-osfo 7 o¢~~ F~~` ~a ~~~~ 5 ~a a~ ~~ <~ ~~o~ Q ~~~ ~gg~ ~~~~ ~~ oaMwn sr: scz oarae~o er: o~~ ~ r~vravNS: SCNE: r-iar a-,~r ta. 1 C]F 1 ~. ~. CA70055fi.00 DEPT. 55 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 - AGENDA ~!RC~r1* Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.8.c. Subject: Acceptance of a Parcel of Land Along Iron Bridge Road from Courts of Praise Pentecostal Holiness Church County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.018 acres along Iron Bridge Road from Courts of Praise Pentecostal Holiness Church, formerly known as Bellwood Pentecostal Holiness Church, and authorize the County Administrator to execute the 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. District: Dale Preparers John W. Harmon Title: Right of Way Manager Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # 1~OO~3~ VICINITY SKETCH Accep#ance of a Parcel of Land along Iron Bridge Road from Courts of Praise Pentecostal Holiness Church ~ ~1} 0 a~ TUCKEF2 0.018 Acre Dedication 0 _` m 0 N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities 1_~ W ;~+- E f' , S 1 Ocl egrak 666b7 tPet TH/S PLOT WAS COMP/tED FROM PL,4T5 AND DEEDS OF RECORD. /T WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEf7T OF A TITLE REPORT AND /S SUBJECT TU /NFORMAT/ON WH/CH MAY BE DISCLOSED BY SUCH. NO /MPROVFMENTS' AND NOT ALL EASEMENTS MAY BE SHOWN. 30 0 30 NAD_83 Scale 1" = 30' I I i I 10' Temp. Consbuction I Easement ~ g D.B. 1954 Pq.64.T + j c^5 ~ -\ ~ ~ ~°i m V ~ I ~ 2~ coo h I I ~~ ~' S~hm,q ~Nq W I ~ ~~ ¢ ~ ~ '~ ~a~ ~ ~~'wF ~ ~~ ^~Z I ~~ e 9 ~ $ i I ~ ~ 40' SWM/BMP Aces 2 ^ I ~ Easement ~ ~ + D.B.3389 Pg.574 ~ ~' i = I 0.018 Acre to V I I 3 B16 be dedicated N Z~gp6•33 to the County I of Cheste~e/d 16' Seer Easement I S06.15'07~ D.B.1954 Pg.643 40.03 0.x.3,191 Pg.408 I p ?93.9?' To the N/L of I ii7LLOWBRANCH ORNF NOS'15'07~Y .tea 1a ~~ E > I,77~890.74 o~~~Lts or ~~Q /RON BR/DGE ROAD STATE RTE. 10 ~ ea311: VAR. W/OTH R/W Lic. No.i6i3 5/19/?oDa ~ 04 R SURV~'4 CO. PROJ. #08-0103 SITE PLAN #08PR0326 - ~ - ~ - - - COMPILED PLAT SHOWING 0.018 ACRE OF LAND LYING NORTH OF IRON BRIDGE ROAD, pATE:S/19~?008 STATE ROUTE 10, TO BE DEDICATED TO THE ~ SCALE:1 =30' COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD ,•,,,o ~, eHO. JOB NO: 00600408.00 DALE DISTRICT ~• ~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA S1~Z • PLANNERS • ARCHITECT'S • ENGINEERS • SURVEVORS• 001 Okanalnrar Road • SWOP 700 • Rklanond, Y~Ma 97496 • Pl~ona (604) 74~-0671 • Fax (604) 7`44-4835 wMIW.bY1Zt~. ~ ®®~~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY "~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 - ~ AGENDA I'II~IN ?' Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.8.d. Subject: Acceptance of a Parcel of Land for the Extension of North Otterdale Road from Gray Land and Development Company, LLC County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 4.153 acres for the extension of North Otterdale Road from Gray Land and Development Company, LLC, and authorize the County Administrator to execute the 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. District: Midlothian Preparers John W. Harmon Title: Real Property Manager Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # t~0®~~4~ VICINITY SKETCH Acceptance of a Parcel of Land for the Extension of North Gtterdale Road from Gray Land and De~elapment Company, LLC 0®®1.~3 N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities ~~ W '; ~- E S _. I OCI rU~ak 333.11 *et fI1E NOME' ,k ~CIOOOSeDIQ0~5,10 077(.'ROfLt~ !7D EXI~SYN7YEY{dwylOTf_£.17.u.r;; _. . .. r ° ` ^ 4 ~ ._ ~ 11 , E n ary v t ~ ~f 3 1 t a ~ ~ a v ~i Pn ~ ` fi~ ~ 4 V i o m ~ N ~' ~ b V ss ~ ~ ~ 2p y ~! ~ Y y p Sn v Sw~ ~ „ ~ ~ M Y .. • ~ ~ ~ ~O • ~ G ~ u v A a 3 ~ .. v .. ~ N~ ~ .~ `` u v _ ~ A~ Dy~ ~ Y v ~ .. . .. }7W v ' ` ~ v 2 2 2 • 2 ~ ~ y 22 •~ gin ~ ~~~ ~ $T $~ & S SS / / / / ./ ~~ ~ p ~ Y ~ / / ~ / dr v 4 NI / i" i~ ~ '/ '\\ i ~ i ~ .V ~ ° v ~ ~ ~~5 ' ~~ ,, s ~i tior .~ - M~.6 i ~ n ~ )' ~ qE 4E' y y4 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ y o` o ~~ti Vii, n ~ ~ {r> ,.~ 1~' w O ~ f ~a ~~ ~~ g ~ i i ~ ~~ ~ ~/ ~~ ? $y b~y ~E ?~ O ~q~ ~ ~q ; I ~' 4~ $ i ~ 'v ~ N I ~ /}wl ~ ~~ / ~~C' ~~ Z ~ ~ o ~~ ~~} :C •1. 1m k ~i ~yi ^~V ~ U .. i ~i . _ . .~ ~ #~ r.. '@~d" ~ ,Ay VV ~ o ~ yyy ~' v s ~ ~ ~ ` I ~~ i ~ ~ ~ t A W a ~ b ' ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ I / ~+I f 'Y .~ ~ ~ p n !~ nl ~" ~ / / / `I ~ / / iA o w ~ p° ~ ~ / ! $ y~j ? ^1 b N "_v /~! / ~ cl ~ N N n /~ ,' / '. ~. q A ~~\~) `i .~ ~ ... `~Y/ ' / T 6 ,~~ u ~ /~~ ~^ y~ a !. a,L / / ~Sn ~~' !/ . ~N tl4 _u y9t(pn~ N V O c3'u 1N ^ 4 ~ ~ ~~~ ~ t / 4~ l / ~ ~ `' „~~ ~ C6y~, ' aA '~ e ~~ Z ~i~ ~ ! // /~ / ~qL 1 ~ qty . / \ •S' ~ D ~y ri'' v ~~ ~ v V~~ O 'R ~ V t `~ W ; ~^ ~ ~ n Ml ~i ,~ ~ „ ~ H n ro CAwP/[.ED PtA7' SHOWJNG ~. 753 ACRES Of 050 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lAJV7D ~UVD NARIDUS £ASEiftNTS TO 8f ~°~' O d ~ $~ ~ ~ 9 DE171Kd~ED ~D THE COldV7Y OF C/iES7EltF~LD 'L ~ ~ ~ E # ~ y ~ ~ t ~ ~ 3 ^ ;; ,'~,. ~` k R 9 j~~ ~ ~1, S~'~ ~~ i ~~~ ~ i~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~ {j j ~ AN ~" N ~ ~~ ~nou,,„c~N cusrxrC~ m CilESrERfdEtU [DldyrY, NNiciAS1 ~~ ~ e 4 ~ ~ ~ d ~ t~ ~ i y ~ a ~~~~~~ +.wc r. wsrww~caiaPRS70 ar/EhYYaLF rro ~lwRt~FYldalwr fX1dw ~ a ~ ~~ ~~ ,G, ~~ "+ ti n ~ _. - _ ~a ~ 3 ~, ~ -~ ~~~ -' ~ ~'~ 1 V ry ~ .. o ~ urn , . 1l ~'~ ,. ~ ag ; ~ ; i ' i ~4 n ~11~ y'1 ,~ ,~ a ^' `0 // / r 4 ~ /. ~' .. ~ V ~ ! /{J ~ a ~ ~ / / i {~ u /~ ~ n i i~ r i ~ ~~ `,~ , $ ~ ~ ~• _ ~ ~ n ' ~ a ` _ ~~ N ~' ;~; . o , o ~ ~ / .~ ' ' i~ Rs l !LV~ ~ ~, ~ :(~ v ~ '~2 . ,• i ~ ~ ~ r r ~. 4 `'Vf~n c,u~, ~ r b~ - ~ ~~ '/ ~• ~ EL p U ti Mi v ~~q - ~ ~~ \ ~ ---~ -- AW Oti O i~~ y ' ~ ~ ~ p ~5 ~ ~ _. ~ coo 8 o b \ ` o R ~r Po \ ~ M .~ ~ ~ C7~- o v o I1, ~ m ~-~ < C? ~' ae ~ ;. ri 0 ti `o 9~~~ !~'/ ~• } ~~~~ ~w~ _, j ~y `: ' 0. ,~ ~ r ~., b r r r ;r ~ ~ .~/r r p~ ~p~~~~i~ ~~~ r a i~ ~ ~~ °~~ g ~~ ~u~ ~~ ~ ~,; ~~„, 7x n ~~ ff'tL>i 0 ti b ~ V ~44 A ~~ I e~ fin - vnw~n ri~~~, N*~ ;'.i~n `• ~ ,.< ~~ v4 ~ G + ° 4 ~~ ~s~ ^g o `~~' +p.w ~ ~ ~'r f p y +" y a ~ pu ~a ~~, A in n~~ a ., ~ Aa `~ v .. ~! i b `l y o • 4 ~ 4 to v a ~ cS '~ . Y ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ g s ~6 6 p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~v ~ ~ t ~ Cpa A ~y 4 fY , . ~ ~ i . ~. '1 5 O y c~ v ~ '~ tt ~ ~ ~ ~E of a ^t a .1 y~ ~ 2Y "~ R ~. . .3 ~y ~ . Y V ~ y 4 Y~~ 9 v _~ y~ a 4 ti .~ ~ y ` a {v} ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~z ~ ~ ~~~ ~ d N '~ ~ "'' 4 ~ COLPKED PLAT SHOyyllyr, ¢.153 ACRES OF ~ ._~ ~ a ~ ~~y`, ~ ~ ~ ~ LMdO.ENO 141RIOUS EASEA!£MS 70 6£ ~!~ !~~ ~;~1~ ~~~ ~~~~ 3~ ~ ~ ~ 0 t 7 ~ ~ 8 9 A~GATED 7t7 TI~dE COUNTY ~ CNESrEiPf7Et0 ~ !! f E#g ~ ~ O ~ ' ~ ~ $ 9 6 ~ N ~StAWLO)iIOW :.;+.5lk/Cr ~~ ~ ~t~[ Btd~ t ~~~ ~~~$ • i ~ 7urr[ro cowvrr.:~vcxiw ~ ~ ~{ 8 ~~ ~~~5 _ _ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 - ~ AGENDA ':..RGIN3?' Meeting Date: Judy 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.s.e. Subject: Acceptance of a Parcel of Land Along East Hundred Road and Inge Road from Haynes Investments, LLC County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: rd Accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.03 acres along East Hundred Road and Inge Road from Haynes Investments, LLC, and authorize the County Administrator to execute the deed. Summary of Information: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.03 acres along East Hundred Road and Inge Road. This dedication is for the development of Rivers Bend South Phase 2. District: Bermuda Preparers John W. Harmon Title: Right of Way Manager Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # ooos~s VICINITY SKETCH Acceptance of a Parcel of Land along East Hundred Road and Inge Road from Haynes Investments, LLC 1g N 4 D c ~~ ~ p~ 9 ~ a' ~ ~ S I ~ a~ U 9 C 1 S A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o urn ~ ~ -~ ~ ¢° W ~ ~ ~ (~ V~ ~5 ` ~` ~`~ ,,.([ ~ y ~~. ~5 ~' O.US Acre Dedication ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~' o i '~ ~' ° ti i i ~ ~ ~ e ~~ ~ Chesterfield County Department of Utilities '~, w ~/-E s I hcl rgrak664bi tet l~®0~~~ 'Z Q I O~~ 0~ ~s ti I ~ "'1 C/L ~H~ .•., I ~ ~ ~ ~~ 25.00' i C Y V Gi b0 9 Jf R] "l f A ~7 Q t C I a~ 0 0 k a a .n 0 0 N a x a =i THIS, SIAPV£Y /S SUB.rE'CT TO ANY '• GRAPHIC SCALE ~~rl~Nr~acrs arc 1Aa°iri~ ~ SEARCH NIGHT DISCLOSE. o io 2a ,p c~~~ ~_ i incb - ao n. NAYNES WVES1AtfNTS LLC (2'11Y.• 8t 463?384 f 00000 0.8.6948 PG620 13310 /NGf ROAD rlArrro~s av~sT~ovTS uc GPIAk d148d3?843400G00 aad94e P~ezo PARCEL 3 44744 P6t4J7 . tt3 a Nuwaam ~ MESmrat FARUs PART AR LOT t3 P.B4 PG11d AppRO)gyA7E LOCA1Tdlf 404 ApQ~ N .3652516 61 (374 SO., fT.) ~A7E' £ 17814869.70 , RllilfT OF WAY J . ~~. -- r a PA~~ T07.,3j~ V . 44T AL7QEr , (7.17? Snl FT.) ff~ ~. ~ ~ .. g _ ' ' N JB3237436 ~s8~ A 57778 00 " ' ' '97.04 s777e~ EAST HUNDRED ROAD 8 STATE RO ZTTE 1 O vAR~A&£ VARJA~F Mp1N Rl~plT OF N61 Y ~ IND7H R/CNT OF WAY C/ W ~w~ 3~~ n ~~"'1 22~3 6~ z r L J~ •~ 1~~ Nl~1 1 ! 2008 PRD..AECT ! 07-0137 } SITE N 07?RD392 BY G7i'lI PLAT of aD3 ACRES rf1 BE DEDICATED aE-~DA DrsrRrcr ChlEST£RFr£LD C~NVTY, VIRGINIA SCAGf !' m 20' REVISEDt .AYMr 19, 2Qa8 Townes ""Y'" 2°°~ BITE iNO1N!lRINO 9850 LQPI Rp;AD, SUITE 201 C1+ES7ERilfLD, VIRGINIA 23832 PfQ1~+l904) 749-91W1 iAX= fB01) 748-2590 d#'CKfD BY.' ~~.!®~~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 - AGENDA ~~t~ Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.8.f. Subject: Acceptance of a Parcel of Land Along Hicks Road from Kidd and Company, Incorporated County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.041 acres along Hicks Road from Kidd and Company, Inc., and authorize the County Administrator to execute the deed. Summary of Information: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.041 acres along Hicks Road from Kidd and Company, Inc. This dedication is a zoning proffer for the development of Bexley Section 17. District: Clover Hill Preparers John W. Harmon Title: Real Property Manager Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # ~®pg ~9 ~/ICINITY SKETCH ACCEPTANCE ~F A PARCEL DF LAND ALf~NG HICKS RDAD FRDM KIDD AMD CalY1PANY, INC. N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities . 1,, w ' ~~j~-e s I Irc1 egrax 464b? #et 0®®1..`~.a4 Line Table Line Len th Bearin L1 113.31' S62'33'20"E • L2 38.76' S70'16'30"W Nq~ 83 Bill W Spence, Jr. Trustees, et al 2626 Hicks Rood GPIN: 757-692- 575a-D000o D.B.3818, Pg.448 ,757,313. I }}0 IW 0 I I Curve Table Curve Length Radius Tangent C1 91.7$' 335.50' 46.18' ChdBr Chd Delta 44'27'09"W 1.49' I ~ I ~ I J f 15'40'23" / / / Rod(f) Kidd and Company, Inc. 2530 Hacks Road / GPIN: 756-692- 9186-00000 / ~$ D.B.7821, Pg.447 / ,~g~`' / ~ ~~~ ~ o~ ~. 'L~~ Bernard C. & / ~ 5rO Leona T. Branch 0.041 Acre / AAA shy ~~ 2520 Hicks Road d' GPIN:757-693- to be dedicated 1705-00000 (1,802 sq.ft.) N 3,692,955.29 D.B.1130, Pg.503 ~ 1 ,757,249. ~ erman~nt / ~. T6 ~aseme" ~ ~L ,. ~ -~HyCks edge of i ~~'` i i Route ~g47 pavement i '~s, ~ / "~teC\~ne Vaoable Widt ~~W 6n ad _~ r 0.13f Males N / c o4 ~° -~' to Libra Loop/ Variable / ~ ~ / ~T H OF ~ Permanent /~ E -- /Variable ~~~ `~~¢ ~ asement --~~ D.B.1783 Pg.1483 ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ Permanent Easement ~ `` ~ o I.J„~,~.1~ Z ~ ~ j / D.B.1798 Pg.1308 ~ WfLLIAM R. KNOOP A ~i ~ ~ No. 1876 ~ GRAPHI C SCALE z~q`i6 , ~ +~ o ~ ,o ,~ Aso ~~No S URA {ix~r} 1 inch 40 ft. '~i~ ~. BARTHOL DESIGN ASSOCIATES civil engineering 8~ land surveying 550 Souchlake Boulevard, Richmond Virginia 2323b Phone (804}379-1640 * Fax (804)379.1752 Plat Showing a Dedication of Land along the West Line of Hicks Road Clover Hill Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia County Project /: 06-0306 Dote:07-09-OS Scale:l"=40' Joby:07-270-01 ®o.J..51 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 ~~ AGENDA ~~, Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.6.8.g. Subiect: Acceptance of a Parcel of Land Along Ridgedale Parkway from Phoenix Union, L.L.C. County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: n Reauestect: Accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.24 acres along Ridgedale Parkway from Phoenix Union, L.L.C., and authorize the County Administrator to execute the deed. Summary of Information: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.24 acres along Ridgedale Parkway from Phoenix Union, L.L.C. This dedication is for the development of Richmond Kickers Youth Soccer Complex. District: Dale Preparers John W. Harmon Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No Title: Right of Way Manager # 000152 VICINITY SKETCH Acceptance of a Parcel of Land along Ridgedale Parkway from Phoenix Union, L.L.C. m o ~ ~ fi R ~~ ~ ~~ '9 ~ ~ ~~ C ~c,~~K i p 1~ ~qY ~ \ L~ ~~ 4~ ~ 0.24 Acre Dedication ~ ~' ,~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ``~, fi ~ ~~ t\ ~`~/pA ~v RG~ $~ ~~ ~~sS~ ~ ~1~' ~ 4 ~QR P~P~ t~ Ati~ }~K Y G r~TN ER~~ O ~ S ~ ~ s p~~ ~m o~ S & HOLD ~~ G~ ~ N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities ``'~ w ~~/i. E S I I~cl egiak664b1 Ret lj'®®~aJ0.J ~. -...~ ,~1\ ~ Q ~y 1~ t ,i v3 x..., ~,~ '~' S _ ~`"~ c -. o "rf, q, ~~~$1~~ S'4-+ L ~~~~ ~ ~~ W ~ -`,`~ 8~ s¢ ~~ . ~~f a - ¢ .~: ~ N~ ~~ / :~ r ; d ~~b ~~ ~~ ~ .-'~" . :ems ~ o '~~o ~?~ ... m E .. '. ~ r° ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ I•I ~ ~ ~ I ~ " a w ~ ~ k~ ~ ~ c ~I ~ I ~ ~° I;! ~~ ~ ~ ~~II' I , c ~ ~ ~" ~ ~ A{ ~ 1 ae # ~! _ ~ ~ ~ ~ L. ~_/ --~- ~S ~s + _ ~± =• , ~ _ ------ ~ ~ sy j = a. W ~ f N .. ~~ b ~ -w °iID O ^N s ~ °~ : ~I .~ Imo- ''~ ~'" ~I ~~~ ~ •S ~ I I1~. ~ 6 1A- ~~~ s~o4 "g o ~ { ..s~4t aD ~ T ~~ f= i~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ f'~~~~ - ('eyn $ / "fit '~ ~ ~ J ~ ~~ ~~ . ~'~~ ~~ ;'~ :•O Ci ~ YI •4 ~ .~' ~ ~ ~.~Q~~ . ~--~ 4 ~ ~ ' ~~ ~~~ r o ~ ~ ~'• a i ~~ a +`` x ~ b c~ _~~ ~ati~ E A 6 1p ~. iiinenf z C! ~' _ ,~ rte. ~ r~. 1 _ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY '~"~'j BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA S h~~N, Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.8.h. Subject: Acceptance of Parcels of Land Along west Hundred Road from Rivers Bend Medical Office III, LLC County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Accept the conveyance of three parcels of land containing a acres along West Hundred Road from Rivers Band Medical Office authorize the County Administrator to execute the deed. Summary of Information: It is the policy of through development Thoroughfare Plan. and will decrease constructed. District: Bermuda total of 0.158 III, LLC, and the county to acquire right of way whenever possible to meet the ultimate road width as shown on the County The dedication of these parcels conforms to that plan, the right of way costs for road improvements when Preparers John W. Harmon Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No 000155 Title: Real Property Manager ~IICINITY SKETCH Acceptance of Parcels of Land along West Hundred Road from Rimers Bend Medical office 111, LLC Chesterfield County Department of Utilities W W ~ E ~~~~ $ I hci egraK fi66b7 tet O ~~~~ THIS SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO ANY EASEMENT DF RECORD AND OTHER PERTINENT FACTS VHICN A TITLE S£ARCN MIGHT DISCLOSE. $ q <o~~~ -+..QC~ ~~o~ ~tiHaz ~QeO`~3 >0.z~~ f ~' `I g RlVERBEND sECnoN A PB 8, PG 103 A .068 ACRE B .045 ACRE C .045 ACRE TOTAL .158 ACRE RIVERS 8EN0 MEDICAL RIVERS 8EN0 MEDICAL RIVERS BEND MEDICAL OFRC£ qI LLC 0~7CE JIl LLC OFFICE !Il LLC PART OF LOT 9 LOT 11 LOT 12 0 $ ~ LOT 10 GPIN: 812653380700000 OP/N: 812653450600000 GPlN: 812853240700000 DB 6754 PO 572 DB 6754 PG 572 ~ v $ 300 W HUNDRED RD 216 W HUNDRED RD 3 .~,~ ~ 308 W HUNDRED RD O 4 3 3 ~N ~ o l'O IQ $ y N O~r\ 0.f58 ACRE 70 y 8E DEDICA7L~0 (6,948 SO F7) . o m A 349.21' .. ...150.00 •.':.'..'.'.'::.'.': 0..:.;..:.::.'. . ... .. ': ' ' ' ~ : .. . . . :. . ::. :. .. ~ ............ f50.00' - ~i a IVtfY77 W ~- ......... 1 ...... ..... . 19.88' ..'........'::::.'.' . T 9.94'.'. ~_ NR071077.7'W ~ ~2Q ~I ~ w ~ R/W x•58 ~ DEDICATION '12 `~ ~ OB 5294, L21' PG 978 .;.~Q 208.84' TO Tg3 06 RIVERS BEND ~i WEST HUNDRED ROAD $ ROAD - STALE ROUTE t0 $ - VARIABLE N1DTN R/W ..I - - - '[ - - - - n '~ GRAPHIC SCALE ao eo 1II0 eo 0 z `s (IN FEET ) 1 inch - 80 tt. CO. S!T£,~~ OSPR0325 CO. PROD ~• 06-0090 DRAiNV BY.• LEN PLAT of 0.158 ACRE TO B£ DEDICATED BERMUDA DISTRICT CNESTERFIEL.D COUNTY, V URGIIBI 2ooB SCALE ~ t' 60' Townes BITE ENpINEERINO 9850 LORI ROAD, SUITE 2DI CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832 PI-IONE•C804) 748-9011 FAX. C804) 748-2590 CHECKED BY ,,..:A i:; r;~ ~ :~ ®~.A~ I CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA ~,~,,, Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.8.i. Subject: Acceptance of a Parcel of Land Along Iron Bridge Road from The Bermuda Triangle Property, L.P. County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: rd Action Requested: Accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.095 acres along Iron Bridge Road from The Bermuda Triangle Property, L. P., and authorize the County Administrator to execute the 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. District: Dale Preparers John W. Harmon Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No Title Right of Way Manager VICINITY SKETCH Acceptance of a Parcel of Land along Iron Bridge Road from The Bermuda Triangle Property, L.P. N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities W ;~~~E ~ I bci eyrax 665b7 1Pet ®0~~~ CURVE ~ L/nflo ~TA~LC trNGr 1'JQaRrN6 D-s-T'~IntCB c f -N a9•- 3't s2 "w ¢4. oar' CLIRVr~ R d _ L:. T CN. CN. ?rZG. ~~S C ( aRgy.79' ~~-fI=O!" SB~yb Z!!9~ Se~96 K34~ ?a=49~6~• CpOjlR~FU~n G 2 2,(o0.I6` 6•-f4=1!" 2ee.t!' 141.31' te2•I!' N 4{ •- 5d'- I! "6~ ley. ~ b~~~'rr C 3 Zd21.7!' 6a•3f ~58" 3?i.90~ 113.13' 3i5•Tt'.+S 37•- f•1'-o'J' W' 890 . ' `` i i ~. 3 c73 a.41e0 `~ G II,'-12,o G. 0210 , OS ~O V~ Q'~ ~ ~ i' Bermuda Triangle Property, L.P. ~~~(/ 7511 Ironbridgc Road Q GPIN;772-673-3836-00000 J~` 0 i~ Deed Book 7278, Page 695 ~~ Q~~~ ti~',~ ~P~~~~~ ^4~ ^~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ • Gi ~. ~n ~ R'~ Vi ~ v. e. r7oi, a~. ~u The lronbridge Property, LP 6100 Blest Lane GPIN:772-673-4300-00000 Deed Book 4359, Page 579 Plat Showing a 0.095 Acre Dedication along the Eastern Line of Ironbridge Road (State Route 10) across the property of Bermuda Triangle Property, LP, located in the Dale District, Chesterfield County r SITE PL.9N N0: aBPROZ~d Virginia unc ~rr~s Pr~c/. No.: oos-oizr ad ~ ,~~ THIS SURVEY 15 SUB,AECI TO ANY EASEMENTS OF RECORD AND OTHER PER ANENT FACTS . MfiflCH A ATLE SEARCH MIGHT DISCLOSE. loo®~~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ""'~' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 ~ AGENDA S `I~IN1P Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.6.8.j. Subject: Acceptance of a Parcel of Land Along the Northeast Right of Way Line of Wylderose Avenue from Tomac Corporation County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.072 acres along the northeast right of way line of Wylderose Avenue from Tomac Corp., and authorize the County Administrator to execute the deed. Summary of Information: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.072 acres along the northeast right of way line of Wylderose Avenue from Tomac Corp. This dedication is a requirement for the development of Brookcreek Crossing, Section B. Approval is recommended. District: Midlothian Preparers John W. Harmon Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No Title: Real Property Manager 000161 ~-/ICINITY SKETCH Acceptance of a Parcel of Land Along the Northeast Right of Way line of W~Iderose Avenue from Tomac Corp. O.a72 ACRE PARCEL T© BE DEDICATED V~ ~~ ~ F~ M/pl~rH/qN TuRNP~K F N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities ,'~~~~- E W $ 1 IrcY egrak ~63Ji Ret ®~.if.~~ CURVF TA~C£ carcrH ~e~c~crs c arc a~rev o~¢r~ c1 cZ 44 r ~• itwE rA~ unrE a c~++cTx t1 ~ ' ~ . TWIN CREEK OIEYfLOlPA1ENT C+0 GPIM: 719-7f2-3783-0~0 D9B.• 573,E AG. 45.5 . . ~ ~ ~~ `~~ b i Ory ~~ i ~~ L 1 i `~~~ N.T.S. .~~ ~ "' --~ ' ------f r .~---. ~ ~o ~~o ~~ v ~ ~ ~~h `0 ,eyb~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~-9• PARCEL "A " 3,179.a sa.FT. 0.072 ACRE 1/AR/ABLE WIDTH ~ ~ ~ 1 I/D4T DRAINAGE ~`~__~'~ EASEMENT BY ~ B 41~ ~ 61 ' SEPARATE AGREEMENT WYLDEROSE A1/ENUE 1903.39' TO THE E/L DF wrLDEROSE (Exr'D} LtS 0~ ~f UARWBLE W/DTN RlW ~r" THIS PLAT WA5 PREPARED WITHOUT ark H. 8@ell ~ THE BENEFIT OF A 11TLE REPORT 30 0 30 No. 1613 AND IS SUBJECT TD /NFORMrAADN •~~ 4/21/2008 WHICH MfA Y BE DISCLOSED BY 6/25/2008 4- SUCH. NDT ALL F.A.SEMENTS AND » ~.._ _e~L~ NO IMPROVEMEN75 ~Y BE SHOWN. Scale 1 = 30 s/24/ae - n ~ caunnr ~ DATE:04/2f/08 SCALE; 1 X30' JOB NO: 00400146.04 CHDi!• OtSf! DM's MCT PLAT SHOWING D.072 ACRE OF LAND TO BE DEDICATED TO CHE5'TERF/ELD COUNTY. ~wLOTm~w D/srR~cr G~S-ESTERf7EZD COUNTY, NRG/N41 • PLANNERS • ARCHITECTS • ENQi1NEERS • $~JRVEYORS• 601 8rarx~hvvay Road Suioe 100 • RicYVltOnd, Vlfginia 23236 •Pftona (804) 794-Ob71 •Fax (804) 794-2836 www.bd~roc ti6~b lam/ E.• 11,719,538.46 c~ Tt7~ANC CORP. v f4731 A/ID~OTH4W TURNPIKE GPIIW 719-T 11-B712-O~ObiU~ DID 1813. AG.1?B~l b 16' PRII/ATE WATERLINE EASEMENT BY SEPARATE AGREEMENT ~ VARIABLE WIDTH vDOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT BY SEPARATE ~ 1` -- ~ AGREEMENT 1 ~~~~~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 h~N AGENDA Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.8.9. Subject: Approval of Utility Contract for Rachels way Subdivision, Contract Number 04- 0423 County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve this contract and authorize the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents. Summary of Information: This project includes an offsite extension of 462 L.F.± of 8" wastewater line. In accordance with the ordinance, the Developer is entitled to refunds through conection fees for the construction cost of the offsite improvements. Developer: Silver Spring Development, LLC Contractor: Piedmont Construction Company, Inc. Contract Amount: Estimated County Cost for Off-Site ....................$12,870.15 Estimated Developer Cost .............................$180,729.85 Estimated Total ......................................$193,600.00 Code: (Refunds thru Connections - Off-Site) 5N-572V0-E4D District: Bermuda Preparers William O. Wright Title: Assistant Director of Utilities Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # p00~..~4 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 r AGENDA y~~~.~ Budget and Management Comments: This agenda item requests that the Board approve the contract for an offsite extension of wastewater line in Rachels Way Subdivision. The Wastewater Operations Budget appropriates funds, which carry forward from year to year, to refund developers for offsite and/or oversize improvements the county requires or asks them to make during the course of their construction. The refund a developer will receive is dependent on the number and type of improvements the developer completes and is paid out at the end of the contract. Consequently, the $12,870.15 county obligation listed in the agenda item is an estimate. Preparers Allan M. Carmody Title: Director, Budget and Management I~OQ~~~ VICINITY SKETCH Rachels Way Subdivision County Project # Q4-a423 E Proposed Rachels Way Subdivision Co. Proj. # 04-0423 1 Proposed 8" Wastewater Line - f,- ~~ Co. Proj. # 04-0423 _ „ c~'t N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities t. ~~ W ;.~r. E S t i~d eq~ak x:ss tat ®©~.A~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~~°~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 _~;~ ~' AGENDA ~?RC~N!p' Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.8.10. Subject: Acceptance of State Grant and Appropriation of Both State and Local Reserv Funds and Award Construction Contract to Carr Contracting Company for Project to Construct the North Terminal Parking Lot at the Chesterfield Count Airport County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board of Supervisors is requested to authorize the County Administrator to accept $565,769 in state grant funds, transfer the local match of $181,573 from Industrial Park reserves, appropriate funding and award a contract in the amount of $648,250 to Carr Contracting Company for a project to Construct the North Terminal Parking Lot, and authorize the County Administrator to execute all documents. Summary of Information: Chesterfield Airport is expanding the terminal parking lot to the north. These additional parking spaces will provide for overflow terminal building parking and for a portion of the projected parking needs for future corporate hangar tenants. The project has been approved by the Virginia Department of Aviation which has allocated grant funding. Preparers Rob Key Title: Director of General Services Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No p001fi7 a_ b~~' _~; ~~RGINt1f.~/' CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Budget and Management Comments: Page 2 of 2 This item requests that the Board authorize a construction contract between Chesterfield County and Carr Contracting Company. The estimated total cost of this project is $747,341.58, of which $648,250 is construction cost for Carr. The remaining difference of $99,091.58 will awarded and presented to the Board at a later date. All costs associated in this contract are within the original budgeted amount. Sufficient funding is available through use of Industrial Park reserves to cover the local match. Preparers Allan M. Carmody Title: Director, Budget and Management 0®O16c"~3 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY -' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 _~ AGENDA ~'I~jN1A Meeting Date: Juiy 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.11.a. Subject: Request Permission to Install a Private Sewer Service Within a Private Easement to Serve Property at 10618 Hamlin Drive County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Grant Juliana A. Adesida permission to install a private sewer service within a private easement and authorize the County Administrator to execute the sewer connection agreement. Summary of Information: Juliana A. Adesida has requested permission to install a private sewer service within a private easement to serve property at 10618 Hamlin Drive. This request has been reviewed by county staff and Comcast Cablevision. Approval is recommended. District: Bermuda Preparers John W. Harmon Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No Title Real Property Manager # 000169 1JIC1 N ITY SKETCH Request Permission to Install a Prirate Sewer Service Within a Prirate Easement to Serve Property at i01;i8 Hamlin Drive N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities ' l~ W ,,•~+~ E _~ S I hcl ey~ak U6b7 tret ~o V GLEN OAKS 27 su,~e 1••so' Sectio7i 3 P.B.54, PG.I6-17 $ 26 1 ~ ~ R=SO.flO \`~ 29 ~ D ~~ ~ way TFRS r ~ i ~~s ~,~R/ ~,F z `~. qR `' I I ~$°39'j~~ ,~ry N 3 1 %4.80 v ' II~C. 1 / ! Eli, 8 ~a~w o •I F - ~ ! ~ ~ ~ 633T L ~c ~ ~`1 ~ ~ Yolsad~ G. Gethr[e f q~~40.64' ~~. ~ ~K gj~ ~~ ~ ~ ,~ o~uE°°° q 32 ~ ~, ~~,~'~,~ 4°f ~ ~ a ~ Juliana A. Adesida ~ ~''i 1~4~ ~ •., h RA No.78766lil660000000 ~ ~ FF 777 ~ ` Q, 4 ~ ~ ,'Z 10618 HAMILJN DIllVE 'P ~ g i ¢ '` 1 ~ `~J' J D.8.6860 P6.60 r_ ~ ~ ~' , ~ 84.72 16 94'~ ~ n ~16. 129.08 N 70.31' 1 ~ ~08~(~"$--~ N 3 61826.06 ~ tt~ 29aaa ~ , 33 ,, ~ ~' ~ ~O ED BaiAN n. et ~insvluiA s. mx ~ Pln N0.7876616076000000 ~ ~0 `'• ~ 16' PR~TE 10624 NAMLMI DRNE N41.38'14`E ~+• O SEWE o.aela2 P~.633 Rte' ~ Q EASEM I~T ~"'b°''~ 231.66' N88°8'6"B-•• HAMLIN AVENUE ~~~~ ea aw PLAT SHOWING A 16' PRIVATE SEWER EASEMENT, ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF J MAC HOMES INC. BERMUDA DISTRICT. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, YIRGINIA. ChesterFeld County, Virginia Utilities Department NiFORMATION ON PLAT BASED ON SUBDIVISION PLAT OF CLEN OAKS I'=50' SECTION 3, ANO A RESUBDIVISKNr DRAWN BY: V OF LOT 20, BLOCK B, SECTKN~1 ONE ~~~ ~,: P.B. 34. Pg. 16-17 TILE N MStR 78468 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY dS SYSTEM pRQ1ECT NUMBEFi+ 06-0078 ®Ll~~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA h~tw Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.8.11.b. Suulect: Request Permission for a Privacy Fence to Encroach Within an Eight-Foot Easement Across Lot 17, Briarcliff, Section 5 County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Grant Ronald A. King permission for a privacy fence to encroach within an 8' easement across Lot 17, Briarcliff, Section 5, subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: Ronald A. King has requested permission for a privacy fence to encroach within an 8' easement across Lot 17, Briarcliff, Section 5. The request has been reviewed by staff and Comcast Cablevision and there are no improvements in the easement. Approval is recommended. District: Clover Hill Preparers John W. Harmon Title Real Property Manager Attachments: ^ Yes ~ NO # 0001.'72 VICINITY SKETCH Request Permission for a Privacy Fence to Encroach Within an Eight Foot Easement Across Lot i7, Briarcliff, Section 5 N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities '~ w ~-E S 1 Iwl egrak 416b7 Ret QO®1'~3 ~ ~ NOTE+ THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN ~ ~RDD ZONE C AS SHOWN ON FEMA COMMUNITY PANEL ND. 510035 0027 B v\ FD. ID 510035-0029 B. \ Ronald A. Kin q /~~ \ 9912 Pnllbrooke Ct FECTJVE DATE+ MARCH i6, 1983) eZ~ / /2b DDS \ \ DB. 7843 PG. 372 ZO / D, \\ \\ PINS 747701442700000 THIS SURVEY FiAS BEEN PREPARED / W1TNOtlT 7HE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT AND THEREFORE DOES NOT ~/ / \ \ \ \ ENCUMBRANCESI ON CTNE PROPERTY. / / ~ / \ \ \ ,.. BRIARCLIFF / \ ~\ ~~~-r~~ SECTION DNE 1FEJ~ / r \ _ \ N~9~~~ry P.B. LOT 24. 95 ~~F1 / lam` \ \ ' -0 3 C •~~ CP_ \ ~ \ C c^2~ SSG z ~~~ \ \ ~\ \ ! XX -FENCE \ c"\ LICENSED AREA ~ j~''j `' ~ L U T J. ~ \ \ \ \ \ BRIAR FF ~ ~? IS,118.68 5.~. \ \ SECTIONIONE 0,37 ACRES \ \ P,B, 24, PG. 95 ~ ~ xNBP ~ \ \ LOT 25 it DFCK 3,3/p \ \ \ BRIARCLIFF BRIARCLIFF TWO STORY \ SECTION ONE SECTION FIVE 100% COMPLETE \\ \\ P,B. ~T 26~ 95 P.B. 17b, PG, 24-26 19.E LOT 18 \ \ ROD r rr \ FD. ~- r +. \ ~ 212,41' TD THE .^.- ~p j .+ j Nr \ ~ N/L OF PUL L BROOKE d' tc r ~ ~~. r DRIVE, EXTENDED ~ ~ ~~ rr ~ EXTENDEII ~ l~q r ' ,f ~ BRIARCLIFF ROD - R-S Ssi 9~rr Q)~ ~~ p~'26 SECTION FIVE ~ ~ FD. ~' ~O. r ~ia~i / P.B. ~076,16G. 24-26 ~ S 0 f PULL BRDDK~ FIIDO PROPERTY ADDRESS+ CDLJR T ~ #9912 PULLBRat]KE COURT CCUF2B) xGPIN+ 747-701--442700000 (40' R/W) NOTE: UT~L RTIESUND PLAT SNOWING IMPROVEMENTS DN LDT 17, PLAN OF 'BRIARCLIFF', SECTION 'FIVE', IN THE CLa VER HILL DISTRICT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA. ~`,,,sa or -j~o r 7hls !s to certify that on .11JNE 7, P007 , I Wade nn accurate Ffefd Survey of tM ~ prenlses spoon haraon, tha! oil hprovrnents and eosenents know. or vlsNtl• pre spoon htraoni that there nra no anrroachnents by lnprovefxnts aJtMr Fran ad,foWnp RICHARD T, 1[D!'!L'a pranMs or from sub,)ect pre~dses upon adpfnMp pranrses, other thou os sham haraon, IiC. M0. 106 PaTTS, MINTER and ASSOCIATES, P,C. s~ ~os~"s Engineers, Land Surveyors, Land Planners Date: 6-7-07 3520 Cof,rr~ihause Road sa.la:1'=30' Rlchr-ond, Virginia 23236 r.x. 0706-02 ~~ <804) 745-2876 ~~®~.. _ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 _ _ ~~ AGENDA Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.11.c. Subject: Request Permission for a Proposed Fence to Encroach Within a Sixteen-Foot Easement and a Thirty-Foot Drainage and Sewer Easement Across Lot 43, Stewart Village, Section A at Charter Colony County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Grant Faron S. Miller and Julia B. Miller permission for a proposed fence to encroach within a 16' easement and a 30' drainage and sewer easement across Lot 43, Stewart Village, Section A at Charter Colony, subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: Faron S. Miller and Julia B. Miller have requested permission for a proposed fence to encroach within a 16' easement and a 30' drainage and sewer easement across Lot 43, Stewart Village, Section A at Charter Colony. There is an existing underground concrete drainage pipe in the easement. The Environmental Engineering Department has reviewed and approved this request. Approval is recommended. District: Midlothian Preparers John W. Harmon Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No Title: Real Property Manager VICINITY SKETCH Request Permission for a Proposed Fence to Encroach 1lllithin a Sixteen Foot Easement and a Thirty Foot Drainage and Sewer Easement Across Lot 43, Stewart Village, Section A at Charter Colony Request Permission for a Fence ~E LN E WAY Ch4A ^ g~o ~ 5~ coo4~~, ° A,~ \ a1DG N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities ' Cl-. W ;~-E S I hcl eq~ak L16b7 t2et ®®~~~ ~~~ 'mlr -~9 PEI! ~F FJWLr 'A' 201Mi~i limlAiOlBfiS .. ~~ yy~~y illf~. ~ R boar~R soy pAiac ~+o aA~aq •~ ts' 1~ORNER SIIIE (SACK i~ Sli>b +~ ~' XX -LICENSED AREA SKI=~.,~t A ~t+~ EX l f+i rs FenaG S ~ 4 t+~' E9~ lAT 6i lOT $2 __.._--3i3'tab~W T7~' ___ Faron S. Millor Julia B. Miller t 755 Colon2 Oak Ln ~ ~ ~ DB 8359 PG 246 w ~+ $ PIN: 7227U5$4100040~ $ ~ ~ ' ~ bs• lAT 42 44 !A E es~tir s.s' °'~ T ~~ ~ . °~"~'"~ ~ ~a~ wai --- -...... ~_~_...____ .......~ o~, ate' tM~x M CITY Q/aC L11V~ 44' R/~IU ~ROP061~D IMPROVDYIENTS ~?N YbUN69L000. T1fi.ER S ASSOCIATES. P. ~~ +~ ~A~ ~~ 7305 EIAl1CNER ~N OIMME P.Q 8i0K S17 1AR E311 st S~CTit~iC~4~iY - 1tSTRICT ct1ESTERFFID OOUNIY, V'I_RGtNUI Qfl~~`~"~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~n`°°~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA `I/~p~P Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.11.d. Subject: Request Permission for a Chain Link Fence to Encroach Within a Sixteen-Foot Easement Across Lot 20, Block F, Pocono, Section D County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Boa Grant Jennifer R. Robison permission for a chain link fence to encroach within a 16' easement across Lot 20, Block F, Pocono, Section D, subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: Jennifer R. Robison has requested permission for a chain link fence to encroach within a 16' easement across Lot 20, Block F, Pocono, Section D. The request has been reviewed by county staff and Comcast Cablevision and there are no improvements in the easement. Approval is recommended. District: Clover Hill Preparers John W. Harmon Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No Title: Real Property Manager # 0001'8 VICINITY SKETCH Request Permission for a Chain Link Fence to Encroach Within a Sixteen Foot Easement Across Lot 20, Block F, Pocono, Section Q Chesterfield County Department of Utilities ' N ~~ W ;~~~ E S 1 hcl eq~aK ~I5b7 f?et ~~ O ~~~ Etna a m eEirxM mAr AM ALIIYIL -1°DiwE wiE~esr~OAMa[ro~is Em~o ~a n~o~s ae i~ wp~+ECt ~"'wESu twM MEUiNS ~r -~r~s AR paw MEKON. AID 11NT 1MEIIE rGiOD11iL m/1~pyf fME iOlEi'rt GF A 11R[ RlDIR A/ID N l1161ECf iE/ MOItlNTIDN 'M~011 W1' ![ DO0.0![D 0Y S~M111.DrR11JMD 6 N i.E.YA DEiiED rLODD COME G. Si ' Ar/T Ess~~ ~ Pocono C~itac f~SSOCiaf'ian, Ir7C- 2s' ~/ rr q~3u`-~°"~ mss' ~~ Lod 2/ ~~ ~,~ E ~. ~ La~Za ~l.G~Gt~ F o. 3Q c~cr~ ~- XX --FENCE LICENSED AREA ~~ ~`Ir02// /-.9~w~y ~ror~ 7' ~m a~ -o .~ a ~~ w ~ 1i~..-~ rw, Sane,. ~~~ ¢ase,,rarek. P ~ ~ ~ Lvf /9 ~I Il~ll~i ,sr/Ae- ~- z.,,, .~~. r~ /~;~~i1/77/i4 LAIC So~,C/~ Jennifer R. Robison 10211 Manua Ln DB. 6979 PG. 754 PIN: 747707732800000 ~+~~1,~ B OF ``~+ ,~~• ~~ y Mark B. Beall y No. 1813 ~ o.~/o r/2oo6 ; v Improvements on LOT 2D, BL OCK F, SECTION "D" DATE:0,3 07 2006 POCONO SCALE:1 30' Chesterfield County, Virginio .,oB No: co62o r39 Pur.• JENNIFER R. ROB/NSON • PLANNERS • ARCHITECTS • ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS• 501 Sranchwsy Roatl • Suite 100 •Fiohmond, Virginis 23236 •Phorw (804) 794-0571 •Fax (804) 794-2535 wwv~r.bals~rcc P ~oo.l~C! CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 _ _ ~~ AGENDA =,...RGId~P' Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.11.e. Subject: Request Permission for a Proposed Picket Fence to Encroach Within an Eight- Foot Easement and a Sixteen-Foot Easement Across Lot 1, Hartley Village at Charter Colony County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Grant Jamie S. Stroud and Kimberly S. Stroud permission for a proposed picket fence to encroach within an 8' easement and a 16' easement across Lot 1, Hartley Village at Charter Colony, subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: Jamie S. Stroud and Kimberly S. Stroud have requested permission for a proposed picket fence to encroach within an 8' easement and a 16' easement across Lot 1, Hartley Village at Charter Colony. This request has been reviewed by staff and Comcast Cablevision and there are no improvements in the easement. Approval is recommended. District: Matoaca Preparers John W. Harmon Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No Title: Real Property Manager # 000183 VICINITY SKETCH Request Permission for a Proposed Picket Fence to Encroach Within an Eight Foot Easement and a Sixteen Foot Easement Across Lot i, Hartley Village at Charter Colony L1~ REQUEST PERMISSION FOR A PROPOSED PICKET FENCE '~ Chesterfield County Department of Utilities ' N ~"~, W ,' i.E _~ $ ~ hcl rgrax LI6b1 tlrt ~Ov~~~ rS• EA act a mss: ~~~ «, wo~~ Utz Jamie S. Stroud Kimberly 3. Stroud ' v~~C~/ ~l T ~ ~J 13801 Vincent Ln DB. 7314 PG. 908 PIN: 727699524900000 GoT ~ ~~ TN c~'y HAR TG EY 1~/G L AGE o ~~-~ v6~f' ~ ~~A~ ,9 T w.I:ow ~~~~ C~,9RTEiP COLONY N0.1796 M,9TOACA ~/STR/G'7 ~ o G.HES TGRF/EGO CO., !i/~G/it/fJ <~ND SURV~y edd ssvgr el OM p~r+ ~••^ ~^ a.t n YnpMn~b .~ asnMU tiwn a• mils n Yarin uyyymo r kan r~Y p1.Ai M1HOUr ll[ eol~rtr OF A TIIE aaever oR leraler. FLOOD MIStIRANCE NOTE: 9Y ~~hkr Pbtthq only. y~ ~prty b M 201 No. of the flood I ronae Rats ~oP. ~! %~~B S/o0.~s' O sMsatlvs dob of Y wn only M dstann sY an tlon CKgfkats. 8a~sd on tM atww TMonnalion, fhb p-opatY r~~_le a Spseid Food Hosard Arso. fdwr~ X-~ IaM t ArafsddMll~ Lmr Slyw~r-~r~ pjr~-80/Jh Gb-aBee l!~ B)rd A PNaa~ (i~1J~J-lifi FOIL ~/~ i~-~ Scale: Date: Drawn: Checked: Job: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA ~[1PCIN~P Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.11.f. SubJect: Request Permission for an Existing Wooden Wheelchair Ramp and Asphalt Driveway to Encroach Within a Twenty-Foot Easement Across Lot 11, Block B, Buckingham, Section 1 County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Grant Hilbert F. Hoppe and Linda G. Hoppe permission for an existing wooden wheelchair ramp and asphalt driveway to encroach within a 20' easement across Lot 11, Block B, Buckingham, Section 1, subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: Hilbert F. Hoppe and Linda G. Hoppe have requested permission for an existing wooden wheelchair ramp and asphalt driveway to encroach within a 20' easement across Lot 11, Block B, Buckingham, Section 1. There is an existing sewer line within the easement. The request has been reviewed and approved by county staff and Comcast Cablevision. Approval is recommended. District: Midlothian Preparers John W. Harmon Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No Title Real Property Manager #000184 VICINITY SKETCH Request Permission for an Existing Wooden Wheelchair Ramp and Asphalt Driveway to Encroach Within a Twenty Foot Easement Across Lot 11, Block B, Buckingham, Section i ~~~~~~ Chesterfield County Department of Utilities PI w ~- E S I Irol eq~ax LI6b7 tet ~_~ f~!lG~2T ~ !!~5 L~ ~s~p ~iAIP Z dr t ~JPQ~ 12~4~fP 1 ~~~~~~ _ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 ~~ AGENDA hRGIN~~' Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.11.g. Subiect: Request Permission for a Fence, Gravel Driveway and Bus Stop Shelter to Encroach Within an Unimproved County Right of Way Known as Cedar Springs Road County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Grant Rose Mary C. Main permission fora fence, gravel driveway and bus stop shelter to encroach within an unimproved county right of way known as Cedar Springs Road, subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: Rose Mary C. Main has requested permission for a fence, gravel driveway and bus stop shelter to encroach within an unimproved county right of way known as Cedar Springs Road. The request has been reviewed by county staff and Comcast Cablevision. Approval is recommended. District: Matoaca Preparers John W. Harmon Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No Title: Real Property Manager # 000287 VICINITY SKETCH Request Permission for a Fence, Gravel Driveway and Sus Stop Shelter to Encroach Within an Unimproved bounty Right of Way Known as Cedar Springs Road ~ Chesterfield County Department of Utilities w ~. ~~.E s I Ocl egiak ll6bi 12et V'V®A~~ 6100 1296 6110 78 6 16 8953 6150 FENCE GRAVEL DRNEWAY COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY DB 1197 PG ~6 9328 s 162 1238 s 1 so 0 z a 9843 0 s13a ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ l` D a z~ ~~~~ T {•~ ? N (~ ~y~~ ~~~~ WpZT ~~~o ~o 2439 s17o 3903 6111 Bus sro~ 4963 6300 61Q1 ~~0~.~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ®~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 AGENDA ~~P Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.6.12.a. Subject: Change Order for County Project 96-0175R, Route 1 and 301-Phase IV, Waterline Replacement County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Reauested: Staff recommends that the Board approve Change Order #4 (final) for County Project 96-0175R, Route 1 & 301-Phase IV, Waterline Replacement in the amount of $71,396.56 and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents. Summary of Information: Change Order #4 (final) represents installation of an air release valve, reinstalling traffic control loop detectors, additional pavement required by VDOT and adjustment of unit price items from estimated quantities to actual installed quantity. With this change order, the new construction cost is $4,108,643.58. The County's engineering consultant, Royer Malcolm Pirnie, has reviewed the changes required and recommends approval. Funds are available within the project. The County Administrative policy for change orders requires that all change orders exceeding $50,000 be approved by the Board of Supervisors. District: Bermuda & Matoaca Preparers George B. Haves P.E. Title: Assistant Director of Utilities Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No # U0~19U CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS r AGENDA _RC~t1!-~~ Page 2 of 2 Budget and Management Comments: Staff requests that the Board approve Change Order #4 for the Route 1 & 301- Phase IV, Waterline Replacement in the amount of $71,396.56 and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents. Sufficient funds remain in the project to fund this contract increase. Preparers Allan M. Carmody Title: Director, Budget and Management 0~00~..'~~. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 AGENDA _~~- ~,~r Meeting Date: July 30, 2007 Item Number: 8.B.12.b. Subject: Change Order to the Contract with ACA Architects for the Design of Harrowgate Road Fire Station Number 21 County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Authorize the County Administrator to execute a change order to the contract with ACA Architects, to design the Harrowgate Road Fire Station Number 21 following the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) guidelines, including energy modeling, in the amount of $59,200. Summary of Information: The design contract for the Harrowgate Road Fire & EMS Station is dated August 6 2007. The county has since moved forward with the development of the Sustainable Building Design Guidelines for Capital Facilities, finalized on May 12 2008. These Guidelines reference LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) as the metric that will be used. This change order is to authorize the architect to follow the Sustainable Building Guidelines, including energy modeling and the use of the standard LEED checklist. These efforts will also be useful in the design and construction of the Courthouse Road Fire & EMS Station 22 in that the intent is for the building design of Station 21 to be repeated for Station 22. Preparers Robert C. Key Title: Director of General Services Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No # 000192 y~~.a CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Budget and Management Comments: This item requests the Board to approve a change order for the Harrowgate Fire Station in the amount of $59,200 and to authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents. Sufficient funds are available in the project budget to cover the cost of the change order request. Preparers Allan M. Carmody Title: Director, Budget and Management C~00~.~3 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~,~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 r AGENDA '4!RCIN~P~ Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.6.13. Subiect: Award of Construction Contract for the Addison-Evans Water Treatment Plant Chemical Feed Improvements and Modifications County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Staff recommends that the Board approve the construction contract with Shaw Construction Corporation in the amount of $849,708.00, authorize a transfer of $180,000 from the Fluoride Phosphate Storage Project to this project, and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents. Summary of Information: This project consists of the construction of one bulk Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC) storage and feed system, modifications to the existing hydofluorosilicic acid feed system and modifications to the existing sodium orthophosphate feed system. Staff received three (3) bids ranging from $849,708.00 to $992,000.00. Shaw Construction Corporation submitted the lowest bid in the amount of $849,708.00. The County's engineering consultant, Royer Malcolm Pirnie, has evaluated the bids and recommends award of the contract to the low bidder. In order to obtain the advantage of economy of scale, the fluoride phosphate storage project and the bulk carbon feed system project were combined into one project therefore, staff requests this transfer of $180,000. Funds are available in the current CIP. DistrlCt: Clover Hill Preparers George B. Haves P.E. Title: Assistant Director of Utilities Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No # 0009.4 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 g «~; AGENDA ~CRaHV'~4 Budget and Management Comments: Staff requests that the Board approve the construction contract with Shaw Construction Corporation in the amount of $849,708.00, authorize a transfer of $180,000 and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents. $180,000 has been appropriated for the fluoride phosphate storage project and is available to be transferred to the Addison-Evans Water Treatment Plant project, which have been combined. Preparers Allan M. Carmody Title: Director, Budget and Management 0~0,.~5 _ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 - ~ AGENDA ~,~ Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.14.a. Subject: Request to Quitclaim Variable Width Virginia Department of Transportation Sight Distance Easements and Variable Width Water Easements Across the Property of Commonwealth Centre Storage, LLC County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action ReguestedS Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate variable width VDOT sight distance easements and variable width water easements across the property of Commonwealth Centre Storage, LLC. Summary of Information: Commonwealth Centre Storage, LLC has requested the relocation of variable width VDOT sight distance easements and variable width water easements across its property as shown on the attached plats to accommodate the development of Spacemart. VDOT, Utilities and Environmental Engineering have reviewed the plans and new easements will be dedicated. Approval is recommended. District: Matoaca Preparers John W. Harmon Title: Real Property Manager Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # ~®~~~¢; VICINITY SKETCH Request to Quitclaim Variable Width Virginia Department of Transportation Sight Distance Easements and Variable Width Water Easements dcross the Propert~- of Commonwealth Centre Storage, LLC q~~ T ~~C o~ o~ OaSr ~Ftti 0 ul ~ w \ ~ ~~y ~~~ \~ ~~ ~~ \ ~~ \ ~ ~-y,~ Water Easements ~+ to be quitclaimed ~ r y ~~ R P ` ~ +~ \ ~' ~t ~,, v ~ \ °~ \ 6 ~\ ~~ ~~ Z }~ ~~ VDOT Sight Distance sw~~e~ ~ Easements to be quitclaimed \ UFF WAY DGE LOOP ~ E~~ INTE RD S ~a~ HTS DR ~t~ CE LN RUN LN N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities Y~~ W ;~~E ~ I IIGY lq~ak 666bi fret ~~®~~~ ~~~ ~~£~ ~~ ~~ Rq R -- ~ ~ 89 , ~ ~ ~ our s+owMa ~ ioa w wpn+ s~rwr ~~,~ ~~# ~~~~ ~~ 3 11110 ml I ~ ~ a ~ ~ y ~ # 3 ' ro ar wane aooro ~ ~~# ~i~ ~ ~ ~g ~ ~ . . ~ oacro oo~iir'01wGw"r° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~lc~aaslcio~rsao Lwnmawaa C1.+w ~r1~al~il~~~~o ®o®~e7C~ O n a i a ~~ o s M w N 1 v N h a ~~~ ~~ ~$ `,. W • ~~ ~ O vV ~~ rtia b sMO riep~ ~er+wr w• +err:~,r~r 7fq ' ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ _'~' ". ~ rf ~~ III t ~ ~ ~ II f .; ~ r ~ ff ~ ~ i M ff f $ ~ /+ • ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ II I J + ~ I f ~~ ^w I r J I I ~~ ,~ _ ~ ~ 7 1 ~ ~~ j ff ~ j j I ! ! ~ ~, f , ~ i , ~~~~~ r j $ ~ II i ~ ~r + r I I I f7 off f _ q ~ ~ • II I II f ~ ~ • `• I I f f f, ~R~ ~~ ; 'y,~c' ~ ~ rll~ 'I I f ~J + ~ ~+ ~ L_ _ _ ~ ~, / ~• ~! ~ _ IwRII' _~~~/ ~ I ~ , ~ ~ {' ~ ' ~ -- ___ y.~ a ' ~ d P~~v~ /~, ~ ~ v ~~~~ ~ ~ ~r g ~ ~ ~ a;~~ ~~'~~ ~ ~~i ~ ~.- .' i ~ ~~s „~ ~ r 1 $$ ~~ ~; ~~ $ ~ •t $k ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PNI~s1101NNV0AWATE11L11~ANDVDOrt ~I~;~ ~I~a ~~j~~ ~~~qq~ ~~ ~ ~~ p ~ ~ - ~ caw iAe~w~rrr cnoe~a eaoo, s~oo ~ ~ ~~f~ ~ ~ i N~ W b ~3 3 A}IDS~YEOOIiMAON1MlAL~CENTI~PA}IKMIAY ~~~ ~ I~pI ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ° Y ~ ~ asnra~m Darn, rwor.. ~ ~ !!! rxr caw ~~~~~9 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~~~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 i AGENDA S h~p= Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.14.b. Subject: Request to Quitclaim a Sixteen-Foot Virginia Department of Transportation Drainage Easement Across the Property of Elmcrest Development, L.C. County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate a 16' VDOT drainage easement across the property of Elmcrest Development, L.C. Summary of Information: Elmcrest Development, L.C. has requested approval to vacate a 16' VDOT drainage easement across its property as shown on the attached plat. The 16' VDOT drainage easement is being replaced with a 16' drainage easement (public). The Environmental Engineering Department and VDOT have reviewed the request. Approval is recommended. District: Clover Hill Preparers John W. Harmon Title: Real Property Manager Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # ~~®~®~ VICINITY SKETCH Request to Quitclaim a Sixteen Foot Virginia Department of Transportation Drainage Easement across the Property of Elmcrest Development, L.C. 16' VDOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BE QUITCLAIMED D 04. L(,/ J O ~~ J O V N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities 1 w '~~',~/~. E s I Irol a qua k 86 fl9 t et ~U42~1 SUBJECT Tt? lNft?RA41T10NV WHICH MAY BE DISCLOSED /N SUCH. NO /MROVEMENT3 AND NOT ALL EASE7N SHOWN. _ ~ ~ 4U,E~',~9~_ _ PIPOPOSED ~ ~~ ,.~ , ~ 91.28' EZMCRE3~ OT 50 n ~~ ~~. . ~~ a$~c ~ n EZA/CREST DEVELOPMENT, L.C. 743-702-4021-00000 1, 744,287.1 RlC/fARO W. ~ DEBB/E S. BEAUL/EU GPlN 744-702-5914-00000 m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~N ~ ` ~ ~~83 ~ ~ ~1 ~ O1 ° ~ c B' VD10T ~ \ + ~e QI \ ~ \ N ,3 702 0 8.76 N 3, 701 974.60 \ ~ E 11, 744, 645.69 E l 1, 744, 629.77 \ ~~ ~ UNE TABLE UNE BF.~IR/NG LENGTH L 1 S48' 3'0 54 90' L2 S83' 120.11' 1. CURVE TABLE LENGTH RID/US TANGENT CHORD BEAR/NC CHORD DELTA C1 .39' S8E07'19"W 3.39' 0'46'33" 91 7 758'f TO THE S/L w OF BERR4N0 ROAD - ~iOV/~~+1I7VwG STATE ROUTE ~' 653 VARLIBLE WJDTH R/W f~ ~~ ~' (.°^'S*C 60 0 60 120 180 ~ Yerk B. neau i No. 1613 ~ 104/03/2008 4 Scale 1 " = 6 0' PUT SH9DW/NG A 16' VDOT DR~4/NAGE EASEMENT DWIG oSH CROSSING THE UND OF £LMCREST H O,EV~,OPA/~'NT, LC P~~_0391 CLOVER H/LL ' O/STR/CT DATE: 4/3/2 0 1 0 1 9 CH£5TERfTEL' D COUNTY, V1RG/NL4 SCALE: 1=80' .~B NO: C0300181 REVISED: 4-18-08 PER COUNTY COM'IIEN~S er~e~s • erects • orau • aunveroes• wt w.r • srlb to • 11IM~r, vrMr. amsr • hie^. ~Mq rw~asr+ • ~ posh sawas O W g V ~~ ®®2~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY "F"g`° BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 ~ AGENDA ~I~p1P Meeting Date: Juiy 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.8.15. Subject: Designation of a Virginia Department of Transportation Sight Distance Easement Along Genito Road County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Designate a Virginia Department of Transportation sight distance easement along Genito Road and authorize the County Administrator to execute the Declaration. Summary of Information: Prior to site plan approval of Waterford Shopping Center, it is necessary that a Virginia Department of Transportation sight distance easement be provided on county property at Swift Creek Fire Station 16. This has been reviewed by county staff and approval is recommended. District: Clover Hill Preparers John W. Harmon Title: Right of Way Manager Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No #(~~~~®3 VICINITY SKETCH Designation of a Virginia Department of Transportation Sight Distance Easement along Genito Road N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities w '; ~~~ E $ 1 Ird a q~d k 666b i 4P t ~~®IGr®~ n N n 0 m fl ~ ~, O L'Q: .~ ,, ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ l ~~~ l$ ~ . ~"' yes ~^~~?131dA~ ;, a ~ y M a N~ p ~$ , ~i ~~ ~ ~~ ~~K ,`r ~ ~ r~i ~ v v~C CO~ r ~ • Z2 a ••O V ^~ ~ ~~~` ~ ~ >~ N ~ N ~~ V Q~ '1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ COMPILED PLAT 8410WIN3AVARIA06EM110"M t ~~~ + [ {i j~~ ~~ ~~~ I ~ ~ ~ VDOTbIQMTDI8TANCEE~EARENT CR08SlNQ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ f1 ~ ~ S ~ ~ g ,~ ~ ~ Sit ~~ ~ ~ p 'ri „ a Y ~ TH£LAHDS OF CHESTEI~FIELO COUlRY ~ ~ ~~ ~z~ k~F !! ~~ ~ 9 ~ ` CLOVE~i H~li DIS`fi~c:• ~ ~ ~ k 4 _ ~ M~ M ~ ~ p~~$7~Ri I~i.[100UM~' Vlpil7yln . f{ V V /V CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of ~ - ~ AGENDA ~~RG1NlP Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.8.16. Subject: Approval of the Purchase of 1.399 Acres of Land for the Timsbury Pump Station Expansion Project from Louis L. and Betty C. Pearson County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Approve the purchase of 1.399 acres of land for the Timsbury Pump Station Expansion Project and authorize the County Administrator to execute the sales contract and deed. Summary of Information: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors approve the purchase of 1.399 acres of land adjacent to Timsbury Pump Station for $30,000. This site will be used for construction of a new pump station to replace the existing one which is under capacity for current and future needs. Funds for this purchase plus closing and acquisition costs are in the current Utilities CIP budget for the project. Approval is recommended. District: Bermuda Preparers John W. Harmon Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No Title: Real Property Manager # ooozo6 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 ~;, AGENDA RCIN Budget and Management Comments: This item requests approval of the purchase of 1.399 acres of land for the Timsbury Pump Station Expansion Project and authorization for the County Administrator to execute the sales contract and deed. The Timsbury Pump Station Expansion Project's appropriation is $5.4 million of which $93,721 has been spent mainly on engineering services. The project is currently in the design phase and once that is complete, will move to the construction phase. There is sufficient funding in this project for the purchase of the 1.399 acres. Preparers Allan M. Carmody Title: Director, Budget and Management l?~Q~®'7 VICINITY SKETCH APPROVAL OF THE PURCHASE OF 1.99 ACRES OF LAND FOR TIMSBURY PUMP STATION EXPANSION PROJECT FROM LOUIS L. AND BETTY C. PEARSON . FIALA DR ~~ ~~ ~~ I ~- ~FK Mr. and Mrs. Louis L. Pearson 1.399 acres of land. Portion of 2301 Arro~eld Road and 2101 Pine Forest Drive N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities i w '.~~/• e .T~ $ I IrcY a qra k 333J3 ke t ®o~®~ ~ TAx ID /809-630-9122-00000 ~,. ~NIT~ LOUIS C. PEARSON 6 BETTY C. PEARSON ~~ O ~ B,$' '~9~. D.B. 3312 9 PG. 538: 0.8. 1552 ! PG. 822: ~o ~ e ;f~' J~~ \ D.B. 1629 8 PG. 464; O.B. 1599 0 PG. 840 p i~ ~ s~ `~ °er0~'~9 F+ --~~, ~ + .` x ` TA ~Q,~/ 803-628-3232-00000 ~~~~` TYdiESTEAFIELD D.B. ! 0 Pe. 106' p~ ` ~~ ~ ` 0. B. 1529 l,Pli. 461 'Y•0 9 x p ` N N rT O ~ O 1 9~`` z GATE L ~~ x x s ; i 389' ' ' ' A ~ " ` ~~ ~B i i ~ il0.0! S~ ~ c~ ~ F N tpN ~ N-3629467.77 x ~ t ~ ~~ ~ ~ `~ ~ E-11804!50.26 o " ~ o ` `.` ~ ~ ~` `. p ~ ~ ` ` ` )9` v Ts c ~ ~ ~` t ~.L~XIBTr~ - ~ ~~ p0A ` ~ I , ?O. F~ D/ADD pf ~~ m c~n~ ,,, s s to _ ~ ~ 0 -, ~ ,~ Q _ , ~ ~ ~ S7j 30 ~ ~ ` I I V ~ ' ` ~` j f f~ o e'! ~~ ~ - Q ~ p~ ` ` ° ~~b 1.399 ACRES (60,960 SQ. Fr.) ~` `^~~, c TAX 70 f 803-629-3705-00000 (In Part~1 /F't71. PEARSON OUIS RSON & TTY C PE P ~ `~ ` ° L . L. A BE D. B. 9312 Q PG. 558; O.B. 1552 Q PG: 822: . s ` `~ D.B. !529 O PG. 464: D.B. !599 8 PG. 840 230! ARROMfIELO RDAD ~ ~ -! , ., `~ ``\'~ ~ . ` ` N-3629312.87 S8B'!7'bt"N 278.6'3' ` N-3629321.14 913 5 E-51804192.07 i 1 INSERT !'•200' ~~ y3 `~f ~ gg °1 ~ ' +E ~1 l ~ ci S P • 02 68 ~~ ~ ~r ~~ ~. ~ NM `~ P '` 61 ~~ ~ ~~ ~\ ~~\ ~N '~ Notes: ]. PLAT PREPARED USING FOUND P07NT5 An~o RECORDED oars As sNDHN.PROPERrr cow~ERS NDr sEr aT rrrrs rrME. 2. A. STUART ROYER PROJECT /0555. fAX ID / 803-629-3705-00000 LOUIS L. PEAASON 6 BETTY C. PEARSON D.B. 3312 0 PG. 558: D.B. 1552 Q PG. 822' O.B. 1529 A RG. 484: O.B. 1599 0 PG. 84b GRAPHIC SCALE 1"~60' 0 ~ 60 ]20 180 PLAT SHOWING A PORTION OF LAND STANDING IN THE NAMES OF LOUIS L. PEARSON ANO BETTY C. PEARSON TD BE ACQUIRED BY THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD BERMUDA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGlN1A Tax Nap ~~,~.OA 803-529 ~ D do ~ Surveyors, P.C. parcel C~1 ~~ L ~ ff~7n_ 3705 ~ P,u''y111~1 .221 Duun S-nd, P.O. Box 1828 R ~ ~I~lAID Tappohonnook, Va. 22360 07y3f ~7 I0. !417 Office: 804-443-3080 Fox.: 804-443-1550 Add}t. Ares Emalh. dmpo0arossl-nk.nd te: 05-23-07 Drew+ By: Cl~/1a'0 DJalc No. Job No. sle:J'-60' Checked 8y: APO C8-2 000209 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY d BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 ~,~MU: AGENDA Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.B.17. Subject: Request for a Permit for Woodlake Community Association to Stage a Fireworks Display at the Woodlake Pavilion/Amphitheater on August 30, 2008, with a Rain Date of September 1, 2008 County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: The Board is requested to approve a permit for Woodlake Community Association to stage a fireworks display at the Woodlake Pavilion/Amphitheater on August 30, 2008, with a rain date of September 1, 2008. Summary of Information: Cindy McVey of the Woodlake Community Association has requested permission from the Board to stage a fireworks display at the Woodlake Pavilion/Amphitheater on property owned by The Lakes on 360, Inc. adjacent to the Swift Creek Reservoir on August 30, 2008, with a rain date of September 1, 2007. Mr. W.G. Bulifant, III, of Dominion Fireworks, who has previously conducted similar displays elsewhere in the County, will personally discharge the fireworks. The applicant has conducted fireworks displays since 1995 without incident. Ms. McVey has submitted evidence of a fireworks liability insurance policy in the amount of $2,000,000 which names the County as an additional insured. The Fire Prevention Bureau has reviewed this fireworks request and indicates that it meets the criteria under the Fire Prevention Code. Preparers Steven L. Micas Title: County Attorney 0505:78480.1 Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # 00020 wOODLAKE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION 14900 Lake Bluff Parkway Midlothian, VA 23112 Apri12, 2008 Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safety Division Chesterfield Fire & EMS P.O. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832 To Whom It May Concern: Please find enclosed the required paperwork for application for a fireworks display to be held at the Woodlake Pavilion and Amphitheater on Saturday, August 30, 2008. (Rain Date: September 1, 2008) William Bulifant, of Dominion Fireworks, informs me that he will not have his certificate of insurance until June of this year. He or I will forward a copy of that to you as soon as it is available. The enclosed map shows the parking areas and roads to and from the spectator area. We will have six police officers on-site during the entire event, and they will do patrols of the area to make sure that all roads are clear and passable for emergency vehicles. You may contact our security coordinator, Chesterfield Officer Rodney Pretko at 335-6028 if needed. If you need any more information, please feel free to contact me at 739-4344. M Thanks, ~~ ~ ~ Cindy McVey Community Services Manager (804) 739-4344 FAX (804) 739-5157 ~ ~ ~ 211 www. woodlakeonline. com MEMBER COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS INSTITUTE Application for Fireworks Display (Print or Type All Information) Date of Application ~ -~ ~ ~ 6~ Event Name: I~UI~ ~J ~1~ Date: ~l (.w Time of Fireworks: q~l bU~ Rain Date:(-~c~~~ Event Locations: Shooting site/Display area:, (include map) Sponsoring Organization Person in charge of even Mailing Address: ~~~ ~~ City: ~~ ~U`{~,I ~-~ State ~_ Zip: I l Work Phone: by ~ - Home Phone: ~~~ ;~310~ Person Coordinating Fireworks: L' ~ l~/Y~1/1 /L~- o ~!-~{r~J (for the sponsor) Mailing ddress: City: ~~S ~~ State _~ Zip: o~.31J~~ Work Phone: 7//' ~p ~ "! ~ Home Phone: Company Responsible for Shooting ~lYl (n I (~~_~~-~;~-Wlnfl~ Mailing Address: ~~ ~ ~ C7~ ~~~ City: ~-~~~~~ ~'(-~C' State V f~ Zip: v~ 30 ~~ Work Phone: ~ ~-~p / Home Phone: Shooters Name: ~.Fn ~f'~ D~v/1 ~ `~'M S ~ f~_ L:handouts/hos/hono28a ~®o~~~ Note: 1. Attach a list of fireworks to be used in the display 2. Attach a copy of the certificate of insurance 3. Include a site drawing noting discharge site, spectator viewing area, parking and any nearby structures 4. Should you have any questions, call the Fire and Life Safety Division at 74s-1426. 5. Retum application to: Chesterfield Fire Department Fire and Life Safety P.O. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832 Date: ~ `~b ~ Applicant's Signature: 1 Print Name: (office use only) Remarks: i/ Site suitable for display pending County Attorney and Board of Supervisors approval. Site~unsuitabl nn Fire Official: `~/ /~,! ~ ~ ~ Date: '~l Event Representative: Date: L:handouts/hos/hono28a (~00~~3 07/16/2008 08:16 FAX 806 739 5257 Woodlake Community Assoc ~joooz/0002 ------•--••--. •~.• ++ -~ uc.. _t rwx rexTA1N, rrt~ INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERIQS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES , AGGREGATE LIMITS SHCWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. IN9~ DD'L POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY E%PBiAT10N LIMITS A ~ OEHERALUABIUTY 6490290 6/23/2008 6/23/2009 EACHOCCURRENCc S 1 000 000 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY PREMISES 'c occurence S OQO G!A!MS MADE ~ OCCUR - ~ MED EY.P (Any one pezon) S i PERSONAL6ADVINJURY S j 000 •000 '- GENERALAGGREGATE $ 00 GENLAGGREGATELIMITAPPLIESPER: PRO• ~ PRODUCTS•COMPJOPA^uG S 2 OOO 000 POLICY X LOC H AU 70MOBILEUABIUTY CA93839565 6/23/2008 6/23/2009 ~ X ANYAUTO COMBINEDSINGLELIMIT (Eaaecidenl) ($ 1, OOO, OOO ALLOWNED AUTOS SCNEDULEDAUTOS BODILY)NJURY (Per person) S X HIRED AUTOS $ NON•OWNED AUT09 HOOILY INJURY (Peraccidany $ -~ ~ ~ PROPERTY OHMAGE ~ S - {Per acUtlant) GARAGE LIABILITY AJTOONLY-EA ACCIDENT S ANYAUTO OTHERTHAN EAACC 5 AUTO ONLY: AGG S C E-XCtE997UMBRELLALUIIILITY EAU707749 6/23/2008 6/23/2009 EACHOCCURREN'CE 3 4 000 00 $ !OCCUR ~ CLAIMSMADE ~ ~, AGGREGATE S G, OOO,'OOO DEDUCTIBLE F RETENTION S ', 3 H PBLSTMlONAND DM E WC2257S69 6/4/ZOC'8 6/4/2009 OTH• X WCY~ARR A EMPLD YERB 3 ' ANY PROPRIETORIPARTNER/EXECUTNE OFFICER/MEMHEREXC UOED E.L. EACH ACCIDENT '-.. -- S 50Qi Q OO L 7 If yxs, deactlba under E.L DISEASE-EA EMPLOYEE 5500.000 SPECIAL PROVISIONS below E.L. DISEASE-?OLICY LIMIT 35 0 0 OTHER __...._.__. __...~^^~. ^..~^~.....~.., .,.,.,.. rtacipcnl/aryyJALrnIVYI3IVNS ate: August 30, 2D09 Additional Insured: #1 County of Cheater£ield, Vi:-ginia sin Date: D9/03/07 #2 Lake Foint Home Owners Association ocation; Goose Island #3 Care of Martha Garcia and adjacent property owners ocdlake Community, Virginia CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION - ~ - SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED Woodlake Community Association BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREO:, THE ISSUING INSURER 14900 Lake Bluff Paikw^ WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE °y CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED'TO THE LEFT, SUT FAILURE TO DO SO Midlothiar. VA 23112 SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THS INSURER, ITS AGENT3 OR REPRESENTATSVES. _..... AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE - ~--~ ACORD 25 (2001108) p ACORN CORPORATION 1988 ®®IG~4 JUL-16-2008 09 20 806 739 5257 94% P. 82 THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE PEEN ISSTJBD TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR TH8 POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING AN1' REQUIREMENT, TERtq OR CONDITION CF ANY CONTRACT OR GTHER DOCUMENT 477TH RF.RDR[`T mn murnu mc/re Woodlake Community Association Firework Inventory List WOODLAKE August 30, 2008 175 3 inch assorted 50 4 inch assorted 24 5 inch assorted 180 2.5 inch color finale with an additional 40 3 inch salutes 0002.5 -P~ U P' r tl N'1 ~~. ~,fq~y 41 .' ~ • .. V - d~'oo ~° ~. C~yoCOrrU ~_ ~~~ O r A+' ~ aP of i~ K AO ~h07fH~ ! o V/ M ~ J I ~ S[ aD ~ ry e~! ~ ~ .ossOM ~ t y O. MOs + RADE ~F $P c ~ ^: ' ~ - ~ !U n ~ r / ' i CHIMNEY ~. +o , HOUSE I F`°' ~; <'< ~ ~+` E SPRING '~ = ^., y ~b ~ S ui ws ,- E ` r• aft Se '„ v.oo ~~ ooart,0~t / r . I AUTU i ~ *ru G~ .~ cE 4aOrs'+C r ~'t f~ s,~+.r a s E E~ ` o W o s ~. O ~ ~ ~ c ~ . ,rr rtur~ to + ~ to `~ g I ~HA NAT' an < K'0 +a ~ ' o A~a E D - s ~ o ~ ~ 's00f ° rt c~7 yO ,r' + ~ b 6 E 6 COYEr ~ _ Q aoc v ~ ;~ eo ~ ! ~ ° w D RIDGf..at, ~ a I ~cc ~yc~a, c ~ rof~ b oµ + °' f _ NODE 4 '~. f r y ~ y t' ~~ t B n +~ o ~ R ~ Rµ I ~ w' ` ~ x~ os .. + ~ ~ a ~ ~r~ N b ~ I ,goo ~o s ~ Ro ~IOG ~i RN 1 Nvrt ao ~ ~ ° ~oi~s i os rE c 'r - per c ~ ~ rt ING ' ,~ o ~ ufoo ~ l y ~ gn } REGA ~ r (+ E R~ v ~r aE ~ ~~ 4 '" ° " ERBURN .s 2. +!i aE 0Cr cr ` O POIN~a c uowraEO rP p' ~* ~ ~ ~Y ° ~ ~ t~ ;~. ,~Jr jE;.. r SHALLOWFOR p !f k ~k 'f> 1 6E c 4- q~,~ o TRACE `aE' c ~ ~ , u ~i ~ <+ 4~4!° I~ a s ~• ` R r - ~ '.f' . ~~ ~ ~ fra tl~ I~f~BIR H. ~ O ~COM ., s r~ r~ ~ ~~ I ! ~ T --i D P ' g I C~ I I~ • k _ ~ ~~ Sb ~'~f, '` ~fl p ~ ~ ~' ~ RIDGE ~',~., ~I, ` ~ KINGSPOIN 668 I '"'"~~ ,rtr ,q 1 J WINTERBE RY Loaf ` RI GE b ~ ~ 0 ' t a ~ ~fi, uE r POINT W OD ~~'~ NORTH CH~ ~ ~ *~ °` 4 I En O~ ~~ e f ~~~ ~ ~' ~ . II s ' }y E~ UTCN IE D ~ ~FFr YT R °ClpTtf H w0 D ~<. ~ ~ LWGr ""- R , ~ S = GAT " Js ,asa ~ ~~ ~ g ~ i ~ f C e ~ G twc `` S I b ~, ~~ ~ M ILL ~ » ~ . r o SHAD W ~ ~ `~ a ~l I } a c w E ss C M r ~ srs S~ ~ .6 N eo . , f 'tr r ~ ~ as'4 itA "`n ~ °" ~' c 14 ~ ~ ~`~ HARBOL'i "T r ACORN V~ s " C,.E. A - ~O ROCKPOI~Y! attoou~ t ~ BLI ' •~ Rrt' G ' OI ` RIDGE ~~ . r ~ r ~ ~',. ~J,~rt Sotti .7J?~, - ~ r ii` b°J` e . o ' SH ER' ~¢ C F ~.., o ] r n .. ~5 ~'IE ~, Ate. 'fis t" i tE,Np , CO S' ~`' O ', ~'r g r: F -NS ( ! 1 CO _ ~ o ~ t uT •' ' •< C ~ h``"' y B 00p ~ MyITE fCRE N• _ ~~ +»,~ .N-\CM ~ ~! ~ l' ~°J~ ~< ~ o rre- e Y,}A i ~* ", ~ ~ S ranc . G l~ LANDI G ~ ~'t r' ~ W ILL MOCKINGBI " ~ HI 5 o wTC(s ~ ~ y c pll ~ foa N,pppu ,y ClorcrHitl ~ ! srll urra R ~~.,.,~. ..' ~ ~ Co) ,tit's +~`~t '4fr - rrlK[ E' ~J6 : a~ic ai ~ CIOr f F1iilC ~ °!, ,rES •S I i r ' 0 S tClfi tc n ~ ~ !~ ,~+! !i ~ ~ ~ r ~, n!! ' ' J I ~ t F, ~ I Tm s ~ c Nil II aMTlt ~ ~f b ` _ ~ y ~ 36 p o ~~+ ° ~,~. , ~.y ., 'J .... S <. R~>,o ~ 69 ~ E' E ~I R 7 r J .Ti'? ~ +o`o . / ~ ''`t- 621 ~ g fi y ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ c K + ti `c ^ ^ a g. r r< + ~ ASHBROO ? ek `sE _ ~^„ woR ~~. v E,.~o ..o M o. o e iCT l$ 00 1 N OOC EYY S ' ° M\M F ~\N I r•^l„~p r` y tp ! ~ N M SWIM \F ~M~~p~~ !! ~c~ to 4(!Y i~ b l 0~ E ASHBROOK"Iwsraa ^P~+ CfCCk 1 ~l ~ p / ^ i° Chc arham ' -: •;~~ ~ - - - __ fiuve~~ - e _ , -~ ,, ~~, ~q„ s, o`fi r :~ r I y~y ~~,a Y I kr~~ ~ i i ~ f ± ! - ~ 9 I i ~ ~ - !:' m .: J ' ~,~ { 1M e ~ s I C ,~~ .. l I i l Mu11.S~t Rd ~ ~~r ~__- - ~~' ~ ~ 360 - ~~0~~.~ Environmental Fact Sheet WD-BB-60 Fireworks and New Hampshire's Lakes 2008 Concerns of Health and Environmental Effects There are growing concerns about the use of fireworks around New iampshire's lakes. As fun and enjoyable as fireworks can be, they may be causing more damage then you know. Aside from the obvious danger of operating controlled explosives, what you may not realize is the effects fire works have environmentally, economically and health wise. Print Version ~~~ ~~,~ . ~ Firework Ingredients and their Dangers ' Fireworks are composed of many different elements, each contributing to the noise, color or propellant. While these ingredients combine to form a beautiful spectacle, many of them are very dangerous. Here's a list of a few common firework ingredients, their use, and what makes them so dangerous. Toxic Element Fireworks Usage Toxic Effect of Fallout Dust & Fumes Lead Nitrate/Dioxide/Chlorid oxidizer Bioaccumulation; developmental danger for e children and the unborn; may remain airborne for days; poisonous to plants and animals Barium glittering greens Extremely poisonous, radioactive Lithium blazing reds Slightly toxic Rubiditun purple colors Slightly radioactive; can replace calcium in body Strontium blazing reds Can replace calcium in body; can be radioactive Copper compounds blues Dioxin pollution Aluminum brilliant whites Contact dermatitis Ammonium Perchlorate propellant Can contaminate ground and surface waters; can disrupt thyroid functions Cadmium firework colors Extremely toxic, carcinogenic; can bioaccumulate Potassi~un Nitrate in black powder Toxic dusts, carcinogenic sulfur-coal compounds Sulfur Dioxide gaseous Acid rain from sulphuric acid affects water Page 1 of 2 d_ B 1'~'~'g1111114'11 ~ ..i~ ~t, r~ ~,~_ _. ,r, r~3i ._~n ,' ~~ nt<paiwww.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/bb/inc/60.htrnl 7/29/2008 Page 2 of 2 byproduct of sources, vegetation and causes property sulfur combustion damage The F,t'f'ects Fireworks have on You and Nature The fallout of these different chemicals can affect you both '~ ~1~, directly and indirectly. Once a firework explodes in the sky, it ~ `~ +~' ~ M ZS,~ does many things. The gases from the rocket and the explosion • ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;- are released into the atmosphere, where they are inhaled by o...~,`~~~~f%; - ~- humans and animals, and hurt the ozone layer. In addition to the -~~~ ~ _~'^i gases, the debris and burnin metals fall back to earth where ~ r'' 'j ~ g they ~,~ ~ ~ 1` `~`~. litter the area, contaminate aquatic ecosystems, and poison the /~; ~ ~ ~~ wildlife, eventually working their way up the food chain. t+1~ How Phosphorus in Fireworks Impacts the Water It has taken years to determine the dangers associated with the many ingredients in fireworks. Up until very recently, phosphorous (also found in fertilizers) was highly popular in fireworks until. the realisation of its associated problems to the environment. Although most rnanufacturers no longer incorporate more than trace amounts of phosphorus in fireworks, every little bit added to a lake can influence water quality. Phosphorus accelerates a process called eutrophication, which is the process that results in increased biomass, decreased lake clarity, decreased bottom oxygen, and increases the likelihood of cyanobacteria scums. Algal and cyanobacteria blooms caused by phosphorus introductions impact fisheries, drinking water supplies and impact the health of people who recreate in the waters as well as pets and any animal that drinks these waters. 11~~ The Final Impact Altogether the damaging effect fireworks have is overwhelming. They impact water quality by affecting the odor and taste of drinking water. On the economic side, excessive algal and cyanobacteria growth due to ~a phosphorus or contamination due to firework fallout increases water ,_ ~ ~ treatment costs, degrades fishing and boating activities, and impacts ~~ .~ ~ /tourism and property values.:['he cost of damage done to property, the ~ 1/~"~ litter and the effect upon both wildlife and human life is incalculable. 1 The Department of Environmental Services urges you to consider the effects of fireworks and perhaps find an alternative to a problem that is only growing with time. For more information, please go to these links: http://w~wv.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/bb/inc/60.htm1 7/29/2008 Y~ h ,~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Subject: Item Number: 8.8.18. Approval of a Change in the Terms of the Note Between the Economic Development Authority and Wachovia Bank Which Will Allow for the Purchase of the Ground Lease at Cloverleaf Mall County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board is requested to approve a change in the terms of the note between the Economic Development Authority and Wachovia Bank to allow for the purchase of the ground lease interest at Cloverleaf Mall. Summary of Information The Economic Development Authority is under a binding contract to purchase the ground lease interest at Cloverleaf Mall for a base purchase price of $7.25 million with closing scheduled to occur in August. On January 23, 2008, when the Board approved the execution of the ground lease purchase contract, it also authorized a $7 million increase in the current $10 million existing line of credit note between the EDA and Wachovia Bank to fund the purchase. The maturity on the current note is in October. Wachovia is willing to increase the principal amount of the existing line of credit to $17 million subject to increasing the interest rate from LIBOR plus 35 basis points to LIBOR plus 45 basis points and extending the note's maturity date to October 2009. There has not been an interest rate increase on this note since it was executed in October 2004. The budget office has investigated other borrowing opportunities to fund the ground lease purchase price and the terms from Wachovia are by far the most favorable. The Economic Development Authority approved the new terms at their July 17t'' meeting. Preparers Allan M. Carmody Title: Director, Budget and Management Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No # (~00~18 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 ~~-° r ~; AGENDA yRC~r+a-' a Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 8.6.19. Subject: Authorize the County Administrator to Execute a Construction Contract for Daniel Park Sewer Line and Wet Pump Station County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board of Supervisors is requested to authorize the County Administrator to execute a construction contract with Lyttle Utilities, Inc. for the Daniel Park Sewer Line and Wet Pump Station in the amount of $114,700.00. Summary of Information: The scope of work for this project is to include the connection to public sewer for several facilities in the park currently operating on a private septic drain field system. The sewer system will have a combination of force main and gravity sewer. The facilities to be served will be Central Chesterfield Little League Restroom/Concession, the football/soccer restroom and the Chesterfield Baseball Clubs Restroom/Concession. The Central Chesterfield Little League septic system failed several years ago and required extensive repairs/upgrades to fix. The other facilities served are over 25 years old and are candidates for failure in the near future. The lowest bidder was chosen from 15 vendor responses to bid # 08-3186-9684. Parks and Recreation recommends approval. The funding comes from the CIP Account Center Harry Daniel Ironbridge Park Utility Improvements, 3A-6BR. Preparers Attachments: Michael S. Golden ^ Yes ^ No Title: Director, Parks and Recreation ~~. lgc~K~4y~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Budget and Management Comments: This item requests that the Board authorize the County Administrator to execute a construction contract with Lyttle Utilities, Inc. in the amount of $114,700. Several facilities in Daniel Park currently operate on a private septic drain field system. The contractor will connect these facilities to the public sewer. Project funding comes from the Harry Daniel Ironbridge Park Utility Improvements account in the Capital Improvement Program. Sufficient funds are available in the project to award this contract. Preparers Allan M. Carmody Title: Director, Budget and Management 000220 OUAIFF LN CENTRAL CHESTERFIELD LITTLE LEAGUE RESTROOM CONCESSION w a~w• Z~ ' W R. ~ 'm. ~UAIFF LN '.. ../ FIRST TEE ,., ~ \ ~~~ GOLF COURSE ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~, '``1 ~ ~~ CHESTERFIELD - BASEBALL CLUBS _, '~~ ~~ ~ ~1 - RESTROOM j .. ~ I'_'~"' ;~ CONCESSION ~.. . _. _.~. ~Npy~?6ANF~ ,." I r. 1 . PRO -... ...~.,:~.~. n o 'J ~ a 9 ~~ 02 ~~il~'kc '~• ' l `v~ /~ ~ ~ a~ ~ / - z~~ ~. .- ~- \ '. . ,~~ ~~~ ~ __ ~ o ,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 ~~KpR 3 f~~ - _ t r9 _ -~Z- ' ~,~, i op \_.+ "~'~~._ 1t .. DEERWATER CT 4~ r 11 ' f I __ ' _ ___ _.._ ... ~_., _ _i. ~ ._..._ _-_ RT 288 RT 2B8 I FOOTBALL SOCCER `, _ RESTROOM DANIEL PARK -CONNECTION TO PUBLIC SEWER N 0 260 520 1,040 Feet Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Capyrighr ~F'2008 Chenmrf eld County, Urginin 7.23.2008 3002 Aerixl phomprephy-P"blic lbmain Bid Award Supporting Information Prinmd by LSkI*" ArcGIBT" t'\ ®0 I~ ~ /, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY "emu BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 AGENDA Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 9.A. Subject: Developer Water and Sewer Contracts County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board of Supervisors has authorized the County Administrator to execute water and/or sewer contracts between County and Developer where there are no County funds involved. The report is submitted to Board members as information. Summary of Information: The following water and sewer contracts were executed by the County Administrator: 1. Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: 04-0079 Dupuy Court, Section 2 Price Design, Incorporated William M. Harmon Contractors Wastewater Improvements - Matoaca Preparers William O. Wright Title: Assistant Director of Utilities $52,754.50 Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No # 000222 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA Summary of Information: (Continued) 2. Contract Number: 05-0082 Project Name: Burroughs Bluff Developer: Christopher H. Daly Contractor: Browning Construction Company Contract Amount: Wastewater Improvements - $32,500.00 District: Midlothian 3. Contract Number: 07-0182 Project Name: Spacemart Developer: Commonwealth Center Storage LLC Contractor: Bookman Construction Company Contract Amount: Water Improvements - $81,040.00 Wastewater Improvements - $3,500.00 District: Matoaca 4. Contract Number: 07-0227 Project Name: Starbucks Corporation Developer: Starbucks Corporation Contractor: JORD Construction, LLC Contract Amount: Water Improvements - $21,210.000 Wastewater Improvements - (Private) District: Bermuda 5. Contract Number: 07-0338 Project Name: 1115 Crowder Drive Developer: Alan E. Campbell Contractor: Lyttle Utilities Incorporated Contract Amount: Wastewater Improvements - $37,310.00 District: Midlothian (~00~~3 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 9.B. Subiect: Status of General Fund Balance, Reserve for Future Capital Projects, District Improvement Funds, and Lease Purchases County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Acceptance of attached report. Summary of Information: Preparers James J. L. Steamaier Title: County Administrator Attachments: ^ Yes ^ No # 000~~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY GENERAL FUND BALANCE July 30, 2008 BOARD MEETING DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT BALANCE 07/01/08 FY2009 Beginning Budgeted Balance *Pending outcome of FY2008 Audit Results $53,495,000 ~~®~~5 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY RESERVE FOR FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS 7/30/2008 Board Meeting Date Description Amount Balance 6/30/2007 FY07 Ending Balance FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 BEGINNING JULY 1, 2008 4/9/2008 FY2008 Budgeted Addition 4/9/2008 FY2008 Capital Projects $1,097,798 17,810,300 18,908,098 (16,792,400) 2,115,698 ~~~~~~ Q z w z ~o W N O M a .~ ~ ~ U H A ao ^~ ~ ~ b ~" a „ d u ^~ C t. ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ O "'~ ~, C bD ~ O M ~~ ~A ~o w a~ ~~ W 0 0 o ~, ~ ~ sir O i. d ~. ~. ~ °' O i, ,~ i, a U N ~ O~ . -i M O O ~ ~ O M . -i N O M ~ rf ~ M ~ ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O ~ N O N l~ ~ ~ ~ 6~9 O O O O O o ° ° ° ° ° ° o o o o o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 00 00 00 00 M ~ _ 6 7- ~ 6~4 ~ 6~4 69 ~ ~ o ~ ~ O O O~ ~ M ~-+ M N O r-+ M ~--~ N `O 64 ~--~ 69 64 69 6R ~ ~ ~, A ~ W _ .., x ~ U A ~ o ~ ~ ~ s ~° ~ ~ ~ o U ~~~~~~ Prepared by Accounting Department June 30, 2008 Date B 04/99 O1/O1 03/03 03/04 10/04 12/04 12/04 OS/OS 05/06 08/07 SCHEDULE OF CAPITALIZED LEASE PURCHASES APPROVED AND EXECUTED Original Description Amount Public Facility Lease -Juvenile Courts Project $16,100,000 Certificates of Participation - Building Construction, Expansion and Renovation; Acquisition/Installation of Systems Certificates of Participation -Building Construction, Expansion and Renovation Certificates of Participation -Building Construction, Expansion and Renovation; Acquisition/Installation of Systems Cloverleaf Mall Redevelopment Project Energy Improvements at County Facilities Energy Improvements at School Facilities Certificates of Participation -Building Acquisition, Construction, Installation, Furnishing and Equipping; Acquisition/Installation of Systems Certificates of Participation -Building Acquisition, Construction, Installation, Furnishing and Equipping; Acquisition/Installation of Systems Certificates of Particij~ation -Building Expansion/Renovation, Equipment Acquisition TOTAL APPROVED AND EXECUTED PENDING EXECUTION Description None 13,725,000 6,100,000 21,970,000 9,225,000 1,519,567 427,633 14,495,000 11,960,000 22,220,000 $117.742.200 Outstanding Date Balance Ends 6/30/08 11/19 $9,660,000 11/21 8,210,000 11/23 4,820,000 11/24 18,550,000 10/08 9,225,000 12/17 1,286,826 12/10 222,979 11/24 12,435,000 11/24 10,350,000 11/27 22,220,000 $96.979.805 Approved Amount ~0~~~8 hgc~N~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 9.C. Subject: Roads Accepted into the State Secondary System County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Reauested: Acceptance of attached report. Summary of Information: Preparers Janice Blakley Attachments: ^ Yes Title: Clerk to the Board No # 000229 0 O N O M O t O 0 w a0 O 0 N O O 01 4 "~ "~'~ _4~ ,~ 0 w w o s U O ~ ~ C O ~ O ~ U .v o o O O o O I~ O ~ ~ i 0 ~ O ~ O ,~ O ~ M ~ ~ [ A O ~, O p O i i N o i N 0 N o N o ! O ~o ., a Q •r o 0 : 0 0 ~~ O 0 ~ i 0 ~Q '' v ~ O i ~ O o ~ N ~ I j O V ~ 4i ? C*, W t j "~ O q 'Z' ~ O ~~ O o o 'o !o o to ', N q Q ,O 'N N N N N - N ~: O N ! O N O i~ N ~ b p V S' ~ N co ~ N m N co N ~ , co f N co ~ ~ <o co ~o 0) 4 C3 O G h p _ MO C MO '~.. ~ M O M O c i ~ O ~ Q O . ~ y ~ ~1 ~ I y+ C~.1 y II j ~ ~ i 0) ~ ~ O O ! ~ r O O N ON ~ N ~I y .~`! ' ~ ~ ti O O p ~ O O O O i ` ~ ~ ~ I I O ,h p ~ I 0 c~ ~ w u°~ 1° ~° ! `° ,°~ i ,o A .., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ado N ~ v i 0 n j ~ ~ ~ N n ' ~ '~ w rn ~ d 0 ~ ado ~ ' Q U ~ h CS ~ ~ Q ` aO0 ~ j D O ,`" N ~' ' ~ ~, N f~ N O O lC N I ~+yi c ~ o ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ;° 'r' ~ N m g g ~ I a '', ~ ~ „O w o g !, o w w ~, '~ ~ h ~ ~ ~ d '~ ~ ^ ~ j ! N I ~ ~ I N j ~ ~ ~ H ~ 'V o ' F_ ~ ~ O O~ ~ U ~ N n O ' ~ 000 i N N N~ Q + ., Y ~ ~ ~ ' O U ~ ~, N ~ ~ 'C ~ ~ n ~ n ~ n ~ n 2 U h C ~ O ;~' ~ ~ ~ ° i m ~ p D I U N ~ N N Q .0 ~ -' M I .~ p1 = ~ N ~ ~~ a ' ~ I .~ Of .~ o .p m O O 04'1 n r N ~ 1 0 O 1 6 ~ O U '~ _ ~ ~ 2 ~ 2 ~ 2 ', .y O '.~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ o O p ~ Q '~ C w. O ~ ~ w O I d ~ > ~ > 0 > d O Q O Oq ,y ~ ~ C ~~ V W C . . D . .0 ' ' \ OI C j ~ H ,O! C ~ H , 1 C j ~ ~ C Q C ~ I~ Q C i ~ ... of CS N ,~., p N 0 N N d ~ m O A i C a~ a~ .: a~ .: ~ a~ O ~ °' o ~ '' o Er ~ O G u 1 i ono ano ano of°o rn 00 rn obi q QC ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o n 0 n 0 ~ o v i ~ .~ ... ~ Q O o .~ h +.. 01 bQ ? d ~L : ~ N N ~ ~ ~ V Q Q R ~ . 1 ~ v h ~ ~ ~ 000~3~ O p O ~ N O ~ M ~ O "4 N t ~ O 0 r ? Q O N O .~ O ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ +., '~ ~ ~ O h d _O ~ N O .504 'w ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ tl ~ p ~ U h ~ ~ ,~ '~ ~ °~ ~ ~ h ~ ~ '~ ~~ ~ N 0 N rrw~w q o _1 ti h 3 °~ '~pA ~ ~ s ~ I~ '~ O ~ ~ U w ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ U b4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ U U ~q ~ N 04 'ti G ~ ~ w ~ ~~ O O ~ R ~ U ~~ tr A 0 ? U .Oa W Ui +.' V ~ 0 blp 0> .y +~.~ ;~ ~i 0 L O O O i O O ~' O O O O p O O I O M . N N N ~ N ~ N N O o O O O ' O O O O i i -- O O ', O O ~~pp O ~', ~' O ICI ~ O ~ I O ~ ~ 0 1 ~ Qr . O co ° Io ° o ° w ° Sao ° o ~ ° o o ° 0 o 0 b a o N o N o N o N ~ o N ~ N N N '''... N , N f0 N ('7 ~ f0 ~ N M CO N ( O N (O N t0 I N ~ f~0 N ~ fp N ~ ~ (p N ~ b O '~ O M O M O M ! O M O I M O O '., p O , ~ ~ ! ,.O I ~ ~ p O p O ~ ~ O p O N '.~ O N O N O N O I M '. O 001 O '. O O O !, O O O O li p O ~ O ~ I I ,y O ~ O ~ ~ > O ~ O ~ ~ O v O v O v O I v A ~ d i ~ n I ° n n I ~ ~ o~ h U U ~ o m a°o ! o m c c r, ~ h n m I m '~` m ' a~ - U !~ c - ', ~ Z I ~ Z '~ U O ~ J C lV4 ' ( i ~ i U O ~ i O ~ ~ V ~ ~ n m C ~ m f6 ~ fD ~ .D N CO ''~ f0 N ~. 0 ~ Z U_ Z U ~ ~ U y I - ~ i ~ ~ 'I ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ,. 0 _ '. 0 ~' ~ O ! ' J~ y E O O O O ~ ~ ^ ~ i ~ O ~ ~„ ~ ~ ^ N n N ~ E E I E i E N ~ Q C C I,, Y C J C F- _ U y y I. _ d ey J U J~ J U O O p~ Z p (A c m c ' c c p~ O I C ~ ~ N '~ ' ~ , m , • m • m • Z Z I m ~ ' ~ o ~ o ~ ~ y ~ E E •~ ° ' o ~ z C z ~, z, d z ~ ~ o Z ~ ,~ E ~~ ~ E E o f ~ E ~~ E ~ E I ~ ~ E! ~ E '~ o o ~ N O U O '.. U o!. J O I J o J O H O j~ o Oq ,~n ~ ~ E u. C li C ~ C ~ C ~ ~ LL. C lL ! ~ ~ c m ' m ' m ' ' ' N c c c i m c m c m ~ m S e4 ~ , ~ "7 ~ J ~ Z ~ , Z ~ Z ~ Z ~ Z ~ ! Z ~ Z F- C ~ ~ h C c ~ ~ N O to O O N O N f0 O f0 f0 f~ 1~ ~ ~ ,\C ~ ~ O O O O O O O O O O O 'C Q O O O ` ~ y ~ C O c . ' ~ Q ~~ y ti 000231 7 NQ 4~ N O J ti 0 y 0 O N O M O m 0 O N 0 0 O 4 0 oRi "~ nr a~ O C D O U 0 N O ti N o~ q O .~ i U ~ ~ ~ ~ +.. '~ ~ O O h o ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~, `~ h O ~~ ~ °' h ~~ ~~ ~~ o ~~ ~~ ~~ O~ q ~ O 0. ~ ~ ~ w U ~ O ~ ~ +., p ~ ~ h ~ ,s U v ~ w ~q w~ ~ bq ~ ~ ~ '~ '~ ~ .~ b °' w t" A O ? W ~' v ~ O ~ N N ~ ~ 5 w b w :; a '~. U .C d U z F d i w pC ~~Jo~~~ M N ti Oq 0 b a b b a ~.. r .1~, 0 A obi c 0 0 h h Q O t ti '+ r :~ 0 A u '^ tl ~ O o v o ~: N M O 0 y o e 'a C A v v i ~+ O y r o4 ~ ~ o ~ r ~ y `o ~ O A ~a~ b a h ti July 30, 2008 Speaker's List Afternoon Session 1. Victor Mottley 2. Brenda Stewart 3. Robert Owens 4. 5. Hull Street Road and Courthouse Road 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Jan 7 3 3 2 1 2 Feb 3 7 3 4 2 3 Mar 2 3 4 8 5 4 Apr 5 2 6 7 0 4 May 5 5 3 10 7 3 Jun 5 2 4 7 7 3 6-Month Subtotal 27 22 23 38 22 19 Jul 4 4 3 2 3 Aug 2 5 4 0 5 Sep 3 6 8 4 5 Oct 2 6 5 6 2 Nov 3 2 4 4 3 Dec 3 5 2 5 4 Total by Year 44 50 49 59 45 19 V.~C~ti~~e' ` p -~^~d BRENDA L. STEWART 5911 Woodpecker Road Chesterfield, VA 23838 Phone/Fax: (804) 590-2309 E-mail: bl-stewart(c~comcast.net July 30, 2008 ~J V' e. ~ d ~t S~ ec~ r ~' iDu ~ ~ i L CU ~ m ~+ht' REMARKS TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DURING PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AT THE AFTERNOON SESSION I have been researching sign ordinances following a recent decision of this Board that essentially ignored the Board's own policy, the purpose and intent of the sign ordinance and specific ordinance requirements. On a 3-2 vote, this Board endorsed an electronic sign for Matoaca High School that will tower 12 feet into the air and could be 10 feet wide. The sign area as designed is almost twice the allowable limit according to the plain English language of the ordinance. The school will not be granted a permit for such a sign according to the Planning Department permitting official, but the school is continuing to seek bids for the potentially illegal sign. Matoaca High's 10- by 12-foot sign will be located on an agriculturally zoned lot at Longhouse Lane and Woodpecker Road directly across from an agriculturally zoned parcel I co-own. However, we are not allowed to place a sign taller than five feet in height and larger than eight square feet in total area for all signs that we might choose to erect on our lot. Do you need a clearer example of unconstitutional, content-based restrictions in a sign ordinance? Signs are a form of communication, so the free speech provisions of the state and federal constitutions limit the county's authority to regulate signs based on its police power. During my research, it became apparent that Chesterfield's sign ordinance is unconstitutional. It restricts free speech, because it is content based. It is not content neutral. Therefore, it is a source of potentially expensive litigation against the county. In addition, I could find no time limits for granting sign permits. According to a recent Eleventh Circuit decision in Solantic, LLC v City of Neptune Beach, the lack of a time limit on licensing decisions in a content-based ordinance was judged to constitute a prior restraint on speech. Chesterfield's ordinance lists numerous examples of content-based restrictions under Section 19-637, Limitation on specific signs and under Section 19-649, Size restrictions for specific types of freestanding signs. 2 The very Language added in January 2007 as a result of a circuit court judge's ruling against Chesterfield County in the Morrissette case is an unconstitutional, content-based restriction on free speech. This revision was specifically intended to address signs that express personal opinions. Other noncommercial signs are excluded from the limitation of five feet in height and a total area not exceeding eight square feet for all signs on the lot zoned residential or agricultural. Chesterfield's ordinance regulates on the basis of content and constitutes a prior restraint on speech. The law is clear. Please make it a priority to revise the sign ordinance to make it constitutional. Chester Community Association PO Box 3175 Chester, VA 23831 Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors PO Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832 July 30, 2008 Mr. Chairman, Honorable Board of Supervisors: (~v~~ ~ C~~~ s Although I have met all of you on previous occasions, I come before you today to introduce myself to you in a new capacity. My name is Robert Owens and I am the newly elected President of the Chester Community Association. The Chester Community Association was formed in 2001 as a community based organization under the auspices of the Chesterfield County Community Enhancement Program. Its mission, in part, is to protect the vision set forth in the Chester Plan, and our continuing goals, established as part of a yeaz-long process, include enhancing the quality of life for the approximately 25,000 resident of the Chester Plan azea. Over the past several months, the Chester community has come together to outline its vision for the proposed North-South Boulevard through our Village. The section of most interest to the Village is the proposed section from Chester Road to Branders Bridge Road. In connection with this interest, we advocate the following with regazd to the proposed Boulevard: The following key requirements are currently being tracked by the CCA for updates to meet the intent of the Chester Plan: • A design speed of 35MPH through the Village with a posted speed limit of 30MPH. A 30MPH Village Boulevard Concept that serves as a gateway to Chester would strengthen our community. We believe the proposed design speed of 45-SOMPH is too high for the Village of Chester and does not follow the tenants outlined for a multimodal, mixed-use, traditional neighborhood development. • A village boulevard that is pedestrian friendly and has frequent and logical points for pedestrians to easily cross the proposed boulevard. This is important as Chester expands west toward the new boulevazd and for existing neighborhoods connecting back to the core village area. • Narrow travel lanes as an effective speed control measure. Travel lane widths closer to 10 feet will keep speeds at an appropriate pace for the Village without the need for additional enforcement. • A "Roundabouts First" philosophy for intersection traffic control at the Parkway's intersections with Chester Road, Ecoff Road, and Branders Bridge Road. Roundabouts are safer and more efficient for travel when compared to traffic signals. They provide a scenic vista for all users and control speeding. They also enhance access management by reducing the need for median breaks and left turns. ~ ~' ~- S wrL (j-d.~l_ • An offset alignment to provide the necessary room for a world class Chester Linear Park. The existing park is an asset to the community and we envision a greenway that connects Chester to Branner Station and becomes part of the East Coast Crreenway trail system from Maine to Florida Consequently the Association is actively advocating a vision we call: "A community NOT a thoroughfare." Recently a letter containing these points was sent to Supervisor Jaeckle and I would like to take this opportunity to thank her for her interest and encouragement with regard to these issues. The Association has two websites that deal with our organization and its goals: http://chestercommunity.org/ and http://chesterconnections.org_/ I also want to thank the Board for this opportunity to introduce myself, to re-introduce the Chester Community Association and to speak about this issue which is so vital to our shared vision of a stable and livable community. Copies of our letter and of these comments have been given to the Clerk. Thank you, ~ ~~~~ D Dr. Robert R. Owens President, Chester Community Association ~o ley ~ C~w~~t S July 4, 2008 The Honorable Dorothy A. Jaeckle Bermuda Board of Supervisor Chesterfield County P.O. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832-0040 Subject: Branner Station -North -South Boulevard Design and Posted Speed Dear Mrs. Jaeckle: Thank you for hearing our concerns and convening the May 6"' meeting with county and state employees and representatives of the HH Hunt design team. The meeting was important as it outlined the desire to have a boulevard concept that strengthens and unites the existing village of Chester with the Branner Station development. At the end of the meeting, it was apparent that everyone around the table is committed to providing a showcase example in Chesterfield County of how to strengthen communities through a legacy roadway project. The mission of the Chester Community Association (CCA) is to implement the Chester Village Plan by actively representing the entire Chester community and presenting the common goals and objectives before appropriate organizations, groups, and officials. Over the past several months, the Chester community has come together to outline its vision for the proposed North-South Boulevard through our Village. The section of mast interest to the Village is the proposed section from Chester Road to Branders Bridge Road. The following key requirements are currently being tracked by the CCA for updates to meet the intent of the Chester Plan: Require a design speed of 35MPH through the Village with a posted speed limit of 30MPH. A 30MPH Village Boulevard Concept that serves as a gateway to Chester would strengthen our community. Currently, the proposed design speed of 45-50MPH is too high for the Village of Chester and does not follow the tenants outlined for a multimodal, mixed-use, traditional neighborhood development. Require a village boulevard that is pedestrian friendly and have frequent and logical points for pedestrians to easily cross the proposed boulevard. This is important as Chester expands west toward the new boulevard and for existing neighborhoods connecting back to the core village area. • Require narrow travel lanes as an effective speed control measure. Travel lanes widths closer to 10 feet will keep speeds at an appropriate pace for the Village without the need for additional enforcement. Require a "Roundabouts First" philosophy for intersection traffic control at the Parkway's intersection with Chester Road, Ecoff Road, and Branders Bridge Road. Roundabouts are safer and more efficient for travel when compared to traffic signals. They provide a scenic vista for all users and control speeding. They also enhance access management by reducing the need for median breaks and left turns. • Require an offset alignment to provide the necessary room for a world class Chester Linear Park. The existing park is an asset to the community and we envision a greenway that connects Chester to Branner Station and becomes part of the East Coast Greenway trail system from Maine to Florida If you have received a status update on the progress of the studies related to these key requirements, we will be glad to meet with you at your convenience. Dorothy, we are grateful for your support on these issues as they are critical implementing the Chester Plan and ultimately to our legacy for future generations of the Bermuda district. We look forward to making any upcoming approvals with you in the fall. after the public has had a chance to thoroughly review the proposed roadway. Sincerely, Mark Fausz CCA President CC: R. J. McCracken Stan Newcomb Dale R. Totten, PE Jonathan Rideout Craig Eddy CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~_ ~. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 r~~, AGENDA ~Rs~Na Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 11. Subject: Closed Session County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: Closed session pursuant to § 2.2-3711(A)(1), Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, relating to the performance and compensation of the County Administrator and pursuant to § 2.2-3711(A)(7), Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, for consultation with legal counsel regarding Moseley, et. al. v. Chesterfield County. Preparers Steven L. Micas Title: County Attorney 0800:79390.1 Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No # --_~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ` _ +_ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 ~,~,N,p AGENDA Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 11.A. Subject: Adoption of Revised Employment Agreement for the County Administrator County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: Each year the Board reviews the performance of the County Administrator and revises his employment agreement as deemed appropriate. Preparers Steven L. Micas Title: County Attorney 0800:79386.1(75894.6) Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No Meeting Date: Ju Subject: 2008 Page 1 of 1 Item Number: 1§.A. Resolution Recognizing GRTC Transit System on its Selection as the Number One Transit System of its Size in North America County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Mr. Warren has requested that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution recognizing outstanding achievement by GRTC Transit System. Summary of Information: This resolution recognizes and congratulates GRTC as the #1 transit system of its size in North America based on a list of criteria covering all aspects of the corporation's operation and management. Preparers Donald J. Kappel Title: Director, Public Affairs Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # (~OQ~3~ RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING GRTC ON ITS SELECTION AS THE NUMBER ONE TRANSIT SYSTEM IN NORTH AMERICA WHEREAS, GRTC Transit System is the primary mass-transit carrier in the Richmond, Virginia region; and WHEREAS, GRTC is a non-profit, public-service corporation that was incorporated on April 12, 1973; and WHEREAS, GRTC has an active fleet of 176 transit vehicles, 52 CARE vans and 18 CYAN vans; and WHEREAS, these vehicles operate on 41 routes, and in total, GRTC Transit System provided more than 15 million passenger trips in 2007; and WHERAS, two GRTC express routes provide service to residents of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, the American Public Transportation Association this year has recognized GRTC Transit System as the best transit system of its size in North America, choosing GRTC over more than 100 similarly sized transit systems across the entire continent; and WHEREAS, this APTA award recognizes outstanding achievement in efficiency and effectiveness over a three-year period, including services and programs, safety, operations, customer service, financial management, attendance and employee costs, advancement of minorities and women, marketing, policy and administration, and community relations; and WHEREAS, this award speaks to the dedication and professionalism of GRTC Transit System's employees; and WHEREAS, such a noteworthy accomplishment reflects positively on the entire Richmond Metropolitan area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors, this 30th day of July 2008, on behalf of the citizens of Chesterfield County, congratulates GRTC Transit System on its achievement in earning the award as the Number One Transit System in North America, and wishes GRTC continued success. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be presented to GRTC and that this resolution be recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. Q~~2~~ July 30, 2008 Speaker's List Evening Session #1 (Following Presentation of Resolutions) 1. P ~r Charles Bennett 2. Mr. Daniel Bennett ~ z) 3. Mr. Emmanuel Artis C~ ~ ~~~ ,~ (ease C3) 4. Mr. ®,, 1~°I ~, l7~ ~ M ~r~~ ~ 5. Evening Session #2 (End of the Evening Agenda) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. V ~~ ~~-4.J ~~ Psalms chapter 109 ~o~_ ,~~~ ~~,~~- King James Version ~~~ 1 [To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.] Hold not thy peace, O God of my praise; 2 For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me: they have spoken against me with a lying tongue. 3 They compassed me about also with words of hatred; and fought against me without a cause. 4 For my love they are my adversaries: but I give myself unto prayer. 5 And they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love. 6 Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand. 7 When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin. 8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office. 9 Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. 10 Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. 11 Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour. 12 Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children. 13 Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. 14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. 15 Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth. 16 Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart. 17 As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him. 18 As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones. 19 Let it be unto him as the garment which covereth him, and for a girdle wherewith he is girded continually. 20 Let this be the reward of mine adversaries from the LORD, and of them that speak evil against my soul. 21 But do thou for me, O GOD the Lord, for thy name`s sake: because thy mercy is good, deliver thou me. 22 For I am poor and needy, and my heart is wounded within me. 23 I am gone like the shadow when it declineth: I am tossed up and down as the locust. 24 My knees are weak through fasting; and my flesh faileth of fatness. 25 I became also a reproach unto them: when they looked upon me they shaked their heads. 26 Help me, O LORD my God: O save me according to thy mercy: 27 That they may know that this is thy hand; that thou, LORD, hast done it. 28 Let them curse, but bless thou: when they arise, let them be ashamed; but let thy servant rejoice. 29 Let mine adversaries be clothed with shame, and let them cover themselves with their own confusion, as with a mantle. 30 I will greatly praise the LORD with my mouth; yea, I will praise him among the multitude. 31 For he shall stand at the right hand of the poor, to save him from those that condemn his soul. y~~~* CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 4 Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: rQ,~4o Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Adjustments to Planning Department Fees County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Reaueste Hold a public hearing for proposed adjustments to Planning Department fees. Summary of Information: Each year, as part of its annual budget review process, Planning Department staff prepares an analysis of its development review related fees compared to the cost to the Department of undertaking those reviews. It has been the Board of Supervisors' practice since 2002 to the Planning Department's development review Department's development review related fees. cost recovery rate, subsequent adjustments m in FY03 and FY04 lowered the cost recovery activities. For FY09, Planning Department adjustment proposal, aligned with past Board of costs associated with selected residential associated with selected commercial reviews. recover a targeted percentage of posts through adjustments in the First targeted at an 80 percent ode by the Board of Supervisors target for selected commercial staff initially prepared a fee practice, to recover 80 percent reviews and 65 percent of costs For FY09, staff is proposing adjustments to various rezoning and site plan related fees, as staff projections for FY09 identify a significant gap between revenues and costs for these types of reviews. Fees for site plan and Preparers Kirkland A. Turner Title: Director of Planning Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # 100236 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 4 AGENDA Summary of Information: (Continued) rezoning reviews have not been adjusted since FY04. Staff does not recommend any adjustments to subdivision review related fees, as the Board of Supervisors adjusted these last fall for FY08. (Staff is projecting a 73 percent recovery rate in FY 09.) Staff is recommending minor adjustments to fees associated with variance, special exception and mobile home related fees to simplify the fee structure, as individuals normally pay these "mom and pop" fees on a one-time basis. Since the comprehensive adjustments made by the Board of Supervisors to Planning Department fees in FY03 and FY04, about 30 percent of the Planning Department's operating budget has been covered by its development review related fee revenue. That share is projected to drop to 20 percent for FY 08. Projections for FY09 (with and without the proposed adjustment) include part of the cost for new Planning Department positions approved by the Board of Supervisors as part of the County's FY09 budget. As shown in Attachment A, staff's initial 80 percent residential and 65 percent commercial cost recovery proposal is projected to generate an additional $163,300 in site plan fee revenue and $340,100 in rezoning fee revenue in FY09. Staff's analysis of costs associated with these proposed fee adjustments reflect only Planning Department costs, and not the related development review costs of other departments, such as Transportation, Utilities and Environmental Engineering. At their April 15, 2008 public hearing, the Chesterfield County Planning Commission recommended denial of staff proposed fee adjustments for the following reasons: • The Commission was concerned about how much of the Planning Department's operating costs should be recovered by fees. They felt this was a legislative decision best addressed by the Board of Supervisors. • Referring to the proposed 80 percent residential and 65 percent commercial cost recovery goal, the Commission was concerned about the degree that development review costs should be recovered from one type of activity verses another. They also felt this was a legislative decision best addressed by the Board of Supervisors. • The Commission was concerned about the significant percentage increase in proposed fee adjustments over one year. On May 28, 2008, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on staff's proposed Planning Department fee adjustments to recover 80 percent of costs associated with selected residential reviews and 65 percent of costs associated with selected commercial reviews. There was discussion about an ~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 3 of 4 AGENDA Summary of Information: (Continued) option that would recover 70 percent of costs associated with both types of reviews. The Board agreed to defer action on staff's proposed fee adjustments and continue the public hearing at their June 25, 2008 meeting. The Board also directed staff to analyze potential fee options that would achieve a 70 percent residential/commercial cost recovery goal for selected residential and commercial reviews. In order to allow the Board additional flexibility to adjust fees, staff has advertised fees that would recover 80 percent of costs associated with selected residential reviews and 70 percent of costs associated with selected commercial reviews. At their June 28, 2008 meeting, because of the late hour, the Board agreed to not to hold a public hearing that evening, and postponed the public hearing to their July 30, 2008 meeting. Various fee options are detailed in Attachment B. In addition, staff recommends the approval an automatic, annual adjustment to Planning Department fees under which the County Administrator could increase fees up to four percent, but not to exceed the individual amounts advertised under the 80/70 cost recovery schedule detailed in Attachment B. Automatic, annual adjustments to Planning Department fees would allow the department to account for increases in personnel costs and maintain its cost recovery targets. Attachment C contains staff projections of the revenue that could be generated in FY09 for various site plan and rezoning fee options in FY09. Attachment D provides examples of total fees by selected cost recovery options, and compares proposed fee adjustments for two application examples with fees charged by other Virginia localities. Development review cost recovery goals vary in Virginia localities. An informal survey indicates Arlington County, Loudoun County and Stafford County have goals to recover 100 percent of their development review costs. Fairfax County's fees are generally set to recover 50 percent of its Zoning Evaluation Division's costs. Prince William County adjusted their fees in 2007 based on inflation and increases in personnel/technology costs. Henrico County has not adjusted their planning application fees since February 2004. Attachment E is a draft ordinance, as advertised for the Board's June 25 public hearing, outlining fees that would recover 80 percent of costs associated with selected residential reviews and 70 percent of costs associated with selected commercial reviews. ®~i~a~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY _ . BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 4 of 4 AGENDA ~~ Budget and Management Comments: This agenda item requests that the Board hold a public hearing on July 30, 2008 to consider proposed changes to Planning Department fees. The table below lists the additional fee amounts that are projected to be generated under the various adjustment scenarios currently being considered. The advertised 80/70 recovery target is estimated to yield the largest increase ($545,500 or 84.3 percent) of the three, though the difference between that scenario and the lowest cost recovery scenario - 70 percent of residential and commercial costs - is only $75,200. Fee Projected FY09 Revenues under Current Fee Structure Marginal Inc With 70% Residential and 70% Commercial Cost Recovery $177,800 $292,500 $470,300 rease in Projected With 80% Residential and 65% Commercial Cost Recovery $163,300 $340,100 $503,400 FY09 Revenues: With 80% Residential and 70% Commercial Cost Recovery $185,700 $359,800 $545,500 Site Plan Fees Rezoning Fees Total 192,000 455,000 647,000 Projected Percentage Increase in 70/70% 80/65a 80/70% FY09 Revenues over Current Fee Structure 72.7 77.8 .84.3 The projected site plan and rezoning fee revenues for FY2009, which serve as the base for the calculations performed in the table above, are consistent with the average Planning Department revenues received from each source during the five-year period between FY2004 and FY2008. Additionally, staff estimates that - under the 80/65 percent cost recovery target - the increased fee structure would add approximately $140 to the cost of a new, single- family home in Chesterfield County based construction figures from 2007. These estimates factor in the costs associated with 3 new full-time Planning Department positions approved by the Board with the adoption of the FY2009 Budget. Funding for the new positions is dependent on the fee increases as the FY2009 budget was adopted with revenues reflective of the fee proposal. Preparers Allan M. Carmody Title: Director, Budget and Management 0®Q239 0 0 N w O Vl Q y C~ y o 0 0 0 0 ~ N 'c ~ c ~ Op ~ N ~ a~ ~ 0 o i n N O ^~ a c p a~ ~ ~ 3 , ~, ,, ~ C>~ ~ 00000 ~ O, OOO c ~ M O~ O M v »UC7 V C O ~ Q ~ ~ H M N ~ Z U b9 fiH ER Efl b9 C y ~ O o O O O R odo ~~~~~ d a ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ a ~ d 0 0 0 0 0 L• ~ O M 0 0 0 ~ U ~ M ~ ~ M ~ ~ C~ ~ M n N O ~ U VT ffl 69 d9 d9 C v c U M f0 M O B ~ d ~ ~ a y FV d c m d Q~ ~ ~ ~ N ~+ ~ c M M D1 O N 7 D C G) ~ m ~ ~ (D N 00 M ~ M f0 CO D . N N ~ v M .M.r f v r LL o c~ u ~ E» » v> f» v> o' E Q~ V v ~ ~, o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o $ y y. ' MMO(p L O r" ..^ o .y, 00 a0 f~ I~ N p O ~U O ~InON~ N O tl) ~ v ~ d ~ ° ° ° ° ° m ; .o c o o o o o 00000 ~; ~ ~r ` M CV ~ O O ~ N O d ~ ~ rn d M a N N Q. } ~ ~ 7 7 Q LL ffT fA b9 fA EA U N c. ~ o ° o v ~' 2 j c ~ N N '_ oy+ ~ ~ N N 00 d _ •E vi c ~ o` U C y U .O .~ c 1. y d d Q a °~ o~ d * ~ 7 "' 3~~ w O N d o d ~ a2S is ~ V h ~ N ~ U ~ a U +~+ ~ a~i U °- c p c N o~ N~ v ~ c c m c ~ n U ~ N N C c~ O 7 ~' N l0 O O O a x Z UJ [~ ~ ~ ~ x m 'v 2 a ~ ,"~ (n N H c c~ .3 x ~ 0 ~ c °- ~ U w ~ }' ~ ~ O ~ r ' ~r N o ~ U ~ d ~ 7 _ •O atS L 0ps, ~ ~ a ~~ C Q r y o ~ ~ ~ 0 aNi ~ .N. L U Q ~ N .7 0 C O rn ~ N ~° a V ~ ' N O) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ E ~ _ N ~ ~ 0_ ~ ~ °' a ~ . V .1 O 3 d - a N U LL 'o d O) O } LL ^ O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O ~ 0 °o N °o O °o CO °o Cp o° ~ °o N (H EA fR 69 ER fA ~`J~2~® 00 8EZ$ 009 ~ Z 0 0 s2,S' L ss~$ 00 0 S~$ 00~. SSA 00£ 9Z 0 Zs~$ ( . OOH. g~ 0 ~sF$ . a A ~ OC ; L ~ Q O 01 C 'c c _~ d c 0 U N N N N L U m r H a CO m `m a d a Attachment B Potential Planning Department FY 09 Fee Adjustment Options Uses And Ind Comm Office Fee T e Residenti al Uses . , . Note: Fee types shaded yellow vary by cost 80 Percent 70 Percent 70 Percent 65 Percent r ecovery option. Cost Cost Recovery Cost Cost Recovery Recovery* Recovery* 1. Amend condition(s) of zoning (including $5,300 $4,600 $4,600 $4,100 conditions of rezoning, conditional use, conditional use planned development, and t extual statement) 1 200 200 $1 2. Appeal to board of zonin appeals per 19-21 $1,200 $1,200 , $ , 3. Building permit review, for a new single family $25 $25 N/A N/A dwelling or for each unit of a new two-family 4 family da care homes Conditional use $300 $300 N/A N/A . , $4 600 100 $4 5 all others Conditional use $5,300 $4,600 , , . , $80 $80 a. Plus per acre $90 $80 600 $4 100 $4 6 Conditional use planned development $5,300 $4,600 , , . $80 $80 a. Plus per acre $90 $80 1 000 000 $1 7 Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors $1,000 $1,000 , $ , ' . case deferral requests by the applicant, per (Includes A' (Includes A (Includes A' A (Includes request: uses) uses) uses) uses) 8. Board of Zoning Appeals case deferral requests $130 $130 $130 $130 by the applicant, per request: _ _- - - - _ - $550 550 550 - -- $550 9. Manufactured home permits, new $250 $250 $250 $250 10. Manufactured home ermits, renewal $300 11. Modifications to development standards and $400 $300 $300 re uirements $130 12. Plan transfer to electronic format per § 19-264(f) $130 $130 $130 13. Resource protection area exceptions per § 19- $300 $300 N/A N/A 235(b)(2) for one lot or parcel used or intended to be used for a single family dwelling and 14. accesso uses Resource protection area exceptions per§ 19- $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 15 235(b)(2), all others Remand requests to the planning commission, 50 percent of 50 percent of 50 percent of 50 percent of . by the applicant, per request original case original case original case " " original case " " fee(includes "A" fee(includes "A" A fee(includes A fee(includes uses) uses) uses) uses) 16 onin R $5,300 $4,600 $4,600 $4,100 . ez 80 $80 a. Plus er acre $90 $80 $ 17. Rezonin with conditional use - 600 4 100 $4 nin f f 300 $5 $4,600 , $ , or rezo ee a. Base , $80 $80 $90 $80 i. Plus per acre 4 600 100 $4 Base fee for conditional use b $5,300 $4,600 , $ , . i. Plus per acre $90 $80 $80 $80 18. Rezoning with conditional use planned - - - development Base fee for rezonin a $5,300 $4,600 $4,600 $4,100 . i. Plus er acre b. Base fee for conditional use planned $90 $5,300 $80 $4,600 $80 $4,600 $80 $4,100 i. Plus per acre $90 $80 $80 $80 19 . Rezoning with conditional use and conditional - - - use planned development Prepared By the Chesterfield County Planning Dept. 1 As of June 9, 2008 (~©0241 Attachment B Potential Planning Department FY 09 Fee Adjustment Options Fee T e Resident ial Uses Office, Comm. And Ind. Uses Note: Fee types shaded yellow vary by cost 80 Percent 70 Percent 70 Percent 65 Percent recovery option. Cost Cost Recovery Cost Cost Recovery Recovery* Recovery* Base fee for rezoning a $5,300 $4,600 $4,600 $4,100 . i. Plus per acre $90 $80 $80 $80 Base fee for conditional use b $5,300 _ $4,600 $4,600 $4,100_ ___ . Plus er acre i $90 $80 $80 $80 . c. Base fee for conditional use planned $5,300 $4,600 $4,600 $4,100 development Plus per acre i $90 $80 $80 $80 . 100 $100 20. Sign Permits, temporary signs as permitted by § $100 $100 $ 21. 19-631 throu h § 19-650 Sign Permits, all other signs for which building $130 $130 $130 $130 22. permits are required Site plan, overall development plan and $2,000 $1,600 $1,600 $1,200 schematic plan reviews: original submittal, includin up to two resubmittals a. Plus per acre $90 $80 $80 $80 23. Site plan, overall development plan and $400 $350 $350 $350 schematic plan reviews: third and subsequent resubmittals, per submittal 24. Site plan, overall development plan and $400 $350 $350 $350 schematic plan reviews: adjustment to approved site plan or amendment to approved schematic per submittal or resubmittal Ian , 350 $350 25. Site plan review: appeal of decision of director of $400 $350 $ tannin 50 $550 26. Special exceptions, temporary manufactured $550 $550 $5 home new) $250 27. Special exceptions, temporary manufactured $250 $250 $250 home (renewal) 1 000 000 $1 28. Special exceptions, all others $1,000 $1,000 , $ , $600 29. Special exceptions, amend conditions of special $600 $600 $600 exception 4 600 $4 100 30 Substantial accord determinations $5,300 $4,600 , $ , . 200 $200 31 administrative Variances $200 $200 $ . , 300 $300 32 all other Variances $300 $300 $ . , $75 33 Verification of non-conforming use (written) $75 $75 $75 . $75 $75 34 Zoning certificate $75 $75 . $75 $75 35. Zonin inter retation written $75 $75 *Rates advertised for June 25, 2008 Board of Supervisors public hearing. Attachment C 80 Percent 80 Percent 70 Percent Projected Revenue Recovery For Projected FY09 Residential and 65 Residential and 70 Residential and 70 Selected Site Plan and Zoning Related Revenue Percent Commercial Cost Percent Commercial Cost Percent Commercial Cost Fee Options (Unadjusted) Recovery Recovery Recovery Site Plan Reviews/Si n Permits $ 192,000 $ 355,300 $ 377,700 $ 369,800 U. & Sub. Accord Re orts Rezonin s/C $ 455,000 $ 795,100 $ 814,800 $ 747,500 . Total $ 647,000 $ 1,150,400 $ 1,192,500 $ 1,117,300 Prepared By the Chesterfield County Planning Dept. 2 As of June 9, 2008 t~~0242 Attachment D Planning Dept. Fee Adjustment Proposal Examples of Total Fees By Selected Cost Recovery Options Application Type Chesterfield Chesterfield Chesterfield Chesterfield 80 Percent 80 Percent 70 Percent Residential and Residential and Residential and General Examples* Typical Existin Fee 9 65 Percent 70 Percent 70 Percent Request Commercial Cost Commercial Cost Commercial Recovery Recovery Cost Recovery Rezoning (Straight Residential) 100 Acres $ 12,300 $ 14,300 $ 14,300 $ 12,600 Site Plan (Commercial) 20 Acres $ 2,060 $ 2,800 $ 3,200 $ 3,200 Conditional Use Planned Development (CUPD) Without 100 Acres $ 9,000 $ 14,300 $ 14,300 $ 12,600 Zoning Reclassification -For Residential Uses Conditional Use Planned Development (CUPD) Without 20 Acres $ 2,460 $ 5,700 $ 6,200 $ 6,200 Zoning Reclassification -For Commercial Uses Amend Condition(s) of Zoning 5 Conditions $ 4,900 $ 5,300 $ 5,300 $ 4,600 Commercial Amend Condition(s) of Zoning 5 Conditions $ 2,520 $ 4,100 $ 4,600 $ 4,600 Commercial Si n Permit $ 100 $ 130 $ 130 $ 130 S ecific Exam les* Hancock Village Site Plan 07PR0220 $ 5,240 $ 7,040 $ 7,440 $ 7,440 Village Bank Site Plan 07PR0240 $ 1,251 $ 1,722 $ 2,122 $ 2,122 Otterdale Ventures Zoning 07SN0157 $ 22,975 $ 37,010 $ 37,300 $ 36,600 Green Acres Residential Zoning 06SN0227 $ 19,102 $ 20,744 $ 20,744 $ 18,328 *Initial Fee Comparison of Selected Rezoning and Site Plan Fee Examples With Other Virginia Localities Application Type Typical Request Hanover County Henrico County Fairfax County* Loudoun County P. William County** Rezoning (Straight Residential) 100 Acres $ 8,900 $ 2,150 $ 27,320 $ 15,730 $ 13,997 Site Plan (Commercial) 20 Acres $ 1,800 $ 1,040 $ 30,945 $ 6,700 $ 7,204 *Assumes 20 disturbed acres for site plan ** Assumes a 10,000 sq. ft. building on site Application Type Typical Request Richmond City Goochland County Powhatan County Colonial Heights Petersburg Rezoning (Straight Residential) 100 Acres $ 11,825 $ 6,500 $ 6,000 $ 250 $ 200 Site Plan (Commercial) 20 Acres $ 3,025 $ 1,100 $ 900 $ 450 $ 215 Analysis based on jurisdiction web site posted fees. Source: Chesterfield County Planning Dept. As of June 9, 2008 ®~~'#~ Ti i T n r ,f A~Ti7 A ..1...,~;~..a1=1A11 f ~~ r ~;am~sarr6z~vi~3~r~c~ Q' ~ Y~c i ~ Y v ~ ~ ~tr~-pv„ ... en c nn (-~r} TATrrTTeq~'es~~e~-~~e~E~2S Q~ tin nn Dl Q 11~_nII ,~ ~ e o... ~;\ ttj D ~ D D TAT D AiTL' rn > u ,.« A e QQCC '' nnnn nnnn ~ ~ ~ C~ Q > > > .. ~ ~ .. ~ r~izs cta~rcror`hr~r-o9i~~}sr6~3 i~3~'ea~s8r -- Q~~~P~ 1923:78360.3 2 C)()®~~~ n's -r2E]~eSt~e~F~~-~ ~rP, 1rfT1 ^r n , °; Q~ inn nn naT"° ... Qac nn ... , i~--~rcrs,-pE'F~~lE-FC ..-- Q~~ vn-. nav ~ - ~ ~ - ~: ... n F ~ ~' n n ,,.. ~ ..,°,. a.,., . . ,.~~ ... &: > > > > > ... g n F ~~ re~-LAS°~ . Q~ ~n nn cv +clrh. 1., a F ..«° a err > .,1 ~ 1 „ r r > > > > ~: > > .. n ~ i ~ ° +t,.,., n n a.,., . &: ~ > > > > > ... ~-~g > > ... 1923:78360.3 ~Q~~'~~ > > a rr r o ~-re~es~~ ~$ ~4~', ~'~u ^~ n o Q1 cn nn < ~~~- ~„ n +n~r~,,..r, e° Q12nnn 1 rl + +L.~+ +L.o «o + ' 1' " '+L. +L, y r &: G: Agri- per•~ > > C 1. + +' 1 ,J .1 + ::» ~: •....... .,.. g avnii rg-cec~~~r'~i-'r2t:°11 Tl, F +' F +L.o 1- " l..:,.,~. L.'..+o Y..;~o L?; To~4o«~.~-- Tl ' ~ ~ } ~7 Tl 1. 21 7n1 A - - b ~ T~~e ~ e o e .++:,,.+ F ..+L.o ~II.,l+~li ..... `. Y ` v .~Y, ~ f e ~ ~__ :... a...e,,:__ __. ____~___...~e~_~~ nrrrtv~('~$X6e~9ir ...~' Q 1~vnv 1923:78360.3 ~~~~~~ ~~ nn~ ~ - -- --- - e e e ... saaaee {~ c~fnel~irt~E~ °rcm- vi~es~c~en ' ... Q T Qnn nn Dr-~r'c'r3-~3e~aEF(iivrt~l~F;•.-irac-.~rv-ueFl'~' ...~rv:vv nr T-rcc' ^o-,-^pef-~6Fe~ve~$v-EIGF°" ... Q ~ n nn ~ ~ee~r~-ee~ed-sel~e~-~~-r€e~es~~e-arses--X3$&89 't~. FY't't~'~tittYft;titt~~ ~t'e t~V6-feSl~~t~~ fee-~H~AB -r'l~'~~~ i. + ~- ~seq~te~rm i..,.. Q~nn nn ~t~pe~~es~~~~z~~ ~~t~en~tare~-site-~~rr,-per~r~~a-1-e~est~ .. . $Z99-89 ~Y ~ ~,~ ° Qon nn « ~ ~~ T;~ ritt~ ~ ~egt~e~r .~ ... ^r~teed-s}t° .~'^~e~ s~}t~e~ ~es~ba~ .. . $4S9 ~ A8 ~ D~rt~a~s€e~t~e~eEt~e~~~c~9-~64'~' ... Q~c nn LTI ,......5... ~..1,.....,., ~ ~,.« « °.,:ae~t~i~a~-uses-..Q''~o i~--a"7i-c°v~YtYViit~Y-Li-ttSC~.. Q~'vv 1923:78360.3 5 i~'4 8 ... ~: ~~ tCw...i ... Q~cn nn f~ 1923:78360.3 ~ is ., ~ t c a r o~.:,,i v o „~;„oa +„ +~e ~~ ,. „~ „ o „ . , ~: ~ i ~ ~ oL.:i.~ on 7 ~* c ~ .a fn . 4L.e „.. n .. r 0 {~ ' r z ~t ~t-te~3S Q~n n n ~- ~ v-v em rJ ... ~ ~ b t~ ~ k ~e~ --- Q ' coo ~: ~ e -se as .. ~rr . ~ ... c '' - ~ei~'b~&Ticc€~ei~•~-vo ~ i--ir~c-v rv c z~e~-S~kk $es g ~~ T... + ,• +• t, F• a ~ Q~nn nn - v i~`unc c cro ~cr v ~ v v rir crrr rroi~^~^$cctr6 ~9A:8 9 v „~i ~ ,.+i,or: ~ L' D D TI.7 D HiTL ..« A HdL' ~, ~ ~ ' 6 000249 rirS1=-ArainisixvcSBGcrorr9~' S~la~vc~6" 8 ~,.... Qinn nn ~ig~6raii~icaivc~2Gt~6irvi~cia326t~9irv~crc 'ca-vii 8 (:;\ R.,,,L..,,arl;+:,,.,.,1 ,.«,J;.,.,.,..o moo..+:,.., ,~. „l.~o„~;,,., , 0!1 l"I ~ ^~ Q ~ nn nn ~~ery~et~t~9" ...~~ ne~e~rg~e D~ ~ ~~A4~e~ s~ Q ~ss~~e~fe~ ~ Qnn nn r ... , Drii'r".TpE'F-E~6f2~A~t~('-~&t~.~-&E«o..... Qoc nn ~ „ ~c~~6t~iirg ~6 n~ i~ „« r~ ,.1 .rl~-~ 6&t~6~ ... Q ~ ~n n n nn Dr-~ic'r~~ per'- uvic vrt~(~c-~nv8- &E-FeS ..~vv ~ ~ D TLT n v € ~a~ }~ 4~e Q ~i~L~S° c i nn nn e~ a: ~ ~ ng er-~z ~ , ... ~ D~Pe~-e~e~t~c~~>z. ... nAS~ pv~-~,~e-vi=vrz~9v-c•~ " .. Qn c nn ~~~ T « ~ , ... e~ coo ," , D'.,~ ~e~-ac~c~~t~e~s~-z.~9(~~c-yes-~t~-99 r-~~ Dr~Pe~-as~e-e~e~~'LA(~~c~es ..~0~ 1923:78360.3 7 ~0~~5~ Fee B ased On Application Type Residential Uses Office, Commercial. and Industrial Uses 1. Amend condition( of zoning (including conditions of rezoning conditional use conditional use planned 5 300 4 600 develo ment and textual statement 2. A eal to board of zonin a eals er 19-21 1 200 1 200 3. Building permit review for a new single family dwelling or for each unit of a new two-family dwellin 25 Not Applicable 4. Conditional use famil da care homes 300 Not A licable 5. Conditional use. all others 5 300 $4,600 a. Plus er acre 90 $80 6. Conditional use Tanned develo ment 5300 $4,600 a. Plus er acre 90 80 7. Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors case 1 000 (I "A" l d 1 000 (Includes "A" deferral requests by the applicant, per request: u es nc uses uses 8. Board of Zoning Appeals case deferral requests by $130 130 the a licant er re uest: 9. Manufactured home ermits new 550 550 10. Manufactured home ennits renewal 250 250 11. Modifications to development standards and re uirements $400 $300 12. Plan transfer to electronic format er 19-264 130 $130 13. Resource protection area exceptions per ~ 19- 235(b)(2) for one lot or parcel used or intended to be $300 Not Applicable used for a sin le famil dwellin and accesso uses 14. Resource protection area exceptions per ~ 19- 235 b 2 all others $1,500 1 500 th b i i 50 percent of 50 percent of original case fee e on, ss y 15. Remand requests to the planning comm original case fee A l d applicant, per request (includes "A„ uses es (inc u uses 1923:78360.3 ~ 000251 16. Rezonin 5 300 $4,600 a. Plus er acre 90 80 1 ~. Rezonin with conditional use a. Base fee for rezonin 5 300 4 600 i. Plus er acre 90 $80 b. Base fee for conditional use 5 300 4 600 i. Plus er acre 90 80 18. Rezonin with conditional use lanned develo ment a. Base fee for rezonin 5 300 4 600 i. Plus er acre $90 $80 b. Base fee for conditional use planned develo ment $5,300 $4,600 i. Plus er acre 90 80 19. Rezoning with conditional use and conditional use _ lanned develo ment - a. Base fee for rezonin 5 300 $4,600 i. Plus er acre $90 $80 b. Base fee for conditional use 5 300 4 600 i. Plus er acre 90 $80 c. Base fee for conditional use planned develo ment 5 300 4 600 i. Plus er acre 90 80 20. Sign Permits temporary suns as permitted by § 19- $100 $100 631 throw h 19-650 21. Sign Permits all other suns for which building ermits are re wired $130 130 22. Site plan overall devel~ment plan and schematic plan reviews• original submittal including up to two 2 000 1 600 resubmittals a. Plus er acre 90 80 23. Site plan overall development plan and schematic plan reviews• third and subsequent resubmittals, per submittal $400 $350 1923:78360.3 000252 24. Site clan, overall development plan and schematic plan reviews: adjustment to approved site plan or amendment to approved schematic plan per submittal or resubmittal 400 $350 25. Site plan review: appeal of decision of director of Tannin 400 350 26. Special exceptions, temporary manufactured home new 550 550 27. Special exceptions, temporary manufactured home renewal 250 $250 28. S ecial exce tions all others 1 000 $1,000 29. Special exceptions, amend conditions of special exce tion 600 $600 30. Substantial accord determinations 5 300 4 100 31. Variances, administrative $200 200 32. Variances, all other $300 300 33. Verification of non-conformin use written 75 $75 34. Zonin certificate 75 75 35. Zonin inte retation written $75 75 (b) Enterprise zone or subzone fee exemptions. (1) For any office, commercial or industrial use within an enterprise zone or subzone designated by the Commonwealth of Virginia, no application fee shall be required for the following actions, provided the director of planning determines that the request is in compliance with the comprehensive Tan: a. Amend a condition of zonins b. Conditional use or planned development c. Deferral d. Rezoning e. Site plan review, resubmittal of siteplan, or adjustment to an approved site plan f. Substantial accord determination This exemption shall continue for the life of the enterprise zone or subzone. (c) For any application containing a mix of residential and non-residential uses, the fee shall be based upon the residential uses cate~ory. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption.. 1923:78360.3 10 000253 r•- Additional Potential Planning Department FY 09 Fee Adjustment Options E 7 f 6 Zr ~1i lL (13 I ~1~ 15 16 17 18 19 i Fee Type Residential Office, Comm. i - ___ _ _- -_. _ _--- -- -- Uses And Ind. Uses iNote: Fee types shaded yellow vary by cost 60 Percent 60 Percent recovery option. Cost Recovery Cost Recovery .;Amend condition(s) of zoning (including $4,400 $4,400 !,conditions of rezohing, conditional use, i conditional use planned development, and textual statemen~_ _IAppeal to board of zonin~appeal~er § 19-21 $1,200 $1,200 .Building permit review, for a new single family $25 _ N/A 'dwelling or for each unit of a new two-family .!,Conditional use, famil~r d~ care homes $300 N/A .!Conditional use, all others $4,400 $4,400 ~a_Plus~er acre _ $60 $60 Conditional us~lanned development -- -- $4,400 -- $4,400 '~~a. Plus per acre $60 $60 .'Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors $1,000 $1,000 ',case deferral requests by the applicant, per (Includes "A" (Includes "A" request: uses uses .,Board of Zoning Appeals case deferral requests $130 $130 ' by the applicant, per request______ Manufactured homepermits, new $550_ _ $550 ' nAanufactured home permits_ renewal $250 __ __ $250 i'~lodifications to development standards and . $200 $200 i requirements Plan transfer to electronic format per § 19-264(f) $130 $130 . ~ Resource protection area exceptions per § 19- $300 N/A 235(b)(2) for one lot or parcel used or intended '~,to be used for a single family dwelling and laccessor uses .!,Resource protection area exceptions per § 19- $1,500 ____ $1,500 235(b)~2), all. others _ Remand requests to the planning commission, 50 percent of 50 percent of by the applicant, per request original case original case fee(includes "A" fee(includes "A" uses) uses) T~.- ~Rezoninc,~ ___ __ _ ~ -_- -- __ ._$4,400 _ ~ ~ ___._ $4 400_ a. Plus per acre _ --- _ $60 $60 - ~Rezoniny wtth .conditional use - - - _ - ',a. Base fee for rezoning: $4,400 $4,400 i. Plus per acre. - - - - $60 - $60 b Base fe f c diti l - . or e on ona use $4,400 $4,400 i Plusher acre _ _ $60 $60 Rezoning with conditional use planned - - development La Base fee for rezoning ~ _ _ $4,400 $4,400 . i Plus per acre 'r- - -- ~_~ - - $60 _---- - _ - . _ $60 - _- -- __ __ b. Base fee for conditional use planned $4,400 $4,400 i _.. _ .._ _- --- - _ ri Plus per acre _ $60 $60 (Rezoning with efanditional useand conditional - _ - ~use planned. development ~a. Base fee for rezoning _ $4,400 $ 4,400 -- i. Plus per acre. - - $60 _ _ _ ---- $60 Prepared By the Chesterfield County Planning Dept. 1 As of July 15, 2008 Additional Potential Planning Department FY 09 Fee Adjustment Options Fee Type Residential Office, Comm. Us es And Ind. Uses Note: Fee types shaded yellow vary by cost ,'recovery option. 60 Percent 60 Percent ____ - - Cost Recovery Cost Recovery -~ b. Base fee for conditional use ~ --- -- _$4,400- $ 4 400 __ - ~ i_Plus per acre - - ~ ~c. Base fee far conditional use la d _ - - $60 - _ , $60 _ p nne development "` $4,400 $4,400 rt Plus er acre - .-- -A - - - ---- $60 -- $60 - - 20.ISign Permits, temporary signs as permitted by § __ $100 _ - - - $100 J 19-631 throw h § 19-650 21. Sign Permits, all other signs for whi h b il c u ding - ~rmits are required $130 $130 22.ISi#e plan, overall development plan and $1,400 -- ----- $1 400 schematic plan reviews: original submittal, I , rncludin~ up to two resubmitta-s -- -- --- ------ . ___ 23 Si#e lan ov ll d - - $70 _- $70 - p , era . i evelopment plan and ~schematic plan reviews:. third and subsequent $200 - -_ $200 I resubmjttals, per submittal - w ___ -_. 24. ~ Site plan, overakl development plan artd - - ;schematic plan revews: adjustment to approved $200 $2Q0 site plan or amendment to approved schematic . Ian, per submittal or resubmittal ___ 25. Site plan review: appeal of decision of director of lannln~ - -- ~ $200 $20p 26. i Special exceptions, temporary manufactured _ $550 -- _- __ $550 home new 27. rSpecial exceptions, temporary manufactured $250 $250 home renewal i- -~------~-- - _-. --. ___ 28.1Special exceptions, all others _ 29. ~ Special exceptions amend conditions of i l _ _ $1,000 $1,000 , spec a exce tion $600 $600 30 Substantial accord determinations _ -- -- - -~ :$4,400. $4 400 31 Variances, administrative } - _ - - -- ----- - - " $200 , - - - - $200 - 32. ~ Variances, all other - -+ --- - -- ---_- . - --------- - _ -- $300 $300 - 33.!Verification of n_on-conf_o_r_m_in use written ~~ ~ _ _ $75 __ - - 75 _- _ 34. Zoning certificate _ - - - $75 - 35. Zonina interoretatinn ~wrl+tcn~ .~__ - ~a Plus per acre _` - _ -- _ ---- Projected Revenue Recover For y Selected Site Plan and Zoning Related Fee Options Projected FY09 Revenue (unadjusted) 80 Percent Residential and 65 Percent Commercial Cost 80 Percent Residential and 70 Percent Commercial Cost 70 Percent Residential and 70 Percent Commercial Cost Site Plan Reviews/Si n Permits Recovery Recovery Recovery Rezonin s/C.U. & Sub. Accord Re orts Total $ 192,000 $ 455,000 $ 647,000 $ 355,300 $ 795,100 $ 1,150,400 $ 377,700 $ 814,800 $ 1,192,500 $ 369,800 $ 747,500 $ 1,117,300 60 Percent Residential and 60 Percent commercial Cost Recovery $ 317,000 $ 640,700 $ 957,700 Prepared By the Chesterfield County Planning Dept. 2 As of July 15, 2008 ~ _ ~~ ~s ~e ~. ~~ ~£~~ Yum Cumrnunit News a er Si _ y p p nce 1995 P.O. Aox 1616, Midlothian, Virginia 231.1.3 • Phone: (8041545-15(>U • Fax: (8O4) 744-3269 • Email: new,~a chesterfieldobserveccom • Internet: www.chesterfieldobu~rver.com ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT ~~w ~'~ 'lient , _ W e Chester ~d County(_ ~~~ Board o ~iiUervisor~ ",4 ~ GC ; ,E ~ ~ V Ad Planning Fees 7-16, 23 1& 1/2 P st $1,725.00 The Observer, Inc. Publisher of CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER __ ~Ha~~ - Take-notice that tine Heard of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Vriginia, at an adjourned n~ oa Wednesday, July 30, 2008 ~ 6:30 p.m. in the County This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on the following date(s): 07/16/08 & 07/23/08 r Sworn to and subscribed before me this ~ ~ day of - ~~ IN .2008. Legal Affiant J T, Grooms Jr., otary Public My commission expires: February 29, 2012 Commission I.D. 7182093 (SEAL) ,~~~~uw~~igip f ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ I r`~~` `y ~ :off R O~~`~ ~~ ~F':o~~~XP~R~S ~,: ~ g ""~ ~ y 02.3-t! : . ~• ~ ~~•~ v THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU. dreting Room at the Chesterfield :tntion Building, Route t0 and td chesterfield vtrginia, will now nearing to comidn: nano m amend the Code of the of CLsster4sld 1997, u amended, c and R-enxting Section I9- ,e 2'omng Ordinance relating to Department fns. tart of the ordinance h reproduced 4 copy of the ordinance is also on he County AdministrYn's once, 04. 9901 Lori Road, Chaterfie9 Yvv~pinniiaa and may be eraroined ny bud m betwern the boon of .and SOO p.m.. MwdaY thr°ugn ving u hew at a pubBc tacifity I to h accesoble m patrons with Avy petaoos with question w ssibinty of the fadlity n the mad :unable accommodatlons anould lwtu BLrkky. Cleric m the Board 200. Persons needing imnprter for the deaf moat mtify the Clerk card no lath than Friday, Juoe 20, ;DINANCE TO AMEND THE )F THE COIINTI `HFCTRRFIF7Il 1997. AS )ED. EY AMENDING AND .CTING SECTION 19-25 OF THE ORDINANCE RELATING TO ING DEPARTMENT FEES ORDAINED by the Board of on of Chesterfield Comty: That Srclion 19-25 of the f,p~( aunfyyf CMterfiald. 1997, as i, is amended and reKnocfui ro allows: !5. Fees. on to an other fees requircdbythe iea sha~be payable m the county and submitted m the plroning ant upon 6Bng the following om: nenk 3 >nSd9~t-i~3B60B bniMm rmit-applieeion-fora Je-krtul~reae6-tmie iwe-bm' m6-S3SBB Permifc hsch-bnddmg Eoeditiemlmn ana ~a 4mcd-hemepenoea :-555908 ~.~.'2~.,ooo"" ntiert--Si5988 sere--Sl988 dauificatien: F:~hfF-Afff scte~nr-fbr5rst 28B-seam .. . aert-o.n-zeexre.-s*s:ee see LEGAL, page 20 CNIMMNY NtIflM - J/dY 23, 2008 - Pere ZO _ from LEGAL, page !9 ~' I 55.344 (9.444 325 No~lir~hl. i 1134 ;~ 1. 3994 ~~ JiV1.lI]l~m'~ry p<.rl - i - - b 33DB N_p(~.~dir~l.l. - ~,~ ~~ 15 ~ 0^r~ ~ nI'mLdn.l ~ ( ~ liarludn'A'v.eal 55.340 59.640 53.344 b.6pp 5144 5144 5134 3134 31.404 SL604 3948 3354 3l04 3354 5400 ~~ 3554. 5554 ~r 2 3444 s_CS401ps shall n' f h P( ( h r b ~ Pn<a^v a~w1i a ~ ~ntwlina a m~ oCre identi 1 ~d - ' { ( I h f up h..~ dg_L!~~,~,ti~ liver this ardinnn<e sM0 berome ~ dive immediatdy upon adoption WHERE BUSINESS STARTS... CHESTERFIELD ~ CHAMBER of COMMERCE. ~ May 16, 2008 Mr. James Stegmaier Chesterfield County Administrator P.O. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832 Dear Mr, St aier, ~--/~~~ ~~ I.XJ ~j ~C h r ~-Cwt Qu~1 i'c, ~ ecc~ i ~5 i~ ~. Five to six years ago, the Chesterfield County Chamber conducted a study of fees in the Richmond Metro area and found that Chesterfield County's Commercial Rezoning and Site Plan Review €ees were two-and-a-half to three times higher than most localities in our surrounding area. After a few rocky months, we were finally able to show County officials that it would be beneficial to attract more businesses to the area by lowering those rates. I am happy to report that the Board of Supervisors were very receptive to our suggestions and did lower the rates substantially. We are still higher today than most, but much better than before the Chamber conducted the study. I believe that Allan Carmody has proposed in the 2008-09 budget raising Commercial Rezoning and Site Plan fees by 75 and 85% respectfully in the near future. This proposed'ncrease comes from the desire of the administration to recover at least 65% of the cost of handling an application going through the Planning Department. The Planning Department also wants to hire two new senior planners to help expedite projects through the department. Costs for these two employees would be in the $150,000 range when you include their benefit packages. The Government Relation Committee's thoughts are that two to four new businesses locating in Chesterfield County would more than pay for the cost of the two new positions, as well as cover any costa that commercial projects bring to the table. Attached is a compilation of some of the surveys we received from our Chesterfield Chamber members. I think you will be as surprised as we were at the tremendous amount of revenue that is generated from mostly small and a few larger retaiUservice businesses in the county: The county generates an average of $372,000 per year from these 24 businesses. The Chesterfield County Chamber of Commerce requests that you not .raise the Commercial Rezoning and Site Plan fees at all. We hope you would actually look to lower the rates to be competitive with our neighbors. It is very clear from our small informal survey that business does pay, and requires very little County services in return. Sincerely, B thrum Chairman of the Chamber's Government Relations Committee Cc: Jay Stegmaier; County Administrator Chesterfield Center for the Arta Foundation gay Sc~vu~ 0 U r~ 0001Ae!'MOON011~I~000Od'0000.-~O'a'~D00 d' ,~ IAOIAt0a0O.~MI~000iOd'NOOMI~NW.-1IAGO 1A ~ d'Od'MN01t01Ad'I~OOONMIrrIMf~G101d01'~tl~ N t{.., ~. ~ 1 . . . '~Of~1AiAG1r10LAN0pNriri010Mr1*101~-1N00 GO iiii~--F --1 ~~~ ~ N t0 I~ t0 M .-1 fll~~' to 01 rl ~-1 rl rl M rl rl N 01 N d' to ~ r~ ep ~ ~ + {~} O ~C rl fly f/~ .-I ilk ~ N ilk ~ ~ ~ f!F ~ iiF ~ ~ N M N .-I 01 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ K NOOMCOOOtDI~OI~OOOMOO~N~OCOO1110 p1 W O if1- 00 [t O~ .-i f~ I~ O O O 4f1• N O O O Ln 111 tp O O M ' ' ' N ~ ~ 1 M O tt O t1 ~ ~ O M 00 O ri O CO N 00 L! 1 N O t0 r-1 O ~ ~ COO I~ M CO N ~ CO N ~D .-{ pl O CO CO .-i Ol Ol t1') tt' .--1 ' O ~ O r-1 N {~} d N N ifs ~ .--1 .-1 r-1 {{} W} N if} ~ N ~ N 01 ~ l0 ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ i~R ~} ~} ifs r1 ,--I rl {{} N ~ i~ i~ ~ ~ ~ H W ~ t0 ~ ~ 00011nM000 COU'I p10000000~00tD0000 01 ifs O M tt M O *-{ d' Ln t1'1 01 O .-~ Cr M~ ifl~ N O O N N N ~!} ~ y O Ql Ol M 'a' ~ •1 O '~ I~ d' ~ N M O .-~ Ln r1 LA .-i d. N d Nl {L O+1NNO O MO MN .-iN NON.-i.-i00 ~ N ,..1 O ~ .-1 00 N r-I ~ ~ {t} ~} i!~ rl 4fl~ ~D Ol *-~ ~ d ~ m~ a~ a--1 111 O t0 tD 1~ O O L11 1~ M A O O O M O O O .-1 Ol N~ ri O M ~ k M O r1 1~ C~0 0 0 M Dl tp 00 0 1n ~ ~ ifl~ 0 0 0 Ln 1~ 01 M ifl~ ~ 111 O Lfl N 1~ O l0 t~ d' ~O Lf1 CO N Ol 111 u1 N 00 O M f~ R ~ M N ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ n ~ ~ ri r ~~ [~ -1 ilk.-1 if~CO M M ~ ~ N H ~ a a ~ y, a o ,~ a ~ ~ _ '-100011'100.-1t~+1 I'~000C0o00111000000 M ~ [t O O t0 Ql ifl- ~ d' CF r-i .-1 {f} Efl- O N O O~ N O O O O Lll N N O_ K In O O t0 O N~ 111 .~ ,-1 O .~ O 00 0 0 0 0 tp M '~ O ~ N O O t0 I~ I~ .--I II1 O O ~ ~ M N Lf) O .1 Ln O~ ' ~ u n ~ n lf1 1~ ~ i~ tf1• Ct C1 .--1 tf~ ifl- d' ,~ 111 O .--I O O M C a ~ c ~ I ; ~ t~ ~ ~r ~r ear ~ O .--1 ~ M ~ C~ O y' O ~ U ~ m ~ tl ~ ~ ~ ~ L w ~+ d ~ ~ ~ U ~ .~ c E ~ c c Z C B O O f0 U y U ~(n O~~ Y + a0 H a~ H > U ~'~ C ~ p O O ~'~ ~~ ~~ . . s c C 0 p C V ~ ~ ~ Q O O~ V O C N 2 2 fp a ~ c_ ~ .~ DI U 0 ~' ~ ~ Q ~ N > ~ ~ S m _ fp f0 f0 c0 ~ U C O O N ~ L N ~ ~ N O 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~..+ f0 J of CC U] ~ (0 N '-= Q. O N _O O p c0 ~ O N 01 N O O ~ ~[ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~" C O O C-- L N (0 L O C 7 C cv (p (0 O }' L .C v x Q ~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 ~~ra AGENDA Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 18.8. Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Amending Section 19-238 of the Zoning Ordinance Relating to Regulating Post-Development Stormwater Runoff in the Swift Creek Reservoir County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Consider Amending Section 19-238 of the Zoning Ordinance Relating to Regulating Post-Development Stormwater Runoff in the Swift Creek Reservoir. Summary of Information: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 20, 2008 to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance requiring that post-development phosphorous loads for all land uses within the Upper Swift Creek watershed be reduced from limits of 0.22 and 0.45 to a single limit for all uses not to exceed 0.16 lb/ac/yr. (See Ordinance - Attachment A). Objections to adopting the 0.16 single limit included concerns (1) that the limit is unattainable, (2) that the 0.16 limit creates a hardship for new development, and (3) a 0.16 limit could alter land development patterns by discouraging economic development projects and neo-traditional development. Since the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Warren and Mr. Holland have asked the Board to Preparers Richard M. McElfish Title: Director of Environmental Engineering 0800(23):79315.2(75426.2; 79280.2; 79343.1) Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # 0 4 0 025 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA consider an alternative ordinance that retains the 0.22 discharge limit but provides for in-lake phosphorous monitoring of the Swift Creek Reservoir and reductions of phosphorous loads to either 0.19 or 0.16 based on the future condition of the reservoir. (See alternative ordinance - Attachment B). Ms. Durfee has also asked the Board to consider a second, similar, alternative that provides for monitoring and reductions of phosphorous loads to 0.20, 0.18, or 0.16 based on future reservoir conditions (See ordinance - Attachment C). Staff recommended denial of the original amendment and the Planning Commission voted unanimously against adopting the amendment. District: Clover Hill, Matoaca and Midlothian 000255 ATTACHMENT A AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 19-238 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS IN THE UPPER SWIFT CREEK WATERSHED BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section 19-238 of the Code of the County o Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Sec. 19-238. Development regulations. 000 (d) (1) Stormwater runoff shall be controlled to achieve the following: a. For any new use or development, the post-development, nonpoint- source pollution runoff loads of phosphorous and lead shall not exceed the following: (i) Phosphorus: 1. The post-development total phosphorus load for all land uses except agricultural practices r°°'al e~~~i~,~~~~ ~~~tA ~ n •,;~~ ,~•cr-cccr~I;~i~ttil-~cvcite-zZ~v ~,:~., ,.°~:a°„+:,,~. ~~ n , ~;~~~.,°,.° ,,.. ~°~~~~ shall not exceed 9:~ 0.16 pounds per acre per year. 000 (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 1925:75426.2 ~ ®~ ATTACHMENT B AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 19-238 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS IN THE UPPER SWIFT CREEK WATERSHED BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section 19-238 of the Code of the Count~o Chester geld 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Sec. 19-238. Development regulations. 000 (d) (1) Stormwater runoff shall be controlled to achieve the following: a. For any new use or development, the post-development, nonpoint- source pollution runoff loads of phosphorus and lead shall not exceed the following: (i) Phosphorus: The post-development total phosphorus load for all residential land uses except agricultural practices ..,~.........~. ~~.,~ I.,VIi~..II ~.~...I.,.III~II IIIVLL .. .°~:.70,..~;,,t (:.~: ~0 7 !1 ,,;~~ «o \v~7i-rrrcna~-cvcrtc 1 IG{II o • • less shall not exceed 0.22 pounds per acre per year. This requirement does not apply to residential uses. which are located within the same structure as commercial uses. 2. The post-development total phosphorus load for all other uses shall not exceed 0.45 pounds per acre per year. 3. The County shall monitor the in-lake nhosnhorus of the Swift Creek Reservoir using the sampling protocols outlined in the Virginia Water Quality Standards established by the Virginia Department of Environmental Ouality. The chart below shows how the post-development phosphorous load 1925:79280.2 1 (Draft Sliding Scale) ~ ®0 ATTACHMENT B standard for all non-agricultural residential uses shall chance based on the owing season median readin s for in-lake hos horous in each of the three most recent consecutive years• In-lake phosphorous Post-development reading phosphorous load standard > .03 m L 0.19 pounds per acre per ear > .04 m L 0.16 pounds per acre per These requirements do not apply to residential uses which are located within the same structure as commercial uses. 000 (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 1925:79280.2 2 (Draft Sliding Scale) ~ ~ O ~ ~ 8 ATTACHMENT C AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 19-238 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS IN THE UPPER SWIFT CREEK WATERSHED BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section 19-238 of the Code of the County o Chester geld. 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Sec. 19-238. Development regulations. 000 (d) (1) Stormwater runoff shall be controlled to achieve the following: a. For any new use or development, the post-development, nonpoint- source pollution runoff loads of phosphorus and lead shall not exceed the following: (i) Phosphorus: The post-development total phosphorus load for all residential land uses except agricultural practices ~;ao„~;.,~ ii n~ +,. ~ n , ~;+~ .. roe ., +~e ~,,,,.o .... ---- -a~ r-- ~----i~ .,..... ... ...., ..t.t,... ._, ..... .,..,....~ _~ less-} shall not exceed 0.22 pounds per acre per year. This requirement does not applyto residential uses which are located within the same structure as commercial uses. 2. The post-development total phosphorus load for all other uses shall not exceed 0.45 pounds per acre per year. 3. The County shall monitor the in-lake nhosnhorus of the Swift Creek Reservoir using. the sampling protocols outlined in the Virginia Water Quality Standards established by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. The chart below shows how the post-development phosphorous load standard for all non-agricultural residential uses 1923:79343.1 1 ~ ©~ ATTACHMENT C shall change based on the rg owing season median readings for in-lake phosphorous in each of the three most recent consecutive tears: In-lake phosphorous Post-development readin p hosphorous load standard .02 mg/L or lower 0.22 pounds per acre per year .021 - .03 m~ 0.20 pounds per acre per /L .031 - .04 mg 0.18 pounds per acre per _ year .041 or greater mg/L 0.16 pounds per acre per year These requirements do not apply to residential uses which are located within the same structure as commercial uses. 000 (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 1923 :79343.1 2 (~ (~ ~ ~ s 6hesterfield Observer ._. . P.O. Box 1616, Midlothian, Virginia 231. l3 • phone: (804) 545-7500 • Fax: (804) 744-3269 • Email: news@chestertiel (observer.comw' ntcrnetawww9hesterfieldobserver.com ~~I i 1, f _„a n(~~i Chesterfield r~r ~'`` Board of Sune c TISING AFFIDAVIT C Watershed 7-16, 1 col x 4.5 in. The Observer, Inc. Take notice ~T~ NOTICE S - of Chesterfield Coun upervisors adjourned m ~' Virginia, at an 30, 2008 at 6~ p$ on We~eS~}};; Tiny p.m. in the Coun public Meeting Room at the Chesterfield Administration Building, Route 10 and Lori Road, Chesterfield, iru~~a ~ hold aublic hearing where persons may appeaz pre~nt their views con cerning: An Ordinance to amend :the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, by amending and re-er-acting Section 19- 238 of the Zo water 'nIIg Ordinance relating to 9ua1ity m the U~pper Swift Creek Watershed (`Watershed°). The Watershed consists °f ~ Chesterfield County located upstream of the Swift Creek Reservoir Dam, Spepfi~ this amendment would require that the post_ ~opm ~t total phosphorus load for within the Watershed, except practices. shayl not exceed 0.16 pounds per acre per y~ After the public he~1ng, changes or cerrections ma be apprOPriate ~n~damendments. y made to the to Dick Questions should Environmental ~~• Director of Engineering at 748-1038. ~~ ~8~ aheld at a public facility ccessible to persons with ilities. Arryper~,~ with questions on the accessibility of the facility. or the need finr reasonable accommodations should scot 748-1200. p ~ Clerk to the Boazd, services for the deaf munct~non8 interpreter to the Boazd no later ~ the Clerk 2008. than Friday, Tiny 25, Publisher of CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER $223.50 This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on the following date(s): 07/16/08 & 07/23/08 Sworn to and su scribed before me this 3 ~~ day of 2008. v Legal Affiant Jams ,Grooms Jr., No Public My commission expires: February 29, 2012 Commission I.D. 7182093 (SEAL) ~ 4 i ~' ~o~~fxswRfs ~;~ s +r'T112010~ v -•... r ~,,,qRY I ~IgINI THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU. r~ _~ f" Li.~ ... •L ~ w..a ,, ~ ~ ~~~ °~ ~ v ~ ~ .~ .-3 _ ~ ~ ~., ~ ~_, ~ ~ y ~ ~ f~ c ~' ~~~v ~ ~ <~ ~ ~ .~..~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~, 3. ~, -~ ~ J R~ N ~ ~ ys. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~_ s ~~ d _`~ ~ ~ .~ C1.. ~ W.~?~~ _ _ -_- _- ~~zz~on (//'/~~1 ~7J/~~'^~'`''~"''`•~,~ (//jN^ ~'.~•!~ lam,(/ AtlantlelnRnld "••'"~'/~~/ ~.rJ•~ .J/K;. ~ 0 70980Agantic Btxkvard Jacksonville, FL 32225 9530 MIDLOTHIAN PIKE • P.D. 80X 35070 • RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23235 404 sae °QOO OFFICE 804-521-0600 • TOLL FREE 969-500-1130 • FAX 804-745-7823 AutoMax Ocala P.O. Box 3808 1418 SW 17tH Slree: °~-0oi o~a'g~670. July 30, 2008 Person Unceln dlen:ury 825D Wesl Broad Slreel Rielrr:ond, VA 23194 804Ati5.03C0 Pearson Mazda 6250 VJest Broad Strad Richmond, VA 23194 604.sss-03oD Art Warren, Chairman Pearson HyundM Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors 9530 Midl0lhian Pike Richmond, VA 23235 864-2'6.°3°° VIA FAX: 783-7695 Pearson Dodge 77701 Mldlothlan Plke AtidlDthian, VA 23113 D Art 804.794-0300 ear : Denbigh Toyota ,5798 wanrick Boulevard Newport Nawa. VA 25600 The proposed Chesterfield County phosphorous issue 757-e74-6°°° causes me grave concern, not only for myself, but for all residents 6ctanded Servlee Corp. P.O. Boz 35070 and merchants. 9530 Mdlothian Pika Richmond, VA 23235 604-set-06oo If passed, it will render the development of many people's Imagelmpad,blc. 8250 West Broad Street land economically unfeasible. As a county business person and R~ ~r-0;~z3~° land owner, 1, like many others, will be heavily impacted lay a steep PearsonlnflnNl reduction of affected property values. 8301 Wesl Broad Street Richmond. VA 23294 804-527.0300 Sometimes citizens and municipalities, in a sincere effort to OeslaWesanlMitaD6lshl P.O. Box 3808 "da the ri ht thin "fail to recd nine the far-reaching unintended g g 9 22oos.w.ealegeROad Ocala. FL 34418!34474 consequences of their actions. 352.622-4171 PaaramHonda 7450 Midlogllan Pike Reducing the value of thousands of acres of potentially Richmond, VA 23225 804-745-03D0 residential and commercial land will result in demand fora "like Pearson Mltaublshl reduction" of assessed valuations for property tax purposes. 96C1 NYdlothlanPiika Richmond VA 23235 Imo ine the revenue lass to the coun}~~ This at1 could only/ be 9 ~J • 9 + 804-323.0800 1 offset by unreasonably higher taxes on aft existing homes and businesses. . Pearson Broedcasting P.Q.8ox68,0 From what I understand the reservoir is in excellent Branson, MO 65615 4 1 7 335-2261 ~ condition. KBCN-FM 104-7 1 CO 8 W ebird Lane Harrison, AR 721101 I agree that those in favor of this resolution are well 870.743.1157 r intended; however, it is each of our duty to consider all possible :to-FM,~7.a K 16785 Flnrh Road outcomes of any initiative. Lebaron, Mo 55807 417-532.2942 KER%-FM98.3 Sincere! and respectfully, 1512 Church SVSeI Barting, AR 72923 d79-aB4.7285 i-' KMAC-FM 98.7 ,~~~.~~~ 146 S. Cdlege Street ~ ~~~ Mountain Homo,AR 72653 670.508-6610 KTTG-FIY 96.3 Frank A. Pearson 2907 Highway 71 Norm Mena, AR 71953 President 479.394-6798 Z'd EZ8LS~L~08 ue;ooM euuoa d~0~90 80 0£ I~f ~ueK Ka~~,,e Id Hands Across the Lake P.O. BOX 1752 July 30, 2008 Honorable Members of Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors Mr. James L. Stegmaier, County Administrator Re: Phosphorus Standards for Swift Creek Reservoir; Public Hearing item 186 Possible Compromise: a temporary 20% reduction to 0.18/0.36 Hands Across the Lake (HAL) has voted to support the 0.16 Ib/ac/yr phosphorus standard. It represents the state of the art technology to mitigate phosphorus pollution to near zero levels. The county goals should include both developing with zero pollution and sustaining its economic engine. Both are possible. The Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality reduced the in-lake phosphorus standard from 0.050 to 0.040 mg/I, a reduction of the 20%. This reduction makes the current standard obsolete. Therefore, HAL proposes a compromise measure: the reduction of the 0.22/0.45 by 20% to 0.18/0.36 Ib/ac/yr. This proposal has technical creditability: • It will do a betterjob of reducing phosphorus levels than 0.22/0.45 while we work to bring the standards necessary for zero impact on the reservoir from new developments. • It will allow new zonings to continue temporarily until the county gives the developers a better choice in building techniques. These choices reportedly reduce costs to the developer for mitigating storm-water runoff and lowers costs to the taxpayer for stream, reservoir and habitat restoration. This proposal is a win-win situation for the county to guarantee future water needs through 2045 and provide for the economic engine of the county. The two alternate motions being proposed by some members of the Board of Supervisors are based on reacting to in-lake reservoir data; such proposals can work only if the data collection, analysis and reporting is done by an independent quality control agency that reports to the county administrator rather than to lower officials. High phosphorus levels might not get reported if they adversely impact county development priorities. Collecting data for three years is too long to wait to correct standards in a meaningful way. The ideal situation would be for the county to adopt the 0.16 phosphorus standard based on technical merits and the need to protect water. However, that is not a political reality.- HAL recognizes the need to move on as well as to support all the county objectives. In the spirit of compromise, we suggest a 20% reduction in the phosphorus standard for a limited time. During this time, HAL encourages the county to continue seeking state of the art technologies that are both economical and practical for the developer and also meet a no-pollution standard for the reservoir. Sincerely, Thomas. A. Pakurar, Ph.D. President B AND ASSOCIATES INC "' ,~P~-~.~, I~l~,~.~# Ik6 REFLECTING TOMORROW Date: July 29, 2008 Memo PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT UPPER SWIFT CREEK WATERSHED WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS To: Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors Mr. Art Warren, Chairman -Clover Hill District Mr. Dan Gecker, Vice Chairman -Midlothian District Ms. Marleen Durfee - Matoaca District Mr. Jim Holland -Dale District Ms. Dorothy Jaeckle -Bermuda District As a representative of the engineering and development community, we have examined a recent site to assess the impacts of the proposed ordinance revision for water quality improvement requirements in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed. As you are aware, Village Bank is currently completing construction of their new corporate office, located in the Watkins Center. This site is located within the Upper Swift Creek Watershed and is along the northern border of the watershed. The site plan, as approved by the county, shows a 6.00-acre parcel of land with a 79,188 Square-foot, four story office building and associated parking (refer to Sheet No. 1 of 2, attached). The site was able to meet the pollutant removal requirements through the use of two on-site best management practices, in series. The first practice is a Design 5 (40% pollutant removal) wet pond, followed by an underground Stormfilter. Under the proposed ordinance, the Bank would not be able to meet he pollutant removal requirements and would have a 1.74 #/yr removal shortfall. For the Bank to achieve the required removal requirement under the proposed ordinance, the Bank would have been required to purchase an additional 13.0-acres of land and then provide a Design 7 (65% removal) pond to treat the stormwater runoff from the entire 13.0-acres (refer to Sheet No. 2 of 2, attached). In addition, the 13.0-acres would have to remain undeveloped. When considering the impacts of the ordinance change on the Village Bank Corporate Office site, which is representative of current development within the County, several issues are apparent: • Changing the ordinance to apre-development phosphorus loading rate of 0.16 #/yr will foster sprawl within the County as developers will be required to purchase additional acreage to preserve as green space for individual sites, therefore, spreading out uses and eating up valuable economically viable land (for example, the Village Bank site requiring 19- acres, instead of 6-acres of land). • There will be an increased burden on the existing road network as sprawl increases and citizens will be required to travel further from their residential developments to commercial developments. • Compact development and interconnectivity will be less attractive and less feasible to developers as development sites are forced to spread out. • There will be an increased burden on the County's Fire and Life Safety Departments as commercial development spreads further from current Fire & EMS facilities. • The County will see a decrease in its tax base as the density of development decreases. Sincerely, BALZER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Andrew M. Scherzer Executive Vice President -~ ~ -,~'i~/- ' ~ . ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ i / / / /; i / ~ ~ /; / ~ ~~~ /'~ / /~ / ; ~ /~ i / / i / ' i i~ ~ ~' ,/ ,` ~ ~/. ~ ~ ,'~ ~, ,~ / ~~ i .~' / i / ~ ',i ,' ~ ~' ~ i~ i /~ / / ~ ~ r'.~~~~ / i ~ .1;,; / ~ / % ;' /'` ~ ~ / ~~~~~ ~'i /~ ~~ ~/ /~~ ~ ~ ii ~/ i i ~ /~ / ~ ~ -~i " ~ ~i / / / i ~/ / / ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ /~ ,/ ~~ ,/ / / , /~ rr/I /r I I // r f f U i ~( I~'7 /fir r~ /~ l r r l ~i ~~~ %r / i i' i~ ,,~ ~ ('/rr ~i ~'~J ,r r~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~rti~'%r/ '%r/~~ ~~r~,~ ~,%~'l," 1 r.,, : / / ~ ~ ~ k ~, , ~( ,/, ~ is , ,~l i ~' %l~. 1 ~'~ ~ ~ ~~~ .' ~ ~ 11 /, ~ Y~Y ~ l` ~ '`~ / %,> \ * ~,~ / ~ ~^~ `' -~~-,--f o~ a~ ~C ~~ s~ ~`i i~ ~ ~~~ i / ~~ i i t ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ i I~ l ~~~ i `\. ~ ~ .~ ~ ~L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ VILLAGE BANK CORPORATE OFFICE ~ ~ ~ e ! ~ ~ i i [ + Q IS 9 ~ : ' BMP PLAN -APPROVED ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~~ i ~ t I V IR I~ III I~ Ig CHES EIRFIE DICO DINTI,I RGINIA ~ ~ ' i i \~ -_-„_ /M / / / / // / / / / // / ~' / // / ///// ~'/ / //// / / / /. / / //// ~// //. / / / /// //// ~ / ." / // // '/'/ /' ., / // // //// // ' / / / ~ i //// / /f ~ / / / / ~'; / / / / / j~, / / / / ~;~ ~/////~, ~/ ~/ ~~ ////' /////,~ ,~~/ d~ ..~ /~~~~~ / ~ / /~~~/ // ,~ /~/ ~ / / / / i id//// '~r/ /// ~~ ,, _ U.S. RO '~, • 60 PEED Io ~ ~, ~~ '111 ~//~ ~ f ~ ~/ :/ ~, /I ,. I~ It ~ / ' % ~ ~" /'~/ x / ''~ x / /1 ~~ a~ a _~ ~i ~ ~ O izaap~~;~ ~~ ~ ~ \ ~~~~~ ~~~~ i~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ .- . ~ -' ~~~' .' i~~~ i~.~ i ~ i i ~.~' i ~ ~ ~~' .~ I ~ 1 /} c~ f- t ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ B ~ VILLAGE BANK CORPORATE OFFICE I^^^p Q a ! ! sp BMP PLAN -REVISED ORDINANCE f N I(( ~ It I11 IP CHES EIRFIE DICOUNTY,IVIRGINIA i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~i0i~~~i ~~;~~~ ~~ EXHIBIT 1 VILLAGE BAN K SITE PLAN AS APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKSHEET A NEW DEVELOPMENT STEP 1: DETERMIl~tE PRE-DEVELOPED PHOSPHOROUS LOADING ~ _ (F~x ~) Vf~HERE: I.~ = Pre-developed phasphomo+is lo®d (Ibslyr) F~ = Pre-developed phosphorous load (Ibs/ac/yr) factor (Table 3) A,~, = Are$ of RMA/RPA within the site (acres) STEP 2: DETERMINE ONSITE POST-DEVI~LOPED PHOSPHOROUS LOADING jj Q ~ ~ S-Ti/ 6 M p~v tcyv S wI-~Ri;: A = RMAIRPA of each subarea. within site (acres} Fp,,, = Post-development phosphorous bading factor (Table IA or 1B) (Ibs/ac/yr) I . = Percent impervious at~ea in each subarea Ac~~ I% F~ ~ Total - d./' STEP 3: COMPUTE PHOSPHOROUS REMOVAL REQUIREM1iN'T (RR) I~ = Pre-developed ph~phorous load from STEP 1. I.~ = Post-~develq~d phosphorous load from total in STEP 2 , ~ - ~'°" - I'p'° Note: Buffer reduction ItR = (7• ~j - (2 • ~o) _~J • ~ ~D Ibs/}+r should be substantiated by additional phosphorous removal computations. STEP 4: COMPUTE PHOSPHOROUS LOADING FOR ONSTTE/OFFSTTE DRAINAGE AREAS The phosphorous loading factor (F,,~ for onsite areas is based upon the post developed percent impervious cover even when those areas arc opted out of the RMA (use Table l A or I B). -. 114 J:\C2005\C0500625 Village Bank Watlcins Center\civil\dwg\CD500625 BASECUIvnw.dwg, 7/30/2008 2:30:08 PM, \\server\Canon iR Black & White Lam, _ (A)( I'ro-a) Atxl 1% Fes, Lam, i C~ =C -71 The phosphorous loading factor (F~J for offsite areas is based upon the existing percent impervious cover {use Table IA or 1B) 1 I% Fes„ L,,,a, 1~%A STEP 5: SELECT Bb'iP (from Table 4) FOR EACH DRAINAGE AREA WHICH IS SERVED BY A $MP AND CALCULATE LOAD REMOVED, L, Onsite (from STEP 4) Lam, BIvfP EZ+F (%) DESIGN ~ ' 75 ~o/, ~~~ < rye; F~ , ~~~:., a 2i ~ ~ Total e~r e'",_ , i ~~~. OtTsitc (firm STEP 4) La,a, BMP EFF (%) DESIGN L,~ Total WHE72E: 115 ~)(BMP EFF~ In l !DO If total 4 (summation of Ln, from onsite and L,~ from offsite areas) is Beater than or equal to RR, selected BMP(s) aze adequate. -~ . 1"" , ~'!'. Cam, ~,.~,~,,.. ..~ if an existing BMP is utilized, an "as built" design must accompany this worksheet with justification that the design meets acceptable BMP design standards. .. ,- ,_ J , - - ~ ~ _ ,. -_ - - _ :_ i' _., f ~ ,.. - ~ u~_ y t.,-; . ~ -. + , _._ j'~ ._ j~~A. f 116 ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~~\ m O ~ _ _ iOJ~WN ~ rn O ;\ - ~_~,. \`~.._._. ~~~~"`' W WOINOJONeJONebOmi+~ f~ ~ m ~ U7 _-_ __~'~\~--~` . =~\~ \ \ io io io m ho ~ io io v v bo h ` ~\\ ~~ ~ .. ~ 4^ Of D ~ ~ ` i L>, w ~\ ., \ -, m I! I,I !c/1 O ~ ~+i ' ! .. ~ II III °u II ~1 ~ ll~ O N _ Ili ' I ~~~ V V L~ ` ; ~~~~ ~~4a~ ,, ; 6 ~~ -- _- _ / - .r ~- ~ , - _.._ . .. __-. j __ .. _.. _ `. w- _ _. r`-r-!/ ~~ - - ~~~ -, %% ~ ~/ ~~ ~ ~ - n ~ . -_ _,, -~, ,:: ~ ,I , ~ ~~ I ppgs R i~ t9 i{ o t~9i6i ~i) i ~ j! C ~~ ~ ~ ~ (~~ r~. ~ ~ ~ VILLAOEBANK-CORPORATE OFFICE {~~gp '~~i ~~~91 8~~~ ~~'r ~~~ ~~Y~ $ ~ ; ~~~ ~ ~ $ DRAINOE & CBPA PLAN 9i i ~ ~ i @! ~I±IJ! ~ N $ ~~ ~ '" Q Q Q MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT Y ei AA 00 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY. VIRGINIA , EXHIBIT 2 VILLAGE BANK SITE PLAN ALTERNATE 1 CALCULATIONS FOR PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT i~ ~ r~~ WORKSHEET A NEW DEVELOPMENT STEP 1: DETERMINE PRE-DEVELOPED PHOSPHOROUS LOADING L~ _ (F~)(Astt~) WHERE: ~ = Pre-developed phosphorous load (lbs/yr) F~ = Pre-developed phosphorous load (lbs/aclyr) factor (Table 3) Asm = Area of RMA/RPA within the site (acres) ~ _ (C~.1 l~ )(~) _ lbs/year STEP 2: DETERMINE ON5ITE POST-DEVELOPED PHOSPHOROUS LOADING ~ _ WI-IERE: A = F~ _ I. _ A(x) (A)(F~) RMA/RPA of each subarea within site (acres) Post-development phosphorous loading factor (Table lA or 1B) (Ibs/ac/yr) Percent impervious area in each subarea . ~ ;:: `~ I% Fposc Total -7, ~~ STEP 3: COMPUTE PHOSPHOROUS REMOVAL REQUIREMENT (RR) ~ = Pre-developed phosphorous load from STEP 1. ~ = Post-developed phosphorous load from total in STEP 2 RR = ~ - ~ Note: Buffer reduction (o . 9 ~ lbs/ should be substantiated by RR = (~~ ~) - ~~ = n additional phosphorous C I , ~ 4~/y ~ removal computations. ~. N ~-E.~ aE" STEP 4: COMPUTE PHOSPHOROUS LOADING FOR ONSITE/OFFSITE DRAINAGE AREAS The phosphorous loading factor (F~~ for onsite areas is based upon the post developed percent impervious cover even when those areas are opted out of the .RMA (use Table 1 A or 1 B). 114 L ~ _ (A)(Fv~t) The phosphorous loading factor (F~ for offsite areas is based upon the existing percent impervious cover (use Table lA or 1B) ~-- ~a d~~ ~iT~~,. _ A(te) =~~ I% Fa~~ L~~, STEP 5: SELECT BMP (from Table 4) FOR EACH DRAINAGE AREA WHICH IS SERVED BY A • BMP AND CALCULATE LOAD REMOVED, In. Onsite (from STEP 4) ~ BMP EFF (%) DESIGN Inv L~ A ' C}~ x~ ~.-~~ x,92 ~'• ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ / S~Q~ Fi ~,~ ~ 2 ~ 38 Total YY 111+1Vi. ~. ~f g~-' 4 Offsite (from STEP 4) i,«~t gMp,g~ (%) DESIGN lU A Total WHERE: 115 ~~-~- ~ rBMP EFF ~- t~l 100 If total I.~ (summation of L~,, from onsite and I.,~ from offsite areas) is greater than or equal to RR, selected BMP(s) aze adequate. ff an existing BMP is utilized, an "as built" .design must accompany this worksheet with justification that the design meets acceptable BMP design standards. r-- P.. f 1 116 - /'l~T EXHIBIT 3 VILLAGE BANK SITE PLAN ALTERNATE 2 CALCULATIONS FOR PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MEETING REMOVAL REQUIREMENT WORKSHEET A NEW DEVELOPMENT STEP 1: DETERMINE PRE-DEVELOPED PHOSPHOROUS LOADING WHERE: ~ = Pre-developed phosphorous load (lbs/yr) F = Pre-developed phosphorous load (Ibs/aclyr) factor (Table 3) ~;~ = Area of RMA/RPA within the site (acres) gip 2: DETERMINE ONSITE POST-DEVELOPED PHOSPHOROUS LOADING ~ _ WHERE: A = F~ _ I = A{~) (A)(F~) RMA/RPA of each subarea within site (acres) Post-development phosphorous loading factor (Table lA or 1B) (lbs/ac/yr) Percent impervious area in each subarea ;~~, ~,,:, I% -~ j .-iii ~.... ! ; F~ .~ i `,--.; i . ~-, ~~ i~ r_ ~ G" . U `~ Total ~;"~, Sip 3; COMPUTE PHOSPHOROUS REMOVAL REQUIKEMENT (RR) ~ = Pre-developed phosphorous load from STEP 1. ~ = Post-developed phosphorous load from total in STEP 2 ~ = L~ - L~ Note: Buffer reduction should be substantiated by ~ _ ~' , ~ ~ _ '~~ ~ ~~ _ (~ ~ ~ ~ lbs/yr additional phosphorous x~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ E removal computations. /I.74 /vim STEP 4: COMPUTE PHOSPHOROUS LOADING FOR ONSITE/OFFSITE DRAINAGE AREAS The phosphorous loading factor (Fp,sc) for onsite areas is based upon the post developed percent impervious cover even when those areas are opted out of the.RMA (use Table lA or 1B). 114 •• L ~ _ (A)(F~S~) A(te) I% F~ Lposc ~. ~~ Co~'~ ~ ~ 4~ 7.92 The phosphorous loading factor (F~) for offsite areas is based upon the existing percent impervious cover (use Table lA or IB) ~~t = (A)~~t) ~~~ I% Facsst Luict ~A STEP 5: SELECT BMP (from Table 4) FOR EACH DRAINAGE AREA WHICH IS SERVED BY A ' BMP AND CALCULATE LOAD REMOVED, I.r Onsite (from STEP 4) ~ BMP EFF (%) DESIGN ~ Total ~ ~ 5 B~1`f`' EP'F' WHERE: Isn"_ (,~r-s L~U Offsite (from STEP 4) I,a~t BMP EFF (%) DESIGN ~ 2, i ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ 42 Total `~ ~Z WHERE: 115 A~TZ ., BMP EFF ~ ~~~ 100 If total I.~ (summation of L,p from onsite and L,~ from offsite azeas) is greater than or equal to RR, selected BMP(s) are adequate. L.r = (5. 5~) + L(, 42-) _ ~o, q~ lbs/yr If an existing BMP is utilized, an "as built" .design must accompany this worksheet with justification that the design meets acceptable BMP design standards. 116 Air 2 C~o~k, P~n.~~.~.~ 0--- # ~8 3 Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors -Public Hearinct -July 30th, 2008 Comments from Joel L. Bradner, President of the Brandermill Community Association (BCA) Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board: Good evening. My name is Joel Bradner. I am a resident of the Clover Hill District and current President of the Brandermill Community Association. I am here tonight on behalf of our Board of Directors, the elected body which represents over 12,000 residents and 100 commercial members in an area bordering the Swift Creek Reservoir. When I spoke at the public hearing last month regarding the Upper Swift Creek Plan amendments, I encouraged you to set bold and optimistic goals, and to eventually pass ordinances that would strengthen the Plan and help ensure the long-term viability of the Swift Creek Reservoir. I further urged you to set both measurable and enforceable standards of performance for developers. We were pleased that the Plan amendments were passed, and now I wish to reiterate our strong support for ordinances to protect this environmentally sensitive area -the watershed for Chesterfield's o~ county-owned source of drinking water. In recent weeks, we have continued to follow the work being done to develop amendments to ordinances related to the Plan. Tonight, I'll leave the scientific data on water quality to those who are more qualified. My comments will be based on more of what I believe to be a common-sense approach to the matter. At this time, we simply wish to offer our strong endorsement of the compromise offered by the Hands Across the Lake organization, which would lower the current limits by 20% and set the phosphorus runoff limits to .18 lbs./acre per year for residential development and .36 lbs./acre per year for commercial development. The standards proposed by HAL seem to be simple, understandable, and attainable goals. There is a solid technical basis fora 20% decrease, in that the allowable in-lake concentration of phosphorus has been lowered by 20% since the current standards of .22/.45 were set. Most importantly, setting an actual standard by which development projects would be judged is the only way to proactively manage water quality and maintain the health of the reservoir. Relying on the results of on-going water samples to determine your future actions, as is suggested in an alternate proposal, sets a decidedly reactive posture toward maintaining water quality, and serious concerns have been raised over whether consistent testing methodologies will be maintained and whether the results will be interpreted consistently over the long haul. Brandermill has a long history of supporting efforts to protect the Swift Creek Reservoir as a source of drinking water for the citizens of Chesterfield County. As the largest community in the county for more than 30 years, Brandermill has consistently held below the current standards for phosphorus loading into the Reservoir, and in fact, would easily meet any of the newly proposed standards as well. We have proven that these standards are both realistic and attainable. You have an opportunity tonight to set high standards for development in Chesterfield County and to demand that those standards be met. We trust that you will consider the merits of HAL's proposed compromise. ...Thank you -and, good night. `b~^~ P-~~- ~ a~ i~ r~ JCH~MBER Position on Ordinance Provisions relating to Swift Creek Reservoir The Chesterfield Business Council of the Greater Richmond Chamber is concerned about the proposed ordinance to lower the total phosphorus runoff limits from properties within the Upper Swift Creek Watershed to 0.16 pounds of phosphorus per acre per year. We understand the Board's interest in concluding the drawn-out process for the amendment of the Upper Swift Creek Plan. However, we believe that serious questions remain unanswered concerning the accompanying ordinance proposal to limit the phosphorus runoff. Discussions with members of the private engineering community and with members of the County's Environmental Engineering Department indicate that the 0.16 limit cannot realistically be achieved onsite, even with the use of state of the art low impact design techniques and BMP ponds. This appears true for residential developments, but even more so for commercial and industrial developments. The Watershed includes a number of locations that are slated for commercial or industrial development that are critical to the ongoing economic vitality of the County, including the Watkins Centre. The ordinance already includes the ability to meet the phosphorus standard through the purchase of phosphorus credits or through payment into a County fund that would be used by the County to accomplish reductions in the phosphorus loading of the reservoir. However, the details of how these credits or funds would work and whether they would provide a realistic way to deal with the proposed 0.16 phosphorus standard in the long run is just not known at this time, Although we recognize the need for the County to act as an environmental steward, we think the necessity of adopting a standard that is not realistically achievable should be considered quite carefully. This is especially true since we believe it is uncertain what our objective is in limiting the phosphorus loading. Is the phosphorus limitation being proposed because it is necessary to protect the County's drinking water supply, or is it really only necessary to preserve the aesthetics of the reservoir? The difference between those two objectives may be significant if you are weighing the need for imposing a standard that is unlikely to be obtainable and therefore stands a significant chance of imposing severe limitations on development, especially commercial development, within this area of the County. We believe that commercial and industrial development is important to the economic vitality of the County. Therefore, we ask that you not take action on the proposed phosphorus limitation until answers are available for a number of the questions that, so far, are unanswered. October 2007 WHERE CHESTS CHAMBER of BUSINESS STARTS... * ,~ RFIELD~ COMMERCE '~ July 30, 2008 `'Y1 ~.2 ~«~- P..~e~. ~.~.~ ~a h Dear Members of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, The Chesterfield County Chamber of Commerce is aware of the proposal to change the standard for the Swift Creek Watershed from the current standard of 0.22 for residential and 0.45 for commercial development to an across the board standard of 0.16. The Chamber respectfully requests that the Board of Supervisors vote NO on this proposed standard change. The land mass affected by this proposed change represents an area the size of the entire Midlothian District and the ultimate effect of the proposed change will be to destroy future development (commercial, mixed use, and residential) in the Upper Swift Creek Plan area. Moreover, the consequences of this unprecedented proposal will have devastating consequences for development throughout most of the Route 288 Corridor Plan and part of the Midlothian Area Plan as well. The end result is that the adoption of this ordinance will effectively put a "Closed for Business" sign on this area and Chesterfield County as a whole. The Upper Swift Creek Planning area is the economic "bread basket" for the county. The change to the proposed standard will be crushing to the county economically and could push businesses elsewhere, including Powhatan, which interestingly, drains into the reservoir as well. As we understand, the water quality in the reservoir continues to improve and there is no scientific evidence that this action would improve drinking water quality. Lake Chesdin and the James River both supply drinking water to Chesterfield County and both have phosphorous levels much higher than the reservoir. The Board of Supervisors and staff have worked hard to approve and encourage mixed use developments (to prevent sprawl), and we believe that the proposed standards would destroy all of that great work. The Planning Department, Environmental Engineering, and the Planning Commission have sharpened their pencils and worked diligently to adopt the current plan of 0.22 for residential and 0.45 for commercial. The current standards work. Finally, this issue cannot be properly framed as "business" versus "the environment." Comprised of mainly citizens of Chesterfield County, the principals of the approximately 650 businesses that make up the Chamber wish nothing more than to preserve our natural resources. When faced with a true choice between environmental protection and business growth, the Chamber will be the first organization at the table to brainstorm positive solutions. However, the proponents of this plan have irresponsibly and incorrectly framed this issue. The current phosphorous standards protect the Upper Swift Creek Watershed while promoting healthy growth through development. A choice has been put forward when there is no choice to be made. The current standards must remain. Our businesses cannot survive without rooftops. Businesses locate where people live. As community leaders we urge you to say NO to this proposed change in phosphorous standards and approve the recommendations made by the Planning Commission and county staff. Sincerely, __~,.~ ~~ Neal Lappe Chairman s Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, My name is Billy Barbee. My family and I live in the northwest corner of the Upper Swift Creek area in Moseley. I am here in support of the water quality amendment recommendations as proposed by Hands Across the Lake for the Upper Swift Creek land use plan. More specifically, am in favor of HAL's proposed compromise standard that reduces the current standards by 20% to 0.18 pounds per acre per year for new residential and 0.36 for commercial. I am an average citizen and have no great technical understanding of the discussions at hand, but after hearing and reading the many counter arguments on both sides, common sense and logic drives me to this position. I do understand developers' position, and while I recognize that they will incur some hardships from stiffer standards, I also believe that the development community will not skip a beat in their day to day routine as a result of the reduced levels. Most of what I've read from those against the tighter standards say that there is no data to support the proposed reductions. Yet we all are aware of several reports made on this subject, not to mention the annual water reports published by the county over the past decade. Our past leaders have spent a great deal of time justifying how NOT to accept the outcomes of the many studies. Opponents of the proposed standards change argue that the adoption of the new standards would be unnecessary given the reservoir's current health. But on the other hand, there are many views that argue poor health is a strong possibility with existing development plans. Shouldn't we be proactive and choose the path to ensure the health of the reservoir for all the future residents they are building homes for? Recently, the intelligence of local residents was insulted by the absurd scare tactic employed by a home builders' association when they mailed out letters to residents claiming that a tighter standard will "lower" property values. We can see past that propaganda as we know improved water quality standards will indeed stabilize the region, thus having the opposite effect and increasing home values. Based on last month's passing of the Upper Swift Creek land use plan amendments, I'm very hopeful that this Board will have the same common sense conclusions in this matter and tighten the Plan in a way that better protects our water quality and the water quality for the next generation. The proposed standards are a definite step forward toward encouraging responsible land use near the reservoir that will prolong its life span. Preventative measures are necessary now to head off problems that would likely arise from future development in an area where so much growth is already approved but not yet built. In closing, I ask that you follow a responsible, conscientious approach to water quality by accepting HAL's compromise fora 20% reduction to 0.18 and 0.36 levels. I ask that the new standard be put into effect immediately and that it be applied to any site plan or site plan modification submitted for approval. Thank you for your attention. William F. Barbee 19701 Ahern Road Moseley, VA 23120 ~e-~ C~ ~ li•nS c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O D G~G D ~ Z: t1~ O 1 ~ (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cnc ~ nc ~ n ~ ~ ~ v o ~ ~7 y ~ ( ~ n Z7 ~ C ~ p ~ C C T ~ ~ ~ o- ~ C ~ m . * * ~ - D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 o ~ ~ 5 ~c ~ o O ~c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• * 0 ~ o m a °- ~« o ~ sv m ~ ~ ~ c o ~ a ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ T c ~. ~ N o w ~ ~ o ~ O 0 ~ o ~ . m ~ ~ '~ ` ~ m m ~ ~ ~ p~ m ~ ~ ~ o ~ c ~ o 2 co ~ '~ °? o m - ., 0 ~ 0 ~ a o ~ ~ m o~ ~ a n. ~ c7 ~ ~ o ~ N ~ O 0 3 ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ D -• ~ o ~ ~ r ~ O n o ~ m ~ o o ~ a ~~ ~ m x o n ~ N • . m o m ~ ~ ~ ~' w : ~ ~' A m ,~ m ~ o_ o ~• i a o o Ul 0 c ~ ~ ~ A Cn -P Cn m ~ ~ ~ v m C (D 6 ~ x; ~ ~ ~ Ill ~ ~ ~ W N s ~, N ~ s a m e rn ~ ~ W ~ °'w W to O 1 a ~ N ~ O W cn ~ V .I~ t0 w O] oo a`+. ' o ~ o O ~' ~ ~ W O O N CIl (h Cf) v j J W ~P (b U i C71 a O !v W a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = m v ~ ~ ~ cn N w ~ w j o .~. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 ~ O O O O O O v n ~ n 2 tp ~ _i r 1 ~ 1 ~ CJ1 tlt Cfl ~ O CJl ~ W °~ ~ w A ° p p~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N tO' CL3 CO ~ Ch A ? W t+~ m ~ . , ~ ~ ~ Q O N. N i ~ A V om W ~ .r ~ D ~ p n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Qp ny 00 00 ~ W s A .~ ~i p ~ O A t0 O j '~I O W ~ Q ! OD A t,7i O ~ m rn ~ O 01 01 N 00 G1 0~0 W eND W 00 to N W' W th ~' N C. ~ ~ . a ~ CD ~ .-. ~ rn o =_- a ~ w N ~ ~ J ~ ~ n c~ f m ~ m ('~ ~' N _ N ~ D N O y W " (~ ~ 1~ + N ~ -1~7 Q .P W C T -•J W (fl fJ ' A ~ ^ J O O ~ I N ~ O W W O d J CJ1 A ~ I /~ C rn A C tv °- y ., t11 rt D N ~ ~ N N. (O o i+ O o N. ~ W w ? a _ Ch a 07 w N w N ~ N w ~ cn CJt w (p ~ m rn ~ ~ cn ~I N cn W o CJt U t ~ lb (T O W O W (O O V N Z ~ G1 tJ "'' y ~ v C 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 o a ~ s ~ ~ A A ? ~ ? A -P ~ W a tp 67 d ) ~ 6) ~ CA tJ'i U i CT CJt fJ t Ch (h C7 1 W W Q d Z ~' N N V ~ A a S ~ a s tD W C j O ~ V •~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I J ~ l t0 ~ °•d r ~ ~ E ~ N . tD N . ~ V w N j 0 0 N O Q1 0 0 O w Q~ N w t71 w U1 N A N N Q1 tb C O C1 4A N t77 tJ1 N 1 N tai W ~ Q1 ' ~ 7 C ~( n (n ~7 rC ~ n ~ G D~ ~ A O DD L~G ~ o :U~ O~ 7 C ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ 17 --~~ ~" DC 7 C S~ C ~ ~ ~ n- . C ~ co m ~ -I A ((TT~~ O ~ O „ O ~c ~ 3 ~c O ~ O ~c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o c oo ~ _O S i : ° O Q °- k_ ~ O ~ ~~ ~ m ~ - ~ o Q ~ ~ O 3 ~ ~ ~ C ~ N CO N p w 7 ~ ~ t o a O ~ O ~ p p ~ (D m ~ O r-. C N ~ ,_,. N ( ~ D ( D ~ ~ ( D ~ ~ fn ~ N ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ N Q i ~ C 1 n ~ _ N~ O_ p S -n ~ ~ O O cn ~ ~ p~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ * ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ^ r~ ~ , D ~• ~ ~ . a r O o ~ ~. m o c c c o ~ ~ m _ X ~' o ° ~ N c N ~ cn m ~ c ~ ~ - N ~ ~ - - ~ ~ n 6 N m Q p rN ~' O , C> ~ ~ ~ a o o ~ N N Q 7 ID ~ C ~ ~ N N V 1 ' ~ d ( ~ / °: m ~, r` ~ . ~ ~ m 3 m 0 a O < ? ~ W ~° N ~ o ~ s p (h. p N ~ ~ rn Q m (D ' 00 O O- ~ , 67 ~ -~ W ~ O O~ N O W ~, ~ ^J ~ (O ~ W ~ O i CCl T ~1 /~ Z d. .--" O W O ~ O N U1 Ut (O ti s ~ W ~ O~ U1 - C ~ v m a ~' n ~ ~ v ~ ~ r ~ n m ~ r ~ ~ s ` ~ m m ~ n v co ~ ~ ~ c> v o ~ p ~ o ~ o o :. o . ~ -~ U7 -~ V1 ~ CJt o Cfl o ~1 o m o ' CT o •A o W ~ ~' ' (D ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ O) m ~ ~ N CO Cfl (D ~ G~ .p A W W N m "0 ~ "~ ~ s ~ ~ "* _O ~ o n ~ N W "' s C C A N ~ v ~D W cn ay i ? w ¢~ w at / rn v ~ cD ~- ~ N r ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ <O W ,j,pp A ~ W 0~ ~ A O ~t O O W s ~ W K N O ~ ~ C C C7 00 N tO N w OO tA N w .p w w ' rn N ~ t T A O O ) N O ~ W ~ Z O C ° 7 = LD n . ~ r v ~ o D _ ~ ~ coo ~ ~ C __ :A ~ ~ D cn O ~ - W p ~ ~'• N ~ rn o ~ CN71 N ~. [S') ~) O v W ~+ W o ~1 c7i ~ rn N v (D Z O W C J -J ~ W CD (T J~ N ~I O O ~1 v (f? N ~ O W O ~ CT ? v Ca 1 O ! '~"• W TT N v Q n N ~ t +> N (O O O W O ? W 0 A 0 CD CS7 (O ~ W N W N ~P N W •~ (.T'~ (T W 7 ~ Vi ^J N CT ~ O Gt fJ r (T O? CJ ~ O W O ~ (O' O 11 N ~ r ~ ~ `~ c ~ ~ O ' o o a _ o ~ 0 i 0 A 0 0 A 0 0 0 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N ~ O - ~ . p a ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ CA Ch j] C .. h CJl A (T N N N N N N N N ~ O O ~ Z ~ -, ~ N '~ ~ ~ ~ cp t ~ Wp i .r ~ ~ N N w V ~ O .~ ~ r - W ~p -a ~l ~ N tD N l a V A W N -~ 0 I 0 N C Qi q 0 W -~ 0 iD A V <D O O tJt ~1 O y CO A -+ N ~ i fD N ~ 00 0 0 Q1 ~ V ~ CJt p W C 1. N 00 Qt . ~ A I'm Kitty Snow and I live in Moseley where every creek runs into the reservoir. I take that responsibility seriously. I'll admit it...my head hurts from all the figures floating around regarding water quality. But some facts are indisputable. My tax dollazs have paid for studies for almost forty years that have all said the same thing. Be cazeful, be VERY careful when you develop azound the reservoir. The state has mandated a reduction in phosphorous concentration that cannot be complied with once build-out in this area is complete. 'The Commonwealth of Virginia reporting that several creeks are already impaired is not rumor or conjecture. It's fact. Nor is the Chesterfield County stream report fiction. July 2008's stream report reveals high nutrient concentrations and threatened aquatic life. 'These are facts, science. Not my azea of expertise but I respect that the staff that compiles this information is competent. MY azea of expertise is selling real estate. I've sold real estate here for 22 yeazs and as a broker, I am tired of being called names by the development community because public safety and welfaze aze important to me. It's a scary thing to know that speaking before you like this loses business and takes income from my family but I was raised that we are to be stewazds of God's earth and there is no codicil that says unless it gets hazd or costs too much. I thought about not speaking tonight but simply playing a song for you. "Hey Grandfather", written by Jim Sloan, talks of recalling things lost to that generation... like clean water. The ones responsible, who lost these things, didn't mean harm. I doubt that the developers speaking tonight against a more stringent standard mean any harm. But what if they aze wrong? What if all ten or so studies over the yeazs aze valid? What if the people you call tree-huggers and extremists are simply reading the studies and seeing what the development community doesn't want to acknowledge? What if, like Falling Creek, we finally realize this and it's too late? I've stood with a buyer on land for sale and been told you can't get water. That kills the sale. Not me or my opinion. The REALITY of NO WATER, no life-sustaining water, kills the sale. Making a mistake at this crucial time could kill more than a sale. It could kill our future. Protecting our water by stricter standards isn't going to ruin our economy. I'll tell you a secret...the market has been down for two yeazs and it's not OUR fault! Stop listening to the special interest groups who threaten and blame. Look at all the unbuilt houses approved in this azea. Read the studies you paid for. Do you remember when gas was leaded? Remember how the oil companies fought changing to unleaded and predicted financial doom? It was necessary, it was accomplished and now it's the way things are. Same thing with pesticides and other health issues. If we read the studies and make the change to 0.16, the experts will find a way to comply with the new standazd. You don't see much leaded gas these days, do you? If you stick to your principles, we can have clean water for future generations. And one day someone will ask how could anyone think that this wasn't possible. It is. We just have to think hazder and work more responsibly. I remember when the reservoir was built. I hope I'm not alive when the reservoir dies. You hold its future in your hands and I am confident that you aze worthy of that responsibility. Do the right thing. Protect our water. Thank you. Falls of the James Group County Administrator James J. L. Stegmaier E-Mail: galushaj@chesterfield.gov Dale District James M. "Jim" Holland E-Mail: hollandj@chesterfield.gov Bermuda District Dorothy Jaeckle E-Mail: jaeckled@chesterfield.gov Clover Hill District Arthur S. (Art) Warren E-Mail: warrena@chesterfield.gov Matoaca District Midlothian District Marleen K. Durfee Daniel A. Gecker E-:Mail: durfeem@chesterfield.gov E-mail: geckerd@chesterfield.gov ~c.`P~. IERRA CLUB Subject: Public Hearing: County Ordinance 19-238 Development Regulations Upper Swift Creek Watershed Dear Sir: Falls of the James Group Sierra Club supports the 0.16 update to County Ordinance 19-238 Development Regulations Stormwater as recommended by the county staff Ju12007 and again February 2008. This change recognizes the study of CH2MHi11 and the efforts of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)and the county to check runoff pollution which is endangering our water resources in our lakes, streams and the Chesapeake Bay. The plan was that Phosphorus runoff shall not exceed .16 pounds per acre per year for residential buildout of this critical watershed as supported by CH2MHi11. We prefer the more protective measure, but we can support a HAL compromise which recommends 20% reduction only to 0.18/0.36 lb/ac/yr while continued studies are completed and advanced techniques are applied to contain sediment and chemical loads. The last available County WASP data for 02-06 reflects impaired streams around the reservoir, and the latest DEQ report reflects increase in severe impairment in the Richmond watershed, including Cheste~eld. We must do better through buffe rotection of our tre sand containment of runoff of our road pollutants and yards. ' ~ ~ Jul 30 2008 Diana P r, em er, Ex cutive Committee Y Falls of the James Group Sierra Club 10700 Chalkley Road, Richmond VA 23237-4048 804-748-7842 Erthshr@comcast.net For Our Families, For Our Future ~~~ «~. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832-0040 ~~~~~~~~ From reading the numerous articles in various newspapers lately, I am guessing that there must be a lot skeptics about Hands Across the Lake and its proposals. Inane-mail I got a definitions of a skeptic: "A skeptic is a person who when sees the handwriting on the wall, claims it's a forgery". Well, HAL does not see the handwriting on the wall about protecting the Swift Creek Reservoir. HAL re orts the findings of many scientists and technically competent people who have since early 1970 studied the impact of development on the reservoir. If anybody needs evidence , I assure you that I can document most of what I say and wri 8 aeoazust theme d Dr Pakufrraor has ~ ~h ,more on disks~as pages of reports that I have accumulated ove y well. If we continue to point fingers through ~ needed t anet down o work and so 1 e the serious problems reporting - we waste valuable time tha g facing all of us about our natural resources. I want to talk about decisions and their long-term consequences.; Repeatedly decisions have been made by previous Boazds and staff members to selectively use the recommendations of the studies they or other have paid for. For example a 1972 report (James River comprehensive water Quality Management Study of 1972, compiled for the Virginia Water Control Board) Which Said Only O - 2S% of the land Iri the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed is suitable for the following development-related land uses: Septic tanks, sanitary landfills, Roads streets and parking lots, buildings - (three stories or less); pazks and picnin areas, and campsites. And a 1974 study's recommendations: "Maintain watershed as a protected open space as a buffer to expanding suburban development OR as an area of highly managed developmental growth where land use is adjusted to the protective requirements of the reservoir and the watershed OR as an azea of developmental sprawl with patterns and characteristics of land use similar to hose currently experienced elsewhere in the county. " "If intensively managed developmental growth is selected as the alternative, stringent minimum standazds with regazd to water quality and discharge, sediment yield, and land use type and density should be defined and applied as the basis for developmental planning, regulatory controls, physical management programs, and the development and subsequent maintenance of sites. These standards should be established with regazd to the discrete physical characteristics of the watershed." ENVIRONIvIENTAL RELATIONSHIPS OF THE BRANDERMILL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR AN ASSOCIATED WATERSHED: A Technical Review. V. P. I. And State University, April 14, 1974 ~/q~'~ ~°~r~-~t~1 Puy I ~~ ~~~ -'~5~18 ~ MEDIAN PHOSPHORUS LEVELS IN SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR 1997 - 2007 COUNTY TESTS -ALL SITES COMBINED O a ., O Source: Chesberfleid Courriy Envkonmen~al Erpineering Depertrnent - Oflloe of Water Quality Fact Sheet: Orthophosphate, Drinking Water and Public Health Orthophosphate (OP) is a commonly used corrosion inhibitor that is added to finished drinking water. In addition to its current use in the District of Columbia, OP is being used as a corrosion inhibitor in cities including Richmond, New York City, Denver, and Detroit. OP works by forming a protective coating inside of pipes in the distribution system and in customer homes to prevent lead from leaching into drinking water. Although available in several forms, in the District of Columbia orthophosphate will be added as phosphoric acid. There are several manufacturers of orthophosphate that are certified by NSF International <htta'//www.ns£or~>, an independent testinga rig ~ ntl water treatmen tproduct to be NSF-certified t mustnbe afood- products. In order fo S grade product. Orthophosphate in drinking water The initial dose of OP in the distribution system will be approximately 3 milligrams per liter (mg/L). After an initial application period, the concentration of OP will be stepped down to a maintenance dose of approximately 0.5-1.5 mg/L. The active ingredient in phosphoric acid is phosphorus. Phosphorus as an essential nutrient Phosphorus is an essential nutrient required for the development of strong bones and teeth, for metabolism of fats and carbohydrates, for protein synthesis, and for synthesis of ATP (an energy storage molecule) by the body. Protein-rich foods, including milk and meats, are excellent sources of phosphorus. The age-dependent recommended dietary intake of phosphorus ranges from 100 mg/day for infants under 1 year old to 1,250 mg/day for children 9-18 years old and pregnant/lactatingtyomen younger than 18. The recommendation for adults is 700 mg/day. The orthophosphate addition to D.C. drinking water is expected to add approximately 3 mg/day to most people's diets. Health effects from excess phosphorus It is unlikely that adverse health effects will occur at phosphorus intake levels below 70 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg/day), corresponding to approximately 5,000 mg/day fora 150-pound adult (or 1,400 mg/day fora 40-pound child). The FDA reports that phosphorus intake from food is approximately 300 mg/day; thus, the dose of orthophosphate in D.C. drinking water is expected to increase phosphorus intake by about 1%. The dose of orthophosphate being added is not documented as irritating to the skin or eyes. At very high levels, orthophosphate could cause bone decalcification and increased parathyroid gland activity (due its regulation of the calcium-phosphorus balance in the human body). If you have medical concerns related to additional phosphorus in drinking water, including severe kidney disease or severe calcium regulation dysfunction, consult your physician. Phosphoric acid as a food additive Orthophosphate, added as phosphoric acid, is one compound added to control alkalinity/acidity in foods and beverages. Phosphoric acid is generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the FDA, though its use must conform to good manufacturing practices. The European Unioacidified skim phosphoric acid as a food additive. Phosphoric acid is found in soft drinks (soda), milk, and some cheeses. Cola-type sodas can have 30-48 mg phosphorus per 12-ounce (1 can) serving. For more information: M.L. Weiner et al. (2001) Toxicological review of inorganic phosphates. Food and Chemical ToxicoloQV. 39:759-786. http://www.elsevier.com/wps/findljournaldescription.cws_home/237/description#descript ion National Library of Medicine (NLM) MedlinePlus Encyclopedia Article on "Phosphorus in Diet" htt ://www.nlm.nih. ov/medline lus/enc /article/002424.htm NSF Listings: "Drinking Water Treatment Chemicals -Health Effects, October 1, 2003" NSF International htt~//www.nsfors FDA Investigations Operations Manual, Food Additive Status List [PDF, 61 pages, 337K, About PDF] http://www.fda.gov/ora/inspect ref/iom/pdf/AppendixA.pdf FDA Brochure on Food Additives htt ://www.cfsan.fda. ov/%7Elyd/foodaddi.html NutritionData.com Search Results for "soda" http://www.nutritiondata.com/foods-soda014000000000000000000.htm1 „~~.~ ., t. ~,K~~~ <, ~~ ', ~, 't~/ Q` THE TOWN OF ~~,w„~,. Lek. ~:,~, # i ~ g ~ olly~rings Lcnita Gihcath President, Chesterfield Chamber of Commerce 9330 Iron Bridge Road, Suite B Chestc--field, VA 23832 www.chestert ieldchamber.com Jnly z~"',Zoos Rc: GroFVth Dear Lcnita, First and foremost, I aro (as is the east majority of our Town) pro growth. A little background: L In 1990, this Town had less than 1000 in population. Today, we are at approximately 22,000 and moving in 1.7 families a day. 2. Commercial development places growth as the highest p-iority in their decisions whether or not to locate here or anywhere, for that matter. 3. Because oI' our growth, we now have # shopping centers with another major one on the planning board. There was only one and not a very good one when we moved here in 1995. Lowe's Foods, Super Wal-Mart, (2) Harris Teeters, and now Target arc the anchors. We also ,just landed Rey Hospital with an urgent cart center and last e~°cuing, we announced plans for the Novant Health Group to build a full scale, -4~ bed, community hospital. This is just some of the developments that allow our citizens the oppo--tunity to enjoy our se-ti~ices and amenities that they have always asked for. -l. We had 1 elementary school in 1995 and today we have 3 elementar~° schools, one middle school with another coming in 2010, and our first high school in over 60 years. ~. Without growth, these improvements would not have taken place. 6. With growth, there is responsibility and that inch-dcs adequate infrast-vcture. We have a direct pipe to the Cape Fear River for water, we arc expanding our Waste Water Treatment Plant to frt ou-- needs fo-• at (cast 25 years, and as stated earlier, we will continue to expand our commercial development. In summary, ~~~hen Cary stopped their growth several years back their fund balance went down to almost nothing and guess who profited from that decision-Holly Springs. I strongly believe if you don't grow, you die. Sincerely, ~ ,., Richard G. Scars, Mayor '~FPICE (~F Tiff Ni.~Y(3R P.O. Box 8.128 S. Main Street • Holly Springs, N.C. 27540 • (919) 557-3901 w~~DLAKE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIO ~~ bteu~ ~~~~ 14900 Lake Bluff Parkway Midlothian, VA 23112 July 29, 2408 Marleen Durfee, Supervisor Matoaca District Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors PO Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832 Deaz Mazleen: The Woodlake Board of Directors supports the adoption of ordinances that reduce in lake phosphanis levels by 2096. We urge the Board of Supervisors to adopt ordinances in accordance with the mandates of the Commonwealth of Virginia in order preserve the reservoir as a drinking water resource far future generations. The Woodlake Community Association $aard of Directors supports the recommendation that the run-off limit into the tributaries be lowered 2096 from .22 to .18 for residential and from .45 to .36 for commercial. The adoption of ordinances that follow this guideline will help protect the reservoir, slang with the adoption of conservation rneaaures and good practices by citizens. To leave commercial development out of the reduction of phosphorus runoff compromises the future health of the reservoir and potentially undoes all of the positive strides made by the Board of Supervisors in the past months. With 2?96 of the watershed developed and 4396 already zoned for development, but not yet built; stronger protections would change the negative impact of the remaining 30% up for rezoning. In order to protect the reservoir for the future, restrictions on phosphorus levels are necessary. We recognize that every property, developed or not, makes a difference to the quality of water in the Swift Creek Reservoir. Thank you in advance for your continuing support. Respectfully, Ray Turcan, President Board of Directors cc: Board of Supervisors (804) 739-4344 FAX (804) 739-5167 www. woodlakeonline.com MEMBER COMMUNITY AS.9OCIATIONS INSTITUTE J CHESTERFIELD COUNTY a « BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 4 ~ ~ ~~ AGENDA h,~r~'~ Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 18.C. Subject: Public Hearing to Consider the FY2009-FY2014 Secondary Road Six Year Improvement Plan, FY2009 Secondary Road Improvement Budget, Project Development Schedule for the Chesterfield Road Fund, Designation of FY2009 Chesterfield Road Fund Projects, and Transfer of Funds County Administrator's Comments• County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Hold a public hearing to consider: FY2009 through FY2014 Secondary Road Six Year Improvement Plan; FY2009 Secondary Road Improvement Budget; Project Development Schedule for the Chesterfield Road Fund; designation of FY2009 Chesterfield Road Fund Projects; and transfers from the FY2008 and FY2009 adopted Chesterfield Road Fund accounts of $65,300 to the Old Bon Air Road at Groundhog Drive project and $934,700 to the Beach Road at Brandy Oaks and the Timber Bluff Parkway projects. Summary of Information: FY2009-FY2014 Secondary Road Six Year Improvement Plan State statute requires the Board of Supervisors to update every two years, jointly with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), a Six Year Plan identifying improvements that are anticipated to be made to the Secondary Road System in the county. The FY2009-FY2014 Plan has been developed by VDOT and staff based on projected revenues. An average $5.9 million per year allocation is anticipated [$4.9 million secondary road funds and $1.0 million Chesterfield Road Fund (VDOT/county matching program)]. The FY2009-FY2014 Plan allocations total $29.7 million (the previous FY2007- FY2012 Six Year Plan allocations totaled $41.0 million). Preparers R.J. McCracken agen689 Attachments: ^ Yes Title: Director of Transportation ^ No # 000261 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 3 AGENDA Summary (Continuedl: Major reconstruction projects included in the Plan are as follows: • Nash Road (Applewhite Lane to Eastfair Parkway), • Bailey Bridge Road (Claypoint Road to Manchester High School), • Branders Bridge Road (Bradley Bridge Road to S. Happy Hill Road), and • Newbys Bridge Road (Walmsley Boulevard to Falling Creek). Only one new project has been added to the Plan: Walmsley Boulevard (west of Turner Road) Sidewalk. Details of the proposed Six Year Plan are shown on Attachments A through C. FY2009 Secondary Road Improvement Budget Each year VDOT requests the Board of Supervisors to approve a Secondary Road Improvement Budget. The budget reflects the first year of the Six Year Plan and identifies specific project allocations for the fiscal year. Two projects are shown to receive funding in FY2009: Bailey Bridge Road (Claypoint Road to Manchester High School) and Rhodes Lane Paving. Attachment C identifies the projects and allocations for FY2009. Chesterfield Road Fund Projects The county regularly participates in an annual VDOT matching fund program (Chesterfield Road Fund) wherein the county provides funds in anticipation of an equal match by VDOT. The program allows VDOT to match county funds up to $1 million. The exact amount of funds to be matched by VDOT is determined by VDOT after all statewide requests for matching funds have been received. In the past, the Board has chosen to distribute road funds on a rotational basis among the magisterial districts. Midlothian (Old Bon Air at Groundhog Drive - $65,300) and Matoaca (Beach Road at Brandy Oaks and Timber Bluff Parkway - $934,700) are scheduled to receive funding from VDOT in FY2009 with an equivalent county match. Anticipated allocations for the remaining years are shown in the Project Development Schedule for the Chesterfield Road Fund (Attachment B). ~~~~6iZ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 3 of 3 AGENDA Summary (Continuedl: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) Funds CMAQ and RSTP funds are allocated by the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) using a competitive process. RSTP funds have been allocated to two secondary projects in the Plan. The Reams Road at Rosegill Road Turn Lane Project is scheduled to receive $1.29 million in FY2009, and $1 million in FY2010. The Newby's Bridge Road (Walmsley Blvd. to Falling Creek) project is anticipated to receive $1 million in FY2010. Rural Addition VDOT's rural addition program allows qualifying non-state maintained roads to be upgraded to state standards using up to 5% of the secondary road funds subject to mileage limitations so that the roads can be added into the state system for maintenance. VDOT recently changed their interpretation of the rural addition program and has determined that Chesterfield is no longer eligible to use secondary funds for this program. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board: 1. Adopt the attached resolutions approving the FY2009 through FY2014 Secondary Road Six Year Improvement Plan; the FY2009 Secondary Road Improvement Budget and designating Old Bon Air Road at Groundhog Drive, Beach Road at Brandy Oaks and Timber Bluff Parkway as the FY2009 Chesterfield Road Fund Projects; 2. Approve the FY2009-FY2014 Chesterfield Road Fund Project Development Schedule; 3. Transfer from the FY2008 and FY2009 adopted Chesterfield Road Fund account, $65,300 to the Old Bon Air Road at Groundhog Drive project and $934,700 to the Beach Road at Brandy Oaks and Timber Bluff Parkway projects; and 4. Authorize the County Administrator to enter into the customary VDOT/county/consultant/contractor, design, right-of-way acquisition, environmental permits, and/or construction agreements, acceptable to the County Attorney, for the projects indicated in the Plan. District: Countywide Q®~~Cia3 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 4 of 4 r~; AGENDA ~~' y~~ra~ Budget and Management Comments: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors hold a public hearing to consider: FY2009 through FY2014 Secondary Road Six Year Improvement Plan; FY2009 Secondary Road Improvement Budget; Project Development Schedule for the Chesterfield Road Fund; designation of FY2009 Chesterfield Road Fund Projects; and transfers from the FY2008 and FY2009 adopted Chesterfield Road Fund accounts of $65,300 to the Old Bon Air Road at Groundhog Drive project and $934,700 to the Beach Road at Brandy Oaks project. $500,000 is available from the FY2008 CIP Road Fund and $500,000 from the FY2009 CIP Road Fund to provide matching county funds totaling $1 million for the Old Bon Air Road at Groundhog Drive and Beach Road at Brandy Oaks road projects. The $5,328,400 FY2009 Secondary Road Improvement Budget will be funded from VDOT's FY2009 Secondary Road fund Budget Allocations. Preparers Allan M. Carmody Title: Director Budget and Management t~00~64 DRAFT WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) have conducted a public hearing on the FY2009 through FY2014 Secondary Road Six Year Improvement Plan; and WHEREAS, the Board concurs with the proposed projects identified in the Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors approves the FY2009 through FY2014 Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan as presented by VDOT. ~oO~fiJr DRAFT WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has submitted its proposed FY2009 Secondary Road Improvement Budget to the county; and WHEREAS, the Budget represents the implementation of the first year of the FY2009 through FY2014 Six Year Improvement Plan adopted by the Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors approves the FY2009 Secondary Road Improvement Budget as presented by VDOT. ~®o~ss DRAFT WHEREAS, Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virginia permits the Commonwealth Transportation Board to make an equivalent matching allocation to any county for designation by the governing body of up to $1 million of funds received by it during the current fiscal year pursuant to the "State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972" for use by the Commonwealth Transportation Board to construct, maintain, or improve primary and secondary highway systems within such county; WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has appropriated $1 million for the Chesterfield Road Fund (VDOT Revenue Sharing Program) with the adoption of the FY2008 and FY2009 Appropriation Resolution; WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has notified the county that $1 million is the maximum amount of Chesterfield County funds that will be matched by the state during FY2009. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors appropriates $1 million for the FY2009 Chesterfield Road Fund (VDOT Revenue Sharing Program). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the matched funds shall be allocated to the following projects: $130,600 Old Bon Air Road at Groundhog Drive: Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-way, and Construction ($65,300 VDOT and $65,300 County) $1,869,400 Beach Road at Brandy Oaks and Timber Bluff Parkway ($934,700 VDOT and $934,700 County) ~6~ INDEX OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Proposed Secondary Road Six Year Improvement Plan FY2009 through FY2014 by Magisterial Districts Attachment B - Proposed Chesterfield Road Fund Project Development Schedule FY2009 through FY2014 Attachment C - Proposed FY2009 Secondary Road Improvement Budget Q00~6~ PROPOSED SECONDARY ROAD SIX YEAR PROJECTS FY 2009 THROUGH FY 2014 BY MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT PROJECT FROM TO START DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION BERMUDA RAMBLEWOOD RD RAMBLEWOOD RD BRANDERS BRIDGE RD BRANDERS BRIDGE RD BRANDERS BRIDGE RD CLOVER HILL * WALMSLEY BLVD REAMS ROAD COURTHOUSE RD NEWBYS BRIDGE RD 0:39 MI. E OF GOLF COURSE RD 0.39 MI. E OF OLD BERMUDA HUNDRED RD BRADLEY BRIDGE RD N. OF WHITEHOUSE RD - BRADLEYBRIDGE RD S. HAPPY HILL RD 0.16 MI WEST OF TURNER RD ROSEGILL RD HULL STREEET ROAD WALMSLEY BLVD RIR CROSSING RIR CROSSING IMPROVE CURVE IMPROVE CURVE IMPROVE 2 LANE 0.22 MI WEST OF TURNER RD SIDEWALK INTERSECTION TURN LANES INTERSECTION RIGHT TURN LANE FALLING CREEK BR IMPROVE 2 LANE SUMMER 2008 SUMMER 2008 SUMMER 2009 SUMMER 2009 SUMMER 2014 SPRING 2009 SUMMER 2011 FALL 2011 SUMMER 2014 DALE * WALMSLEY BLVD 0.16 MI WEST OF TURNER RD 0.22 MI WEST OF TURNER RD SIDEWALK SPRING 2009 NASH RD APPLEWHITE LANE EASTFAIR DR IMPROVE 2 LANE SPRING 2010 COURTHOUSE RD N. OF YATESDALE DR - SHOULDERS SPRING 2011 NEWBYS BRIDGE RD FALLING CREEK HAGOOD RD IMPROVE 2 LANE BEYOND PLAN BEULAH RD CURVE AT MASON WOODS SHOULDERS ON HOLD MATOACA QUALLA RD BELCHERWOOD RD INTERSECTION IMPROVE CURVE SUMMER 2008 SPRING RUN RD MCENNALLY RD SPRING RUN CREEK REALIGN CURVES SUMMER 2010 BAILEY BRIDGE RD CLAYPOINT RD MANCHESTER H.S. IMPROVE 2 LANE SPRING 2011 RHODES LANE 0.6 MI. S. WOODPECKER RD 0.7 Mi. W. SANDYFORD RD PAVE GRAVEL RD BEYOND PLAN WOOLRIDGE ROAD CURVE S. OF CROWN POINT IMPROVE CURVE ON HOLD MIDLOTHIAN WINTERFIELD RD NORFOLK-SOUTHERN RAILROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVE CROSSING FALL 2008 ROCKAWAY RD NORFOLK-SOUTHERN RAILROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVE CROSSING FALL 2008 * WALMSLEY BLVD 0.16 MI WEST OF TURNER RD 0.22 MI WEST OF TURNER RD SIDEWALK SPRING 2009 * NEW PROJECT IN MORE THAN ONE DISTRICT ATTACHMENT A 0002.69 PROPOSED CHESTERFIELD ROAD FUND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE FY 2008/09 THROUGH FY 2014 PREVIOUS ALLOCATON PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS PROJECT ~ DESCRIPrIOw FY 07 FY 08/09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 DISTRICT LOCATION combineA NEWBYS BRIDGE RD WIDEN 2 LANES 5792•&40 CLOVER HILL FR: WALMSLEY BLVD 596.420 TO: FALLING CREEK BRIDGE 596,420 OLD BON AIR RD IMPROVE CURVE 51.807,160 5130,600 MIDLOTHIAN AT GROUNDHOG DR 3903,580 365.300 5903.560 565.300 BEACH RD AT BRANDY OAK3 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 57.869,400 3130.600 d TIMBER BLUFF PKWY 5934.700 565.300 3934.700 585.300 MATOACA 31.869,400 5130.600 PROJECT TO BE DETERMINED 5934.700 (65.300 DALE 5934.700 565.300 51.869.400 5130.600 PROJECT TO BE DETERMINED 5934.700 565.300 BERMUDA 5934.700 565,300 51.669.400 5130.600 PROJECT TO BE DETERMINED 5934.700 f65,300 CLOVER HILL (934,700 565.300 51.889.400 5130.600 PROJECT TO BE DETERMINED (934,700 (65.300 MIDLOTHIAN 3934.700 565.300 PROJECT TO BE DETERMINED f1.869,400 MATOACA 5934,700 5934.700 000.000 (2 52.000.000 52,000,000 52,000.000 52.000.000 52.000,000 52.000.000 TOTAL FUNDS . 000 000 57 51,000,000 51.000.000 51,000,000 51,000.000 57,000.000 (1.000,000 COUNTY MATCH . . 000.000 (1 51.000,000 51,000.000 (1.000,000 31,000.000 51.000,000 51.000.000 VDOT MATCH . vrrt~ares~aswro~.u.. ~~nn«een mma, ATTACHMENT B ~QO~~~ PROPOSED FY 2009 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT BUDGET PROJECT FROM START TO DESCRIPTION CONSTR. ALLOCATION TRAFFIC SERVICES VARIOUS LOCATIONS - MISC PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING VARIOUS LOCATIONS - MISC SUBDIVISION PLAN REVIEW VARIOUS LOCATIONS - MISC ENTRANCE PIPES VARIOUS LOCATIONS - MISC BRIDGE REPLACEMENT FUND COUNTY WIDE - - BAILEYBRIDGE RD CLAYPOINT RD MANCHESTER H.S. IMPROVE 2 LANE RHODES LANE WOODPECKER RD SANDYFORD RD PAVE GRAVEL RD - 575,000 - $205,000 - $151,000 - 535,000 - S621,905 SUMMER 2010 54,224,406 BEYOND 2013 516,089 TOTAL $5,328,400 ATTACHMENT C 0002,'1 ~ Ur x=__ s r~e~~e ~~ server Your Community Newspaper Since 199.5 P.O. Box 1616, Midlothian, Virginia 231. l3 • Phone: (804) i45-75(H) • Fax: (804) 744-3269 • Email: news@chesterfieldobserveccom • Internet: www.chesterfieldobserver.com VERTISING AFFIDAVIT .lient ~ ?pp~ Chesterfi ~ County' Board of _ rvisors. ;, ~```'` r 8t8~' TA>[ENOTICE Take notice that the Boazd of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Vrginia, at att adjourned meeting on July 30, 2008, at 6:30 p.m. inthe County Public McC~g Room at ;: the Chesterfield Administration Buildfng; Rt.10 and Lori Road, Chesterfield, V' a, will jointly hold a public heating with the Vuginia Department of 3fansportation where persons affected may appear and present their views to consider: UPdaiin8 ~ FY2009-FY2014 Sewndary Road Sia Yeaz Improvement Flan; the FY2009 Secondary Road Improvement Budget; the Project Development Schedule for the Chesterfield Road Fund; and . 1)eation of the; FY2009 Chesterfield Ro Fund Projects. Additions] information is available at .the .Chesterfield County Transportation Department located in the Chesterfield COllIItY ~~unity Development building at 9800. tiovernment Center .Paz 3rd Floor, or call 748-1037, between the ours of 8:30 a.m, to 5:00 p.m. VDOT ensures nondiscrimination in all programs and activities in accordance with Title VI and Tile VII of the Civil ~Shts Act of 1964. The hearing is held at a Public facility des~'gned to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Any persons with questions on the accessibility of the facility or aced for masonable accommodations should contact Janice Blaklel; Clerk to the Board, at 748-1200. Persons. needn interpreter services for the deaf must noti~ the Berk m the Board no later than Friday, July 25, 2008. Six Year Plan 7-16, 23 1 col x 4.5 in. The Observer, Inc. Publisher of CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER $223.50 This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on the following date(s): 07/16/08 & 07/23/08 Sworn to and subscribed before me this J~ , 2008. Legs A fiant Jam , My commission expires: February 29, 2012 Commission I.D. 7182093 Grooms Jr., Notary day of (SEAL) ~O ~ ~* Ix+tltE~ ~; : ~o ~ ;_ ,~IµtOl~ i-'sMl •.. THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU. a3~~ !4RY '~J,~~ ~1~11111111/11N• • '.• • • . CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 AGENDA ~.N~" Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 1g,D. Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as it Relates to the Planting, Replacement and Preservation of Trees in the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: n The Board of Supervisors is requested to adopt the attached ordinance amendments pertaining to development standards concerning protection of vegetation in the Watershed. Summary of Information: The proposed amendments, developed as a result of the adopted Upper Swift Creek Plan Amendment, promote development standards that are consistent with the protection of natural resources and facilitate the county's water quality goals for area streams and the Swift Creek Reservoir. Specifically, the amendments address replacement and preservation of vegetation for the reduction of pollutants from future development. Conservation of trees and natural vegetation is often not fully recognized for its stormwater benefits. Trees intercept and slow the fall of rainwater, helping the soil to absorb more water for gradual release into water resources. Maintaining and increasing trees act to prevent flooding, filters the water, release water into the atmosphere, and reduce stress on natural and man-made stormwater conveyance systems. Based on these benefits, land development should preserve a percentage of each lot or development to remain in a natural state. Preparers Richard M. McElfish Title: Director of Environmental Engineering Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # t~00~'`72 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 15, 2008 to consider the attached proposed amendments along with the proposed mass grading ordinance amendments. The Planning Commission voted to adopt the proposed amendments to the tree save ordinance as written. The proposed mass grading ordinances were deferred by the Planning Commission to October 21, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. For land that is included in the watershed, the proposed amendments would address the following matters: Upper Swift Creek Watershed Ordinance • The purpose of this amendment is to require the planting and replacement of trees during the development as required by Virginia State Code. The ordinance would provide that trees be preserved, planted or replaced so that within 20 years of development there will be a minimum tree canopy of 15o for sites zoned single family with densities between 10 and 20 units per acre, and a canopy of 20o for sites zoned single family with densities of 10 units or less per acre. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed (Tree Save) ordinance amendments. Districts: Clover Hill, Matoaca and Midlothian 000'73 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING AND ENACTING SECTIONS 19-240, 19-240.1, 19-240.2, 19-240.3 AND 19-240.4 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO TREE PLANTING, REPLACEMENT AND PRESEVATION IN THE UPPER SWIFT CREEK WATERSHED BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 19-240, 19-240.1, 19-240.2, 19-240.3 and 19-240.4 of the Code of the Count~of Chester reld, 1997, as amended, are added and enacted to read as follows: Sec. 19-240. Tree Planting, Replacement and Preservation in the Upper Swift Creek Watershed. The purpose of Sections 19-240 through 19-240.4 is to promulgate regulations for the planting and replacement of trees destroyed or damaged during the development or redevelo ment rocess in '1 r i 1 r ' ursuant to Section 15.2-961 of the Code of Virginia including- the preservation of trees during development in appropriate instances. Sec. 19-240.1. General Standards. ~a) All trees to be planted shall meet the specifications of the American Association of Nurser~en. (b) The planting of trees shall be done in accordance with either the standardized landscape specifications jointly adopted by the Virginia Nurserymen's Association, the Virginia Society of Landscape Designers and the Virginia Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects or the road and bridge specifications of the Vir ing is Department of Transportation. The county shall maintain current copies of these specifications available to the public. ~) The minimum caliper of all deciduous trees planted shall be one (1) inch, and the minimum height of all evergreen trees shall be six (6) feet. Sec. 19-240.2. Canopy Requirements. (a) onstruction Plans All construction plans for subdivision plats shall provide for the planting and replacement of trees on site to the extent that at maturity of twenty (20~years the minimum tree canopy shall be as follows: 1905(23 ):7873 7.2 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'4 ~~1) Fifteen (15~percent tree canopy for sites zoned single family residential, ~ with densities between ten (10) and twenty (20) units per acre. (42~ Twenty (20~percent tree canopy for sites zoned single family residential, °- with densities often (10) units or less per acre. The elan shall show in ~ranhic format all areas set aside to satisfy tree canopy e~9. uirements and the means by which such requirements will be satisfied. fib) Exclusions. For the purpose of calculating the area of a site for tree canopy coverage requirements, the following areas shall be excluded: (1) Properties reserved or dedicated for future street construction. public facilities or other public improvements. ~2) Ponds and unwooded wetlands. ~) Properties reserved or dedicated for school sites playing fields and other non- wooded recreation areas, and other facilities and areas of a similar nature. ~4) Portions of a site which contain existing structures that are not the subiect of a pending application. cl Credits for Preservation of Existing Trees. Existing trees which are to be preserved may be included in the calculation of the canop~quirements, and may include wooded preserves if the ~ construction plans ~ identify such trees and the trees meet standards of desirability and life-year expectancy as established by the director of environmental engineering. Sec. 19-240.3. Exceptions to Requirements. Upon written request of the developer the director of environmental engineering may approve reasonable exceptions to or deviations from the requirements of Sections 19-240 through 19-240 2 in order to allow for the reasonable development of farmland or other areas devoid of healthy or suitable woody materials for the preservation of wetlands, or when the strict application of requirements would result in unnecessary or unreasonable hardship to the developer In such instances the director of environmental en ink Bering may approve satisfaction of a portion of a development's tree canopy requirement through use of a tree canopy bank or off-site planting or replacement of trees_ provided that the canopy thereby substituted is located within the Upper Swift Creek Watershed. Sec. 19-240.4. Enforcement. Penalties for violations of the requirements of Sections 19-240 through 19-240.3 shall be the same as those applicable to other violations of this chapter as set forth in Section 19-5. 1905(23):78737.2 2 QQ Q ~`7S otwithstandin~ the fore~oin~, this section shall annly only to tree canouv areas that (il ave been included in oven space maintained by a home owners' association. (iil are iect to a perpetual conservation easement. or (iiil are included on individual lots which have not received a certificate of occu acv (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 1905(23):78737.2 3 0042'~s ~, ri . ese ~ ~~~~ Yom C'omrnuniry Newspuperr Since 1995 P.O. Box 16)6, Midlothian, Vir~,inia 231 13 • Phonc: (,804) 545-7500 • Fax: (804) 744-3269 • F..mail: news@chesterheldobserver.com • Internet: www.chesttifieldobserveccom ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT Client Description Ad Size Cost (per issue) Chesterfield County LN: Mass Grading 7-16 1 col x 10" $386.00 Board of Supervisors TAICENOTIGE The Observer, Inc. Take notice that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, at an adjourned meeting on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. in the county. Publisher of Public Meeting Room at the Chesterfield Administration Building, Route 10 and Lori Road, Chesterfield, Virginia, will hold CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER a public heazing where persons may appeaz and present their views concerning: An Ordinance to amend the Code of the This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield state of Virginia on by amending Sections 8-1 and 8-2 of the > > Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance the following date(s): 07/16/2008 andSeation 19-238ofthe Zoningordinance and adding Sections 19-240, 19-240.1, 19- 240.2,19-240.3 and 19-240.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The amendments relate to development standazds.and protection of Sworn to and subscribed before me this ~ ~ da of natural resources in the Upper Swift Creek y Watershed ("Watershed") which consists of all land in the County located upstream of the Swift Creek Reservoir. Dam. A U I , 2008. summary of the proposed amendments is set forth below. a. "Mass Grading" - The amendments would define "mass grading" d~ as follows: "The process of ' achieving a ~ desired ground configuration by altering existing ground contoursthroughaprocess Le al Affiant J es T Grooms Jr. N Public of engineered. cutting and filling of soil" g > > ~ Mass ggrrading includes lots that average more than 10,000 square feet. For land within the Watershed, the ordinance would: (i) prohibit mass grading for residential M commission ex Tres: Februa 29, 2012 lots that average more than 10,000 square y p ry feet; and (ii) require development of Commission I.D. 7182093 certain sensitive environmental features in residential subdivisions (i.e., Resource (SEAL) Protection Areas, 100 yeaz flood plains ~,,,•,,,.,,, exceeds 00 acresrand wegtlands that exceed ~~.`~~~~" G ~ 0 (,1, ~~' 1/2 acre) to be located in either common ~• ~ ~,.•'V,j~~'•."'~q ~`., open space maintained by a homeowners Z (~ ; O~ t ~,', ,': ss association or within a conservation ~ ~ "+ ~`~ f XP i easement outside of a subdivision lot. ; ,~' d;RES ~• ~ 'd ;'~ 03-2!-1! see LEGAL, page 19 ~ '~~ t~t0! . ~~~r~ R Y ~Ja~a THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU. t. s ; ._~ *~ yy+n k i p.....-.~--~---- LriGALf 1~$~~f~ A ~ - ,,. ~ __ :- ~ ~~$~~~.•~tidd~4 aao ~ " gatt+a~s `~ r~~G~ sp i ail:. ~ ordinaM~ ~~ Fr°!'ibe ... trees be pressr~ Famed °~' ~~~~ ~~ S~ s ~ a n. ~ bett~ett 10 ~"20 n~ pet of 201E for s redderttisd aitt zone. units ~ less per aue. 'lhc. ordinaavt would also tnclnde DT°~O°s~B reducing can ~ trees cons'i on ~~~Hca, ~gi for reasonabdr e~rceptions to thge ~,~ (~;1n}g ~}1(bk standard ~r~ ~e couaces ~ ~vI ~ zoo ordinanoA a~ad~) alt. other. matters that msy be :requited: by Va. CodES 15.2-%t. 'iI u further informatto>t .~ desired. Pie" contact Mr. Richard McE15sh. Director of Environmental Er-giaeerlrsg* at 748-1038; between the hours of &30 a.m. to 5:00. g.in. Mondry through Pr~ 'Ihe haaring is halo at a public facility d~ ed to lie accessible to persons with ~. Any pereotu with questions on the acceaalbillq of the facility or the Head. for raasonsbk accbmmodationti should contact jaitice gleklep, Clerk to the Bond: at 748-1200. Peres needing interpreter services for the deaf must no the Clerk to the Board no fitter titan ~ IWY 24~ 2008. ... .:e~uit,~,~I ~i' ,. ,~{, Q ~ c7 ''~i ^.i~ ~Q~iy:rJ. C' ' a ~•~, •. `. •~ t '~~. `p(/c Y A ~. ~~. '~aH„q~,~u~~tai ~G es~e ~ .~ . ~~~~~ Your Community Newspaper Since 199.5 P.O. Aox 161.6, Midlothian, Virginia 231. l3 • Phone: (804) x45-75OU • Fax: (804) 744-3269 • F..mail: news@chestertieldohserveccom • InttmeC www.chester6eldobserver.com ~~. • \~w AI3~V~,~TI NG AFFIDAVIT .~~~~~ r~,. m ~~~~~ti -- ---- ---- -- - - Chesterfield County LN: reeSave 7-23 1 col x 7 in. $236.00 Board of Supervisors Take notice that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield Coanty, V' at 3n 0 on weds~i J 0 m 630 ty 2008 ar p.m. in the Cou Public Meeting Room at the Chesterfield Administrarion Building, Route 1o and The Observer Inc. Lori Road, Chesterfield, Virginia, will hold , a public hearing where persons may appear and present their views concernittg: Publisher Of An Ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, by adding sections 19-240,19-240.1,19- CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER 240.2,19-240.3 and 19-240.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The amendments relate to development standards and protection of ift C k l h This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by e Upper Sw ree natura resources in t Watershed- ("Watershed-) which consists Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia on of all land in the County located upstream of the Swift Creek Reservoir Dam. A , the following date(s): 7/23/2008 summary of the proposed amendments is set forth below ~ °Tbee Saud' - In addition, for land within the Watershed, the proposed amendments ~~~ Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of would provide requirements for the phuitingandreplacementoftrees duringthe development process per the reguu~ements 2008. u of Va. Code 4 15.2-961. The ordinance , would provide that trees be preserved planted or replaced so that within 20 years of devempment there will be a minimum tree canopy of 15% for a residential site zoned between 10 and 20 units per acre, and a canopy of 20% for a residential site-zoned 10 units or less per acre. The ordinancewoutd also include prov;sions (i) Legal Afflant J S T, Grooms Jr., N ary Public for reducing canopies or granting credit in consideration of preserving existing trees or trees of outstanding characteristics, (ii) for reasonable ezceptions to these requirements, (iii,, applicable standards My commission expires: February 29, 2012 regarding qualifying trees, (iv) penalties for violatio„sequattotheCounty'spenaltyfor Commission I.D. 7182093 violating the zoning ordinance, and {v) all (SEAL) other matters that maybe required by Va. Code § 15.2-961. iE further information is desired, please '•~, •`'`~,••'~iR G~ ' contact Mr. Richard McElfish, Director of O ~.~• '(• •••..,•• ,- • ` Environmental Engineering, at 748-1038,. 5 h h f ••~ ejf ~`` ~ •'• YlE,4 ' d ~ ~ 8:30 a.m. to :00 p.m. ours o between t e ~ (V ; Monday through Friday. s ~ ~ Et+j ~~ ~~ The hearing is held at a public facility designed to be accessible tv persons w- ~ ~ ~ ii'Z!" is : ~ : #1N209' disabilities. Any persons with questions on the accessiliili of the or the need m l ~~ •'• ~~ (i 1a.~ • ~ i ~ ~ otions should for reasonable accom ~r or `•'••'~ t 0~ ~~ $ ~ ,`, contact Janice 131aidey, Clerk to the Board ~ 748-1200. Persons needing interpreter p',,I~ tN t~t~~` services for the deaf must the Clerk A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU. to the Board no later than; July 25, 2008. . h~,~.~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 1$.E. Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Amendments Relative to Inclusion of Virginia Department of Transportation Review (VDOT) for Processing of Subdivision Plats and Site Plans County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Public Hearing to consider proposed amendments relative to inclusion of Virginia Department of Transportation review (VDOT) for processing of subdivision plats and site plans. Summary of Information: In 2007, the General Assembly adopted new legislation that requires localities to send subdivision plats and site plans (collectively referred to as "Plans") to state agencies such as VDOT for review. The law also establishes deadlines and deadline exceptions relating to the time by which the agencies must comment on the Plans and the time for action by the County. Although the County already submits Plans to state agencies, the zoning and subdivision ordinances need to be amended to reflect the new law. State law also provides that if VDOT has not acted within these time frames, then the County is entitled to assume that VDOT has no comments and the County may act to approve or disapprove the Plans. The attached amendments reflect the necessary changes to the subdivision and zoning ordinances. The Chesterfield County Planning Commission recommended approval of the attached ordinance amendments at its April 15, 2008 meeting. Preparers Steven L. Micas Attachments: ^ Yes Title: County Attorney 1925:79258.1 (76530.1) ^ No 0002'77 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 17-32, 17-33 AND 17-45 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND SECTIONS 19-265, 19-268 AND 19-269 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO SUBMISSION OF SUBDIVISION PLATS AND SITE PLANS TO STATE AGENCIES AND THE DEADLINES FOR THE COUNTY TO ACT ON SUCH PLATS AND PLANS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That the Code o the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended by amending and reenacting Sections 17-32, 17-33, 17-45, 19-265, 19-268 and 19-269 as follows: Sec. 17-32. Procedure for lot subdivision approval. (a) Following is a summary of the approval procedure for subdivisions. 000 If approval of a feature of a plat or construction plans by a state agenc~or ublic authority authorized by state law is necessary the director of plannin shall forward the plat or plans to the appropriate state agency or agencies for review within ten business days of receipt. If the County has not received written comments from the Virginia Department of Transportation within 90 da. sifter the Department of Transportation receives the plat or plans from the Director of Planning, the County assume that the Department of Transportation has no comments and the Coun may act on the plat or plans. (b) Procedure for approving tentative plats, adjusted tentative plats and tentative renewals. (1) Unless otherwise required, completed applications and plats submitted by subdividers to the director of planning, shall be reviewed and approved under the administrative review and approval procedure set forth in subsection (a) of this section unless the subdivider elects to submit the completed application and plat for review and approval under the planning commission review and approval procedure set forth in subsection (b) of this section. During the administrative review procedure, the subdivider or director of planning may amend the application and refer the plat to the planning commission for approval. The submission to the director of planning of a completed application shall grant the county and its agents the right to enter the property at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting the property in conjunction with the review of the proposed subdivision. a. The following procedure shall be followed for administrative review and approval of tentative plats and adjusted tentative plats: 1. The subdivider shall prepare a tentative plat for all proposed subdivisions excluding minor subdivisions in accordance with the provisions of 1 division 2 of this article, and submit such plat to the director of planning who shall determine that the plat is in conformity with the provisions of this chapter, and obtain recommendations from the applicable departments and other public entities. The subdivider shall have the right to defer receipt of the recommendations for a maximum of 90 calendar days from the date of submission. The deferral request shall be made in writing to the director of planning. After receipt of such recommendations, the director of planning shall: (i) Approve such graphically correct tentative plat submission with or without conditions. Approval shall be made not less than 22 calendar days nor more 30 calendar days after receipt of a complete tentative plat submission or, if a response from a state a~ency pursuant to section 17-32(a~9) is necessary the director of planning shall act on the plat within 35 days of receipt of the approvals from all state agencies unless the subdivider requests a deferral, or (ii) Disapprove the tentative plat providing written findings giving specific reasons for disapproval to the subdivider within 30 calendar days after receipt of a complete tentative plat submission unless the subdivider requests a deferral. Such reasons shall relate to issues which prevent the approval of the plat. If a response from a state agency pursuant to section 17-32(a)(9) is necessary the director of planning shall act on the plat within 35 days of receipt of the approvals from all state agencies. (iii) Refer the plat to the planning commission for review, if the director receives written request from an adjacent property owner or property owner directly across the street from the property or an adjacent property owner within 15 calendar days of the date of the sign posting and such request relates to the proposed location of streets, water, wastewater, stormwater conveyance systems, and stormwater facilities or to the implementation of conditions of zoning required to be complied with at time of tentative plat approval. (iv) If the director of planning fails to approve or disapprove a tentative plat, adjusted plat or tentative renewal within 69 90 calendar days after submittal of the tentative, unless the subdivider requests a deferral, the subdivider may petition the Chesterfield Circuit Court in accordance with state law. 000 b. The following procedure shall be followed for planning commission review and approval of tentative plats: 2 ~0~~~~ 1. The subdivider shall prepare a tentative plat which is in accordance with the provisions of division 2 of this article. The director of planning shall obtain the recommendations from the applicable departments and other public entities and submit a report to the planning commission outlining the recommendations. After receipt of such report, the planning commission shall make one of the following two decisions. (i) Approve such tentative plat with or without conditions within 60 calendar days after submission of the completed application including a referral of the final approval to staff to insure that any required graphical changes are made. Deferral of approval of the plat at the subdivider's request to enable the subdivider to make changes shall be deemed to extend the decision deadline date. (ii) Disapprove the tentative plat within 60 calendar days after submission of the completed application. Written findings giving specific reasons for disapproval shall be reported to the subdivider at the time of disapproval. Such reasons shall also state the modifications or corrections as will permit approval of the plat. Deferral of approval of the plat at the subdivider's request to enable the subdivider to make changes shall be deemed to extend the decision deadline date. If a res onse from a state a enc ursuant to section 17-32 a 9 is necessa the planning commission shall act on the plat within 45 days of receipt of the approvals from all state a encies, provided however the commission shall not be required to approve a tentative plat in less than 60 days from the date of its original submission. If the planning commission fails to approve or disapprove a tentative plat, adjusted plat or tentative renewal within g8 90 calendar days after submission of the completed application the subdivider may petition the Chesterfield Circuit Court in accordance with state law. Any deferral at the subdivider's request shall be deemed to have extended the decision deadline date. 000 e. Procedure for review of final check plats. 1. Prior to submitting final check plats for subdivisions that require construction plans, subdividers shall submit those plans and obtain approval from the director of environmental engineering. 000 3. The director of planning shall review the final check plat and all necessary certificates to determine its conformity with the approved tentative plat if applicable and the requirements established in this chapter and obtain 3 ~~~~~`~ comments from other departments and public entities within 30 calendar days of its submission unless the time is extended by written request of the subdivider. He shall act on an~plat that he has previousl~disa_pproved within 45 days after the plat has been modified, corrected and resubmitted for approval. If a response from a state agencypursuant to section 17- 32(a~9) is necessary, he shall act on the plat within 35 days of receipt of the approvals from all state a encies. The director of planning shall notify the subdivider of required changes to incorporate in the preparation of the record plat; or send such plat to the planning commission for their recommendation as to final action thereon if the subdivider and director of planning differ as to the plats compliance with requirements of the Code or tentative conditions. 000 Sec. 17-33. Procedure for appeals. (a) If the director of planning or the planning commission does not act upon the proposed tentative plat within 68 90 calendar days from the date the completed application has been submitted, the subdivider, after ten calendar days written notice to the planning commission, may petition the circuit court of the county to decide whether the plat should or should not be approved in accordance with state law. Deferral of approval of the tentative plat at the subdivider's request to enable the subdivider to make changes shall be deemed to extend the decision deadline date. (b) If the director of planning or the planning commission takes action on a tentative plat and the subdivider contends that such action was not consistent with this chapter, or was arbitrary or capricious, an appeal may be filed with the circuit court of the county in accordance with state law. (c) If the director of planning or the planning commission does not act upon the proposed final check or record plat within 60 calendar days from the date the application was submitted, or within 45 days after it has been officially resubmitted after a previous disapproval or within 35 days of receipt of any agency response pursuant to section 17- 32(a)(9),the subdivider, after ten calendar days written notice to the planning commission, may petition the circuit court of the county to decide whether the plat should or should not be approved in accordance with state law. Deferral of approval of the plat at the subdivider's request to enable the subdivider to make changes shall be deemed to extend the decision deadline date. (d) If the director of planning or the planning commission takes action on a final check or record plat and the subdivider contends that such action was not consistent with this chapter, or was arbitrary or capricious, an appeal may be filed with the circuit court of the county in accordance with state law. 0002f_^?? 4 000 Sec. 17-45. Procedure for residential parcel subdivision and parcel property line modification approval. All completed applications and plats shall be submitted by subdividers to the director of planning to be reviewed and approved administratively as set forth below. During the review, the subdivider or director of planning may amend the application and refer the plat to the planning commission for approval. The submission to the director of planning of a completed application shall grant the county and its agents the right to enter the property at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting the property in conjunction with the review of the proposed subdivision. If approval of a feature of the plat by a state agencypublic authority authorized by state law is necessary, the director of planning shall forward the plat to the appropriate state a enc~ agencies for review within ten business days of receipt. If the County has not received written comments from the Vir inia Department of Transportation within 90 days after the Department of Transportation receives the plat or plans from the Director of Planning, the County assume that the Department of Transportation has no comments and the County may act on the plat or plans. 000 Sec. 19-265. Site plan processing. (a) At the time a site plan is submitted, the applicant shall elect whether to seek approval under the minor site plan review process, set forth in section 19-267, the administrative site plan review process set forth in section 19-268 or the planning commission site plan review process set forth in section 19-269. If the applicant fails to make a selection, his application will be processed under the administrative site plan review process unless a condition of zoning approval requires the site plan to be submitted to the planning commission. (b) The director of planning shall send written notice of site plan submission to adjacent property owners by registered, certified or first class mail as soon after site plan submission as practicable, but in no event less than ten days prior to approval or disapproval of the site plan. The minimum period for site plan approval shall be extended to 21 days when an aggrieved person, as defined by section 19-268.1, files a written request with the planning department within ten days after written notice is sent. If such written notice is sent by first class mail, the director of planning shall make affidavit that such notice has been sent and shall file the affidavit with the application. This subsection shall not be applicable to those site plans which are approved pursuant to the minor site plan review process. (c) If approval of a feature of a site plan by a state agencypublic authority authorized by state law is necessary, the director of planning shall forward the site plan to the ~~ropriate state agency or agencies for review within ten business days of receipt. If the County has not received written comments from the Virginia Department of Transportation within 90 days after the Department of Transportation receives the plat or ~~~~8~ 5 plans from the Director of Planning, the County may assume that the Department of Transportation has no comments and the Count may act on the plat or plans 000 Sec. 19-268. Administrative site plan review process. (a) All site plans which are properly submitted for administrative review in accordance with the county's site plan application and checklist shall be reviewed and recommended for approval or denial by: (1) The director of planning relative to: a. Compliance with the requirements of this chapter, including, but not limited to, setbacks, side and rear yards, building height, lot area and lot coverage, fencing, screening, landscaping, lighting, architectural design, pedestrian access and conditions of zoning approval. 000 (c) The director of planning shall approve or disapprove site plans in writing, giving specific reasons in accordance with the reviewing authorities' recommendations. He shall notify the applicant of his decision to approve or disapprove the site plan within 30 days of the date of submission of the plan, if practicable. He shall act on any proposed site plan that he has previously disapproved within 45 days after the site plan has been modified, corrected and resubmitted for approval or, if a response from a state agency pursuant to section 19-265(c) is necessary, he shall act on the site plan within 35 days of receipt of the approvals from all state a eg ncies. If the director of planning fails to approve or disapprove the site plan within 60 days after it has been officially submitted for approval, or within 45 days after it has been officially resubmitted after a previous disapproval or within 35 days of receipt of any agency response pursuant to section 19-265(c), the applicant, after ten days' written notice to the director of planning, may petition the circuit court to decide whether the site plan should or should not be approved. (d) If the applicant disagrees with the final decision of the director of planning, he may file a written appeal with the planning commission within 15 days of that decision. In addition, any aggrieved person may file a written appeal of the final decision of the director of planning with the planning commission within 15 days of that decision. The appeal must explain how the site plan will adversely affect the person and is limited to the following matters: (1) 'Designation of Chesapeake Bay Preservation areas; (2) Access and internal circulation; (3) Improvement sketch processing; (4) Location of water and sewer lines; (5) Buffers and screening; 00028R' 6 (6) Land use transitions; (7) Drainage; (8) Conditions of zoning approval; (9) Architectural treatment; (10) Development features affecting public safety; or (11) Development features affecting nearby residential areas. The commission shall fix a reasonable time for hearing the appeal and decide the same within 60 days of the applicant's site plan submission as extended b~v time periods applicable pursuant to section 19-268(c). The commission may affirm, modify or reverse the decision. Until the planning commission renders a decision, neither a building permit nor a land disturbance permit shall be issued for any construction that could be affected by the appeal. In addition, the director of planning shall issue a stop work order to the applicant instructing the applicant to cease any construction that could be affected by the appeal. 000 Sec. 19-269. Planning commission site plan review process. All site plans which are properly submitted for planning commission review in accordance with the county's site plan application and checklist shall be reviewed and approved or denied as follows: (a) The appropriate departments and/or agencies shall review and make recommendations as outlined in section 19-268(a). (b) The director of planning shall post a notice of the site plan public meeting in accordance with section 19-26(b). (c) The director of planning shall submit recommendations to the planning commission. The planning commission shall approve, with or without conditions, or disapprove the site plan in writing, giving specific reasons in accordance with the reviewing authorities' recommendations. The Tanning commission shall act on an~proposed site plan that it has previousl~pproved within 45 da sy after the site plan has been modified, corrected and resubmitted for approval. If a response from a state agency pursuant to section 19-265(c) is necessary, the planning commission shall act on the site plan within 35 days of receipt of the approvals from all state a eg ncies. (d) If the planning commission fails to approve or disapprove the proposed site plan within 60 days after it has been officially submitted for approval, or within 45 days after it has been officially resubmitted after a previous disapproval or within 35 days of receipt of an~genc~esponse pursuant to section 19-265(c), the applicant, after ten days' notice to the commission, may petition the circuit court to decide whether the site plan should or should not be approved. ~oo~~ 7 (e) If the applicant disagrees with the final decision of the planning commission, he may file a written appeal with the circuit court within 60 days of that decision. In addition, any aggrieved person may contest the planning commission's final decision if permitted by state law. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 1925:76530.3 ~~~~ ~~ g Chesterf"reld Observer ...__._ __ munrty ewspuper Smc•e 199.5 P.O. Box 1616, dlo[hian, Virginia 231 l3 • Phone: (8O4) >45-7.5(X) • Fax: (8(14) 744-3269 • Finail: news@chestertieldobserver.com • Internet: www.chesterfieldobserver.com ~~DVERTISING AFFIDAVIT - ~~..~ ~ -~~ 'Bent N p~, v r- ~,~ ' m Chester ~i County'-~ ~~~~~'` pv Board of rvisors ,`rte r ~8L<< 919~~'~ TAKE NOTICE Take notice that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, vrr '~n~a, at an adjourned meeting on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 at 6:30 p.m, in the County public Meeting Room at the Chesterfield Administration .Building, Route 10 and Lori Road> Chesterfield, P~rginia, wall hold a public hearing where persons may appeaz and present their views concerning: An ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1947, as amended, by amending and re-enacting. Sections 17-32, 17-33 and 17-45 of the Subdivision Ordinance and Sections 19-265; 19-268 and 19-269 of the Zoning Ordutance relating to submission of subdivision plats " and site. plans to State Agen«es and the deadlines for the County to act on such Plats and plans. 1n accordance with State Law, the proposed amendments would (1) require the County to submit certain plats and plans to State Agencies for review when approwal of a feature of the plat or fansby the State Agee«es is necessary; ~2) establish deadlines mandated by State Lawfor the Countyto act on such plats and plans once approvals have been received from State Agencies or the State Agen«es bane failed to act within specified time ..frames; and (3) clarify in the County code the time periods provided by State Law for actlng on certain plat and, pl an submittals. If-further information is desired, please contact Mr. Rob Robinson, Assistant ~ ~s~3 am. to~00 pm. Moy through Friday. 'Ihe hearing is held at a public facility eel to be accessible to persons with ~iltIes. Anypersona with questions on the accessibility of the facility or the need for reasonable accommodations should contact Janice Blakley, Clerk to the Boazd, at 748-1200 Persons needing interpreter sdrvices fix the deaf mud notify the. Clerk to the Bwrd no l~n. than Friday, July 25, 2008. Site Plans 7-16, 23 1 col x 6 in. The Observer, Inc. Publisher of CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER $195.00 This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on the following date(s): 07/16/08 & 07/23/08 Sworn to and subscribed before me this ~ ~ day of ~, ~ , 2008. L Legal Affiant J ,Grooms Jr., Not ublic My commission expires: February 29, 2012 Commission I.D. 7182093 (SEAL) ~` • --ry ~5i.~~pWf,i~r~~~ ~;~~ c>~il~c ~~ ~ ; 02'ii'1Z •r•• r '~q RY ~oV®..~+'~ THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY a_x BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 - ~~ AGENDA ~IRG1N1~ Meeting Date: Juiy 30, 2008 Item Number: 1$.F. Subiect: PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance to Vacate a Sixteen-Foot Alley Within Block 8, Revised Plan of Rayon Park County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Adopt an ordinance to vacate a 16' alley within Block 8, Revised Plan of Rayon Park. Summary of Information: Donald W. Hambright has submitted an application 16' alley within Block 8, Revised Plan of Rayon adjacent to the alley support this request. The The alley will vest in the adjoining property request has been reviewed and approved by Cablevision. Approval is recommended. District: Bermuda requesting the vacation of a Park. All of the landowners re is no need for this alley. owners upon adoption. This county staff and Comcast Preparers John W. Harmon Title: Real Property Manager Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # 00 086 VICINITY SKETCH PUBLIC HEARING: Qrdinance to Vacate a Sixteen Foot Alley within Block 8, Remised Plan of Rayon Park ~ 2 c ~• F ALC n R~ cn ~ ORDINANCE TO VACATE A 16' ALLEY 4 ! ~` m ~ _' ~~ ~~ N~~S~ o ~o ~, o~~ d G ~ ~o ~' ,~FL~ ~ P c~ 'P~y ~'~ ~O JR~ g~,\'~o~~ E RQ NCO v'~, 6~ O N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities w ~{- E s I ncl rgia6 N6%1 tet 0002.8'7 .,,,,,~. ~. h M r.~ ~` 4! • , w ~,, ,~ ~ s~ ...r CO U T~ y ~•r .~ ~~. ~ ~ 16' ALLEY TO BE I~ VACATED ~' REVISED PLAN OF RAYON PARK, BLOCK 8 I ~~ r PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 151 ~~ j ~ ~ ~ ae 7 ..t.+ ,~ • ~ ~ GAR Yom. rp ~ s~•fsi7~!•le Ig: '~Je~9 Sol I8 I~• ,, - « it N~ , # ~a. ~ • Ka / z34 6 y•9 Joy /s3 s~ yl9/a E.~ 2D ~I ~ ' ,. s.. a s ~ {. ,~ •wa~ .,.~ • M ~i ~ ry Lf ' ~ ! ~ ~ ~+ ~ ~ ~ Y . _ !! C1 00028 ~~ ~ ~ • +~ i ~ 'f" ~ ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT Client Description Ad Sine ~_ _~ Cost (per issue) Chesterfield County LN: Rayon Park 7-1G, 23 I cnl x 2.5 in. $100.00 Right of 1~Vay The Observer, Iltc. Pttblisllcr of CIIESTERFIELI) OI35ERVER This is to certify that the attached legal notice w•as published by -" r~NOrrc~ Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on llut °" Iufy 3Q, aaux, at t;:3o p.m. °. as sewn therca£ter as may be head. the Board the following date(s): 07/16/08 & 07/23/08 aC5 n of Cbettet5ekl County at its "`~ ~ n> 1he pu6dicMxtin r V ~ ro ~ ~ g "~ `'°"'"i" a'e (allowing °~ ~~ adoption: ,', Sworn to and subscribed before me this ~ ~ (( day of AN ORDINANCE to vacate a I6' allry within Revised Plan of n Park, Blade 8. a55hOWtt OA a l h ,/ -- _-- W p at Y •, R• I.aPfid¢ $! $tOA~ dated Tiny 5. ]928. ntcorded September 7 r L V U~. --.-___. , I928, in the Clerk's 09ice, Circuit Court. Chesterfield County, w~nta. in Plat Back 4, at Page 150. The campkte text ofthe propasedordinaoce is on Gle in the otfirs of the Real ;; ~°~,~ yoy all ~y t _ Legal Affiant Jame , Urooms 3r., N fury Public parties between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Frida y. My commission expires: February 29, 2012 Commission LD. 7182093 . ~ ,~~, •~r,Mi EA~ry .tp ~ i ~ ExE,AE S o : c• -7 . 0244-12 '": xl ._ ~tlexo4- ~ fa4y~~U "I'I1IS IS NUT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROh1 INV'OIC'E. THA1K YOU. ....-...-., •~.,,. •.••~•~.,.+~..- - •. ~..~.,.• ~ • . ~ . - •~r.,nc ~m..r -,...-r.nni . raz: taus~l r•~~-!tnv • rman: naws(d~chcstcrficl~k~t~cn~cc:am • 3ntcrnct: a ww ~~Lc.•1~rtirl~lot!wcrvrria~m _ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 - AGENDA .~~~~~,. Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 18,G. Subiect: PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance to Vacate an Eight-Foot Easement Across Lot 6, Edgewater, Section 5 County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Adopt an ordinance to vacate an 8' easement across Lot 6, Edgewater, Section 5. Summary of Information: David J. Sweerus and Roxanne D. Cybart have submitted an application requesting the vacation of an 8' easement across Lot 6, Edgewater, Section 5. This request has been reviewed and approved by county staff and Comcast Cablevision. There are no improvements located in the easement. Approval is recommended. DIStrICt: Matoaca Preparers John W. Harmon Title: Real Property Manager Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # 0002.89 VICINITY SKETCH PUBLIC HEARING: Grdinance to Vacate an Eight Foot Easement across Lot 6, Edgewater, Section ~ N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities 1., W ; - ~~~ E S I Itct eq~ak 116bi tlet 00090 a¢`J~ ~~~~ ~ ~'~~ F~ 35' BUFFER OPEN SPACE ~~' PROP05ED f2ETAINING WALL XIST. 8' EASEMENT EQUESTED TO BE AGATED i PROP05ED POOL ~ {{ PROP05ED / ~ ~ '~ ''~ 1 'RETAINING WALL ~ '~ ~ P'ROP05ED ~ PROPOSED 1;2ETAINING WALL ! ~ PATIO ~ DEGK E x 15T. ~ David J. Srveeras RESIDENCE -~ Rosanne D. C`ybart t ~, 14636 Windjammer Dr DB. 8183 PG. 211 PIN: '7211687780800000 LOr ~ LOT 5 14636 WINDJAMMER DRIVE LOT 6 SEG 5 EDGEWATER CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA r INpIGATES DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE SCALE = I" = 30' DWG DATE: 6/4/08 0®091 Ch.~e~~ld ~b ._ <. ,. ~.¢~~~ yr.ur frrntmunr+p :\'earapnlx'r S+art• Iii P.p. Ros t [i l h. A1aJblhian. Virginia ? 111 i . Phone: IM04 Y ~i_7.i1A1 , Pax: IHfH y 7~4t-1?(><) . F.m:ul: neu c[aehcalerticlalohurti cecnm ~ Intertact: u aw.nc~.[crfir ldul+,crvcr gam ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT (']lent Descri tips Ad Size Cost e,r issue Chesterfield County Right of W'ay LN: l;dgewater 7-lfi, 23 1 col x 2.5 in. S100.0~ The Observer, Znc, Publisher of Thai on u~y ~Ii1:AFOTlC$ won ther aflcr ~8, at 5:3Q p.an ar as nlSupervison of may ~ heard, the Roard regular mecG ~d con„ty u its Room of Cb~ter~6eld tht Pubhc Meeting will consider the foil County, Vtrgmia, adoption: o"'in8 ordinance !or AN URDIItANC:F, to vacate an 8' easement within Fd$rwater M The Reaervotr, Section 5, tnt G u shown on s plat by Timmons, dated A 30, 2002, Mcorded fanuary 7, 2003, in the {jerk's UlHce. C:ircvit Coup, Chesterfield County: Virginia. to Plat Rook t31, u Page m. 7hecompkte ue~ctotthtprogosa{ordinance ~~~~~o~+ceoftheRed Md tunas ~C~egeafuk! County Y examined by aq interested parties between the hours of 8;30 am. aad 5.00 p.ta_, Monday thmugh Friday CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER This is to certify that the attached Icgal notiec was published by ChestcrGcld Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state pF Virginia, on the following date(s): 07/16/08 & 07/23/0$ Sworn to and subscribed hefpre me this ~~ S ~ day of 2008. Legal Affiant '~ ~ . ~,. Jam~f, Grooms J Public My cpmmission expires: February 29, 2012 Commission T.D. 7182093 (SEAL,) ,•-,~~~,,,r.~~a, ru,rr,,, a*a~ ~ ' C.s R p O~oti ?~5;~•~~,~I FAQ l . ~cr i g;o E%P/RE5 o~~c• s ~ ~° 02-29.8 ' ~ lt711209'~ _ r'~RY PHIS IS'~`OT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM Il\VOICE. THAtiK YOU. _ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA ~~IN1A Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: B.H. Subject: PUBLIC HEARING: Request to Quitclaim an Unimproved Variable Width County Right of way Adjacent to 6170 Cedar Springs Road County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Action Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate an unimproved variable width county right of way adjacent to 6170 Cedar Springs Road. Summary of Information: Rose Mary C. Main has requested the quitclaim of an unimproved variable width county right of way adjacent to 6170 Cedar Springs Road as shown on the attached plat. This right of way was dedicated in 1973, has not been used and is not needed. The applicant's house was constructed in the right of way in 1981. The adjacent owner at 6300 Cedar Springs Road has frontage on Cedar Springs Road and has been notified of this request. This request has been approved by county staff and Comcast Cablevision. Approval is recommended. DIStrICt: Matoaca Preparers John W. Harmon Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No Title: Real Property Manager # OO~D29~ VICINITY SKETCH PUBLIC HEARING: Request to Quitclaim an Unimproved Variable Width County Right of Way Adjacent to 6170 Cedar Springs Road 2 Request to Quitclaim an Unimproved Variable Width County Right of Way s~~~r F~ N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities w 1 ~.E ` ;~ s i Ircl eq~ak SDOhet ®00~~3 2018 6020 1109 x100 3903 6111 1296 ~ 250 - 6110 oc 121 7792 8690 C7 6122 6120 Z a 6 30 w __ U ROSE MARY C. MAIN 6170 CEDAR SPRINGS ROAD PIN: 7426722439 DEED BOOK 1876, PAGE 1757 6648 6140 8953 6150 COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY DEED BOOK 1086, PAGE 7$5 6154 1238 a39 6300 6160 170 932$ 6162 6723 6156 5706 6158 0002'44 ,R ~ ~+~~~~'~ ~...k, .,s. ~ .. „...~~i Ynrrr Cnnmronrh' )v'neyxtptr Sint-e• 1995 Y.O. Buz 1616. ALdlathian. Vugmir 2 ~I 13 • pho[te: (1ItFi15~5-75(%) • Fax: fltt-ti 7kt-i?6y • Email: news(rt3che.[c[ficlJcttr.cn~cr.wm ~ Intcmec uw'~~.nc~ucr[i.~iduhk:nte.c<,m ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT Client Description Ad Size Costlier isstl~ Chesterfield C'UUnty LN: Variable Q(: 7-23 1 col x 2 in- Right of tL`ay SIQp.QO The Obsen•er, Inc. Publisher of CIIESTE1tFIELU 013SERVER 'T'his is to certify that the attached Icgal notice was published by ~~~ Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on 'That an I~30, zoor3, at fs3o p.tn, or as span th as tra b a h d th B d the following date{s): 07/23/08 y e e r , e oar oESu of Cheatrrfirki County at its mgt[ al rang place in t![e public Meetin ~ g Rohm of Che::ter&eld Virgmu. ""`~ consider `~` `~"`" ° ~a `"'"'~ ,aw t ~ f h ~~ Swom to and ~ bscribeci before me this ~ da of Y » coun yrt tt o way coa to t r Co b d d d d i h Ck k unty y ee recor e n t e r s 016ce, C:vcuit C:OUrt, Chesterfield County. Virginia in TJted Soak lt)$6, at Page 765. , 2 UU i3. The complete text d the proposed ~ cart ~ance is on file in the otTtOe aE the Rral~operty Manager in Chester6dd ' County, Y[-~' tia, and maybe emmined by all interextod parties between the hours of c ~~ %:30 am and 5:00 p.m-, Monday ehrotgh Friday. Legal ~Cffiant J r~f s T, Grooms Jr., Notes Public My camntission expires: February 29, 2012 Commission LD. 7182093 (SEAL) ~ : ~ fXP1AES a~: 4 'tom 02'.~~8 ~ tlIg204'4~ ~ .yam `L~R 61N~, ~`, ~t 1t11J 1~ IVVt AlS1LL. t'1,rAaG YAY t'KVl-1 li~lVV1l:C.. 1 HA:VlC YVU. Y RC~Nt! CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: July 30, 2008 Item Number: 2'I. Subject: Adjournment and Notice of Next Scheduled Meeting Supervisors County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: of the Board of Motion of adjournment and notice of the Board of Supervisors meeting to be held on August 27, 2008 at 3:00 p.m. in the Public Meeting Room. Preparers Janice Blaklev Attachments: ^ Yes Title: Clerk to the Board ^ No (?lIOZ'j~