Loading...
10-10-1984 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES October 10, 1984 Supervisors in Attendance: Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Chairman Mr. G. H. Applegate, Vice Chairman Mr. R. Garland Dodd Mrs. Joan Girone Mr. Jesse J. Mayes Mr. Richard L. Hedrick County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Mr. Stanley R. Balder Dir. of Planning Mr. Ed Beck, Asst. Dir. of Utilities Mr. John Boykin, Asst. Dir. of Gen. Ser. Mr. William Correl!, Construction Coord. Mrs. Doris DeHart, Volunteer Coordinator Chief Robert Eanes, Department ~Ir. Phil Hester, Dir. of Parks & Rec. Mr. Robert Hodder~ Building Official Mr. Elmer Hodge, Asst. County Administrator Mr. Richard McElfish, Environmental Eng. Mr. R. J. McCracken, Transp. D~rector Mr. Steve Micas, Co. Attorney Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Public Info. Officer Mr. Jeffrey Muzzy, Asst. Co. Admin. for Comlnl~nity Develop. Major Linwood Panfish, Police Dept. Mr. Lane Ramsey, Diro of Budget & Acctq. Ms. Jean Smith, Dir. of Social Se~ices Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., Exec. Asst., Co. Adm. Dr. M. P. Wagner, Dir. of Health Dept. Mr. David Welchons, Dir. of Utilities Mr. Daniel calle~ the meetin9~ to order at the Courthouse st 7: p.m. (EDST). 1. INVOCATION Mr. Daniel introduced Reverend R. Roland Powell, Pastor of Matoaca Baptist Church, who gave the invocation. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes~ the Board a the minutes of Septermber 26, 198~ as amended. Vote: Unanimous S4-584 3. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ' S COMMENTS Mr. Hedrick introduced Ms. Sara James, newly assigned reporter to Chesterfield County from WWBT, Channel 12 TV, and briefly out- lined her educational and professional experience. Mr. Hester stated the County employees had substantially exceeded their goal for the United Way Campaign. He invited the Board to attend an Employee Appreciation Day for all County employees on October 13, 1984 which is being provided at no cost to the County because of the employees involvement in the Campaign. ITEMS TO BE DELETED OR HEARD OUT OF SEQUENCE On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board deferred 5.A., Recognition of Mr. John McElwee, 7.A., Public Hearing to Consider Conveyance of Variable Width Right of Way Along East Avenue to Virginia Department of Highways and Trans- portation, 7.B., Public Hearing to Consider Conveyance of .339 Acres to Commonwealth of Virginia for Extension of Southlake Boulevard between Courthouse and Branchway Roads, and 9.F.9., Beach Road Recreational Access Project until October 24, 1984 at 9:00 a.m.; deleted 9.G.2.b., Condemnation Proceedings Across Property of Sherman T. Garrett and Junie J. Garrett and 9.G.3.e. Deeds of Dedication from Heirs of Charles Daniel and Glen W. and Virginia Ro Butler for Construction of East Avenue; and adopted the agenda as amended. Vote: Unanimous 5. RESOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION 5.B. FIRE DEPARTMENT 5.B.1. DISTRICT CHIEF DOUGLAS G. ALEXANDER Chief Eanes introduced Mr. Douglas Alexander who was present and had dedicated many years of service to the County as a volunteer in the Fire Department. On motion of the Board, the following resolution'was adopted: WHEREAS, District Chief Douglas G. Alexander has recently stepped down as District Chief of Company %1, Chester, after serving in that capacity since October, !982; and WHEREAS, Chief Alexander joined the Company in 1976 after having previously served ten years at Company #3, Bensley, and Company %4, Bon Air, and served in the positions of Engineer, Lieutenant, Assistant District Chief, and District Chief; and WHEREAS, It is the desire of this Board to recognize his faithful service to the Chesterfield Fire Department and to spread this recognition upon the Minute Book of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board publicly recognizes the long and distinguished service of District Chief Douglas G. Alexander and this Board extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County, their apprecia- tion for the 18 (eighteen) years of service to the County. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel recognized Mr. Alexander's family who was present and presented him with the framed resolution. Chief Eanes also presented Mr. Alexander with a retirement badge on behalf of the Fire Department.. 84-585 5.B.2. DISTRICT CHIEF DAVID I. VINCENT Chief Eanes introduced Mr. David Vincent who was present and had dedicated many years of service to the County as a volunteer in the Fire Department. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, District Chief David I. Vincent, Jr. has recently stepped down as District Chief of Company ~5, Midlothian, after serving in that capacity since January 1, 1981 and on two previ- ous periods from January through December, 1971 and January, 197~ through December, 1979; and WHEREAS, Chief Vincent joined the company as a junior membe] in 1961 and has served in the capacity of Lieutenant, Captain, Assistant District Chief and District Chief; and WHEREAS, Chief Vincent has given freely of his time attend- ing the VCU Municipal Fire Administration course in 1970-71, Chesterfield County Officer Development Course in 1978 and certified in 1983 in the County's new Chief Officer Certificatio! Program; and WHEREAS, It is the desire of this Board to recognize his faithful service to the Chesterfield Fire Department and to spread this recognition upon the Minute Book of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board publicly recognizes the long and distinguished service of District Chief David I. Vincent, Jr. and this Board extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County, their appre- ciation for the 23 (twenty-three) years of service to the County. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel introduced Mrs. Vincent who was present and presented Mr. Vincent with the framed resolution. Chief Eanes also pre- sented Mr. Vincent with a retirement badge on behalf of the Fire Department. 5.B.3. DISTRICT CHIEF PHILLIP W. WILLIAMSON Chief Eanes introduced Mr. Phillip Williamson who was present had dedicated many years of service to the County as a in the Fire Department. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, District Chief Phillip W. Williamson has recently stepped down as District Chief of Company #11, Chesterfield, after serving in that capacity since December 12~ 1978 and previously from January 1, 1975 through December 31, 1977; and WHEREAS, Chief Williamson joined the Commpany in 1959 and served in the positions of Firefighter, Lieutenant, Captain, Assistant District Chief and District Chief; and WHEREAS, It is the desire of this Board to recognize his faithful service to the Chesterfield Fire Department and to spread this recognition upon the Minute Book of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board publicly recognizes the long and distinguished service of District Chief Phillip W. Williamson and this Board extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County, their ape tion for the 25 (twenty-five) years of service to the County. 84-586 Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel introduced Mrs. Williamson who was present and pre- sented Mr. Williamson with a framed resolution. Chief Eanes also presented Mr. Williamson with a retirement badge on behalf of the Fire Department. Chief Eanes expressed appreciation for the support these men'have given over the years to the Department. 5.B.4. FIRE DEPARTMENT AWARDS CEREMONY Chief Eanes stated tonight the Fire Department would like to make several presentations honoring some life saving feats that have occurred in the County in the past year. He stated this is an evening when the bravest of the brave are honored and an evening when the Fire Department itself is honored for it is the deeds of these men which represent the deeds of the entire Department. Chief F. Wesley Dolezal, Chief Edward R. Anderson and Firefighter Thomas L. Schafer were awarded a Citation of Merit for their valiant effort to locate and save the life of a boy who had fallen through ice; Sergeant Douglas Malaspino was awarded an Emergency Medical Service Award for a life save he made by recognizing a patient being loaded into an ambulance had stopped breathing and initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Sergeant Richard W. Coffey and Roger A. Warden were awarded an Emergency Medical Service Award for a life save when they found a teenage male in full cardiac arrest, initiated cardiopulmonary resuscita- tion and continued until the patient responded; Fir~fighter David S. Parrott was awarded an Emergency Medical Service Award for a life save he made by applying cardiopulmonary resuscitation to a baby in respiratory arrest; Firefighter David M. Mason was awarded an Emergency Medical Service Award for calming and instructing a mother over the telephone on the proper procedures to enable her choking and non-breathing child to breath while he was working as a dispatcher; Emergency Services Dispatcher Katherine M. Eubank received three Emergency Medical Service Awards for life save actions she made over the telephone by providing instructions on how to deliver a baby when assistance could not arrive in time, by calming and instructing a lady how to stop bleeding from a severe cut that had penetrated the brachial artery in the upper arm of her husband, and by instruct- ing a lady how to do cardiopulmonary resuscitation on her baby who had turned blue; and Emergency Services Dispatcher Kenneth W. Hall received an Emergency Medical Service Award for a life save when he instructed the wife of a patient who had gone into full cardiac arrest in performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Acting Battalion Chief James E. Graham was awarded the Salaried Firefighter of the Year Award for 1983 for his outstanding performance and leadership in training, emergency medical ser- vices organization and fire station operations. Engineer Richard J. Bidwell of Company #4, Bon Air, was awarded the Volunteer Firefighter of the Year Award for his outstanding commitment to the fire service during 1983. Chief DiMarco, accepting on behalf of the Enon Volunteer Fire Department, Company #6, was awarded the Outstanding Fire Company of the Year Award for 1983 which was the second consecutive award in this category for this Company. The Board, the County Administrator, Chief Eanes and Assistant Chief Dolezal presented the awards to those present. Chief Eanes expressed appreciation to the Board and Administration for their support in allowing the Department to attract individuals such as these and to train and equipment these men to do these life saving feats. The Board congratulated those present on the awards received and expressed appreciation to the individuals recognized. 5.C. PROCLAIMING OCTOBER 24, 1984, AS UNITED NATIONS DAY Mr. Hodge stated the County has been contacted by Governor Robb's designee requesting the County's support of the State's effort tc proclaim October 24, 1984 as United Nations Day. Mr. Dodd 84-587 stated he would vote against this resolution as he felt the United Nations has not addressed issues such as Afghanistan and the murder and terror of those people, etc. He stated he felt this resolution was out of character for a local government. Mr~ Dodd moved that the resolution be tabled. There was no second to the motion and the Chairman declared the motion dead. Mr. Mayes stated he felt the United Nations was an organization founded to seek peace in the world and with all of the bad things attributed to it, they do not override the fact that the orga- nization was based on the principle of peace and the Board should perpetuate this spirit of peace. Mr. Mayes moved that the following resolution be adopted: WHEREAS, United Nations Day is designated by the United Nations General Assembly each year to commemorate the founding of the Organization on October 24, 1945; and WHEREAS, On this occasion, we join with the peoples of the world in reaffirming our commitment to the principles upon which the United Nations was founded: international peace and security, ~espect for human rights, and the promotion of social and econom- ic cooperation among nations. United Nations Day also gives us the opportunity to examine our involvement in the world's prob- lems and their solutions; and WHEREAS, Since the United Nations was founded 39 years ago, the world has changed dramatically, with the addition of more than 100 nations to its membership. In this global~community, it is clear that the power to solve the world's problems no longer lies solely in the hands of a few nations. Instead, all nations must work together to relieve the suffering of millioRs, to halt nuclear proliferation~ and to promote economic develoPment; and WHEREAS, Americans have made a great contribution to the creation and continuing work of the United Nations. As a part of our foreign policy, the United Nations is a channel through which the United States can .take productive action for world peace and prosperity. Continued support for the United Nations can advance constructive goals that will benefit both the United States and the world. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, hereby proclaims Wednesday, October 24, 1984 as United Nations Day and urges all citizens to participate in programs and activities designed to increase understanding of the problems and potential of the United Nations and to develop ideas on ways to make the United Nations more effective. Mr. Applegate seconded the motion. He stated further that this is a state and national request and the Board would be remiss and would not be supporting the Commonwealth and the President. Mrs. Girone stated she understood Mr. Dodd's statement but she felt the Board should support the Governor's request. She stated that she felt it was the intention of the United Nations to do well and sometimes they failed but the Board should support the peace keeping intent. Mr. Daniel stated he was in favor of the motion because of the desires, goals and fundamental principles that lead to the United Nations being established even though those goals are not always met. Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes. Nays: Mr. Dodd. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS o C. F. CURRIN~ JR. ET AJ.., - RESOLUTION ON ZONING PROCESS Mr. Currin introduced Mr. Leo Myers, Mr. Bert Howard, Mr. Joe Tucker and Mr. Doug Woolfolk who would also be addressing the Board as outlined in his letter. He presented the Board with a 84-588 statement signed by former Chesterfield County Planning Commis- sioners regarding this resolution. Mr. Currin stated he was present because he was concerned about the policy adopted by the Board not allowing supervisors to be involved in the zoning process until after the Planning Commis- sion had acted. He stated he opposed the policy because he felt it would cause a lack of communication between the person devel- oping land, the adjacent landowners who have concerns and the elected officials responsible for the well being of the district involved; this policy gives too much responsibility to the staff and gives citizens the feeling that staff is a barrier between them and their supervisor and the supervisors must be responsive to their constituents; and he felt the citizens should have been consulted in some manner and he felt the policy would not be workable whether in writing or not. He stated in America he felt the two most important things were a person's family and their rights with regard to their home and land. He stated in regard to the latter he felt the people are protected by elected officials, but only through open communication can they be assured of this protection. Mr. Howard stated he and other former members of the Planning Commission met to discuss the resolution since they had been approached as to what their opinion was. He stated they felt they should present their opinion first to the Board. He stated five of the six former commissioners who met were unanimous in the approach with the sixth abstaining. He stated he felt the objective of the resolution was worthwhile to avoid~the Board interfering with staff operations, but with the Commission it did not bother him as much as they were appointed and should be strong. He stated maybe it would be well to have a pglicy stating straight out that there would be no interference in the sense of threats, coercion, etc. used on staff or the Commission. He stated he felt it would be a very serious omission to inhibit the commissioner and supervisor from talking to each other as the zoning process is a legislative matter which allows for discre- tionary judgment. He stated no two cases are alike--there is geography, size, location, etc. to consider. He stated it was their recommendation, as well as that of Mr. Hawkins who is also a former commissioner, that a set of standards of conduct bearing upon not only the general employee of the County but a special set for the Board, the Planning Commissioners, the Board of Zoning Appeals and others who are in relative sensitive positions. He stated he felt the County business should be handled in public. He stated he served under two different Board members and never had they interfered in his 14 years of service He recommended that the resolution be reevaluated and if it is not rescinded, it be reconsidered to the point of opening up and maintaining communications from all directions to the supervisor elected by the people. He stated people expect to talk to their supervisors. Mr. Leo Myers stated he read in the newspaper that a supervisor had indicated that as far as he knew there had been no interfer- ence by a supervisor. He stated he felt the Board had gone part of the way but not all the way with this policy. He stated it was the wrong road when conditions were placed between the citizens and the supervisor. !{e stated he felt the supervisor should be able to talk to a potential applicant regarding a case as it may not be proper for the area. He stated the Planning Commission is where the action is. He stated you are punishing the supervisor when you stop him from talking until after the Planning Commission had acted as the rumors have been put into place, all the fear and doubts, etc. and it will be worse on the supervisor. He stated if there is no compelling need for it, don't place the restrictions on the Board. He stated Chesterfield County is a model for other areas. He stated the citizens in Bermuda District should have the right to talk to their supervisor. 84-589 Mr. Joe Tucker stated he had severe concerns regarding the resolution on the zoning process. He outlined his view of the zoning process at the County which he felt was grossly reduced by the resolution adopted whereby the voting constituent has little or no time to be involved in the process if the supervisor is restricted in his abilities to perform his functions. He stated the only time the Board will be involved in the case would be after the Planning Commission has acted. He stated issues could be solved through conversation with the supervisor as he is the one most familiar with the area and could provide considerable insight as to whether or not the project is acceptable for the district. He stated the developer, if not permitted to do this, has no other recourse than to go to the Planning Commission which could be wasted effort. He stated the dangers involved in this also limits the ability of the constituent to have a say in the matters involved in their County. He stated the Board members are directly answerable to the voting constituents but the County staff is not directly answerablew which is necessary to separate them from politics and for them to go about their jobs and be efficient in the process. He stated if you subjugate the con- stituents from the supervisors, you have staff trying to deter- mine what the public view is without being permitted to talk with the person who knows what is involved in a particular issue. He stated he felt this violates the rights and responsibilities of the Board to its constituents. Mr. Doug Woolfolk stated he would be addressing his comments to the Board excluding Mrs. Girone and applauded her on her stand on the issue. He took exception to his profession as it makes developers sound like a threat to influence a supervisor in his decision and he felt the supervisors were all capable of making their own decisions and weighing them on their own me~its. He stated the Board should want to know on a first hand.~asis anything that is proposed for their district or the County that affects the County or the constituents and the ability to respond to the constituents and their concerns. He stated the zoning process is a very lengthy, time consuming and expensive challenge and without some level of comfort a person would be foolish to propose a project that knowingly would be opposed by the staff, the citizens and the Board. He stated as a taxpayer and life long resident of Chesterfield, he looks to the Board as his governing body and feels entitled to discuss any business that has an effect on the County and he plans to continue to talk to the Board. He requested the Board to reconsider the adopted policy. Mr. Currin stated he hoped the Board would take the comments tonight and reconsider by rescinding the resolution on this policy. Mr. Robert Henley of HMK Corporation requested permission to address the Board. Mr. Daniel stated there are established rules and procedures for meetings and if he would like to schedule time at the next meeting, he should contact the County Administrator's office. Mr. Applegate expressed appreciation to those present voicing their concerns. He stated h].s interpretation of the resolution was nothing more than an affirmation of a process that has governed this County for some time. He explained the process briefly. He stated what he heard tonight was an objection to the process. He stated similarly it would appear to him to be wrong for an attorney to approach a judge prior to a trial. He stated as he views this, the Board is the ultimate judge of the zoning case and everyone on this Board is entitled to hear the whole story. He stated, consequently, in reading the policy, he could not see anything to prevent the Board from communicating with its constituents. He stated he does not feel there has been a problem with this Board, but this is an affirmation of a process He stated if the process is a problem, then perhaps this should 84-590 be brought to the attention of the General Assembly as they established the requirement for a Planning Commission in 1952. He assured those present that each Board member serves with integrity, honesty, and all they are asking is that the process be followed. He stated if the process is wrong, then maybe that should be changed. Mr. Mayes stated appreciation for those present who expressed their views. He stated he did not feel any of the speakers were against the spirit of the resolution but with the wording. Mr. Dodd stated the resolution was amended by eliminating some of the wording and now he feels it does not stop him from what he has been doing for the past eight years. He stated he would operate the same in Bermuda District as he always has. He stated he has the same strong feelings for the citizens' right to talk to the supervisor and he will always have an open door policy and anyone can come and talk to him at anytime and he did not feel the resolution was contrary to this. Mr. Daniel stated that the minutes of September 26, 1984 were corrected with a statement added which was made at the meeting stating "this policy in no way impairs any Board member from carrying out their own elected legislative responsibilities". H~ stated this paper does not move the Board fUrther away from the people, it only indicates there is a process, puts it in writing and reaffirms it. He stated in essence it says that the particulars of a zoning case and the decisions of the County employees or Planning Commission shall not be influenced by any individual Board member. He stated the process is a creation of State Code. He stated the staff's responsibility is ~o look at the zoning ordinance and policies, recognizing that the applicant has the right to have their application considered in a uniform manner. He stated every Board member should have that reinforced--that an individual Board member has done nothing in anyway that would influence a staff or a Planning Commission recommendation. He stated there is plenty of time for that representation to surface and stand so that it can be said for all. He expressed appreciation for those speakers who had come to the meeting and hoped there had been some clarification as to the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the resolution. HE stated several developers who were concerned with the resolution had contacted him and after an explanation that this in no way insulated the public from the legislative process they were satisfied. He stated the resolution was not designed to cover every possibility but it was never designed to isolate any Board member from the public and the Board is responsive enough to change or modify this policy if situations arise. He informed those present that there would be further discussion regarding the Board representative to the Planning Commission later in the evening. It was generally agreed the Board would recess for two minutes. Reconvening: 7. DEFERRED ITEMS 7.C. APPOINTMENTS - RICHMOND METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY The Board accepted the nomination of Mr. David K. Hunt from Mr. Applegate for the Richmond Metropolitan Authority, replacing Mr. Mark Smith whose term expired. 84-591 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.A & 8.B. RADIO TOWERS FOR POLICE AND FIRE COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Hodge stated the two requests are for the radio towers for the new fire and police communications system. He stated representatives of the two departments have met with citizens in the area to make them aware and answer any questions they had. 84S151 In Midlothian District, Chesterfield County requested a Condi- tional Use Planned Development to permit a radio tower plus a 400 foot exception to the 100 foot height limitation for towers in an Agricultural (A) District on a 10.0 acre parcel lying approxi- mately 2,000 feet off the east line of Old Bon Air Road, measured from a point approximately 300 feet north of Bayham Drive. Tax Map 10-13 (1) part of parcel 5 (Sheet 3). Mr. Daniel inquired if anyone were present to discuss this matter. No one was present. Mrs. Girone stated she had met with the people in the community and there were two people present tonight who took a map home and stated they were satisfied. She stated the staff has impressed upon her the need for separate towers and she felt it was a correct assessment to have it totally independent and owned by the County. She stated that Ms. Kitty Lyle at the Bon Air School for Girls was very graciQus and cooperated totally with staff in this matter. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate,.the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the pla~ submitted with the application shall be considered the Master Plan. The base and guy wires of the tower shall be fenced to preclude trespassing. Prior to obtaining a building permit, documentation of FAA approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department. In conjunction with the granting of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the Master Plan. Vote: Unanimous 82S152 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, Chesterfield County request- ed a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a radio tower plus a 500 foot exception to the 100 foot height limitation for towers in Agricultural (A) District on a 10.0 acre parcel lying approximately 230 feet off the west line of Warbro Road, measured from a point approximately 2,400 feet south of Genito Road. Tax Map 48 (1) part of parcel 5 (Sheet 13). Mr. Daniel inquired if anyone were present to discuss this matter. There was no one present. Mr. Applegate stated he recognized the necessity for the tower. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan submitted with the application shall be considered the Master Plan. The base and guy wires of the tower shall be fenced to preclude trespassing. 84-592 e Prior to obtaining a building permit, documentation of FAA approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department. In conjunction with the granting of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the Master Plan. Vote: Unanimous 9. NEW BUSINESS 9.A. SET DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.A.1. ORDINANCE RELATING TO SMOKE DETECTORS IN MOTELS/HOTELS On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board set the date of November 14, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. to consider an ordi- nance to amend Chapter 9.1 of the Code of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by adding Section 9.1-10 relating to smoke detectors in motels and hotels. Vote: Unanimous 9.A.2. ORDINANCE RELATING TO RABID ANIMALS Mr. Hedrick stated with the rabies epidemic spreading throughout Virginia, a public hearing date has been recommended for consideration of an ordinance requiring the inoculation of cats. Mr. Daniel inquired how the County would enforce the proposed ordinance inoculating cats for rabies. Mr. Hedrick stated since cats are not licensed, it would be difficult to enforce but staff would do its best. Mr. Applegate stated that each magisterial district has water on its border and raccoons are heavy carriers of this disease. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board set the effective date of November 14, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, by amending Sections 5-21 and 5-26 and adding Sections 5-21.1, 5-25.1 and 5-25.2 relating to rabid animals. Vote: Unanimous Approximately eight people were present in favor of this action. 9.B. RESIGNATION BY BOARD REPRESENTATIVE ON PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Daniel stated Mr. Dodd and Mr. Mayes had been appointed to a committee to discuss the representation of the Board of Supervi- sors on the Planning Comm. ission. Mr. Dodd stated the committee recommended that to keep the spirit and intent of the resolution that the County did not need a Board member on the Planning Commission. He stated he felt the date of November 1, 1984 would be more applicable than the December 1, 1984 date as originally recommended. He stated this would be done for one year and if it is ill advised, the Board can reconsider and appoint a member to the Planning Commission again. He stated he would simultaneously submit his resignation to the Planning Commission effective November 1, 1984. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, it is the sense of the Board that the member of the Board of Supervisors should resign from the Planning Commission on November 1, 1984, for a one year trial period to determine whether Board members can more effectively comply with the September 26, 1984 Board policy on zoning by not participating in the Planning Commission activ- ities. Mr. Applegate inquired who would be the Board's contact on zoning. Mr. Dodd stated it could be accomplished through staff or each Planning Commission member. Mrs. Girone stated she felt this was a wise move as the Board had taken the County 84-593 Administrator off the Planning Commission and she had suggested the Board representative also be eliminated as she felt this representation was ineffective. She stated it was considered but felt that it would be unwise to eliminate both at the same time. Mr. Daniel stated that this additional appointment did place an enormous amount of pressure on the individual involved. Vote: Unanimous 9.C. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO SET PUBLIC HEARING DATES Mr. Hedrick stated there are instances when it is necessary to expedite matters which are held up because they need to come to the Board for an official date to be set for a public hearing. He stated allowing the County Administrator to set dates for public hearings should eliminate delays in those instances when the Board is in favor of advertising on an emergency basis. He stated otherwise, the Board would still set dates on normal items. Mr. Dodd stated there are times when situations arise in a particular district and inquired if the supervisor would still have the same options. Mr. Hedrick stated the same options would still exist. Mr. Mayes stated he felt the County Administrator is the administrative arm of the Board and this was more of a legislative matter and giving this authority to make the final decision might be in violation of the law. Mr. Micas stated the County Administrator would not be making the legislative decision, only the administrative decision to initiate the legislative process. Mr. Mayes stated he felt the ~ounty Administrator is the executive arm of the Board and carries out the administrative requirements of the Board and he a%ready has this authority. He stated he had a problem with authorizing blanket authority. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, resolved that the Board table this item. Vote: Unanimous 9.D. BINGO AND/OR RAFFLE PERMITS On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved the request for a bingo and/or raffle permit from the A1 Bartraw, Jr., Chapter 50, Disabled American Veterans for calendar year 1985. Vote: Unanimous 9.E. HIGHWAY ENGINEER Mr. Bill Newcomb, Assistant Resident Engineer with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportationv was present. He stated construction of the turning lane on Old Bon Air at Robious Road is underway today; the construction of the turning lane on Route 10 at the Firehouse will be underway next week; the bridge widening project on Route 360 at Woodlake has been awarded but will not get under construction because of the shortness of steel until January, 1985; the Route 147 project is underway as of Tuesday; the Hopkins Road and Meadowdale project is completed; the Route 1 widening at Ross Ford is completed; there is a proposed curb and gutter and sidewalk at Virginia State University and paved ditch throughout which will get underway in November; and the Route 60, Winterfield and LeGordon project has been advertised and awarded and should get under construction within the next 30 days. Mr. Daniel stated the people were pleased with the Meadowdale an~ Hopkins Road project. Mr. Dodd expressed appreciation for the pavement in Bermuda District. 84-594 Mrs. Girone requested that a traffic light study be accomplished for Buford Road and Pinetta. Mr. Daniel waived the rules and procedures of the Board to accommodate a motion regrading this study. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board hereby requests the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to accomplish a study for the need of a traffic light at the intersection of Buford Road and Pinetta. Vote: Unanimous Mrs. Girone requested that Mr. Tommy Reynolds forward her a copy of the response he wrote in answer to Billy Ketron's letter. Mr. Daniel inquired about Belmont and Turner and stated he had been told bids were coming in November. Mro Newcomb stated the widening has been constructed, they are waiting on the lights, and Vepco has raised the pole so the light should be installed by January. The Board thanked Mr. Newcomb for his assistance. 9.F. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS 9.F.1. NEW HUMAN SERVICES BUILDING Mr. Zook was present to answer any questions regarding the proposal for the new Human Services building. Mr. Daniel in- quired if the funds would be returned for the financing capi- talized during the lease/purchase. Mr. Ramsey stated the archi- tect fees would be paid for from the $1,000,000 the ~oard appro- priated for Capital Projects this year and the financing payments would pay for the actual construction cost. He stated~the Board would have the option of including the financing for the archi- tectural services if it wished to change the budget as it is currently adopted. Mr. Daniel requested that this option be explored and if there is a financial opportunity available, to bring it back to the Board and if it is not that it stay as it is. Mr. Applegate inquired if the funds were actually included in the budget. Mr. Ramsey stated they were. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board au- thorized the County Administrator to enter into a contract for design services with Washington Associates for a basic fee of $192,000 plus up to $20,000 in additional services which may be needed for the new Human Services building's design/engineering and further the Board transferred $380,900 for architectural costs and lease purchase payments for the building from the undesignated capital projects account to the Human Services .building account. Vote: Unanimous 9.F.2. CONTRACTS FOR ADDITIONS ~ND ALTERATIONS TO JAIL KITCHEN Mr. Hodder was present and briefly outlined the history of the need for the additions and alterations to the County Jail. Mr. Mayes inquired what would happen to the old equipment in the Jail. Mr. Correll stated that most of the old equipment will be used and they are adding additional equipment. Mr. Hedrick stated the State Code dictates how surplus equipment would be disposed of which is at auction if it cannot be used in other operations at the County. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board awarded the construction contract in the amount of $142,200 to the low bidder, Viking Enterprise, Inc.; awarded the contract for the Kitchen Equipment in the amount of $36,975.00 to Kolbe, Inco; authorized assignment of the Kitchen Equipment contract to the General Contractor in order to facilitate coordination and make one firm responsive for the total project; and authorized ~he 84-595 County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for this project. Vote: Unanimous 9.F.3. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVAL Mr. Dodd again expressed displeasure with the high cost Vepco is charging for street light installation. He stated to upgrade an existing light at Route 10 and Osborne Road will cost $4,538 and there is a fairly new pole at the location. He requested the County Administrator and staff discuss this matter with Vepco and negotiate the costs. He stated he would like to approve this request as it is a dangerous intersection and he would consider )utting some of his 3¢ Road Funds with the General Fund ~ also. After further discussion of the source of funds, it was on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, resolved that the $4,538 be appropriated from the Bermuda Dis- trict 3¢ Road Fund for the purpose of installing a street light at the intersection of Osborne and West Hundred Road and further the County Administrator and staff is instructed to negotiate with Vepco in an attempt to document what the costs are and to negotiate a better price than the $4,538. Mr. Dodd indicated he would also like to include three other lights for approval as well which costs are $3,114.13. Mr. Hedrick informed Mr. Dodd there was not enough Bermuda 3¢ Road Funds or Street Light Funds to cover these installations. After further consideration, Mr. Dodd withdrew his motion. On motion of Mrs. Girone,~ seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board deferred consideration of these street light installation costs in Bermuda District until October 24, 1984 and directed the County Administrator to discuss with Vepqo representatives the high costs of the light installations and for~ staff to also work out a financial plan for the street light installations; and further the Board approved the installation cost for a street light at Westfield Road and Sycamore Square Drive at a cost of $470.00 which funds are to be expended from the Midlothian District Street Light Funds. Vote: Unanimous 9.F.4. STREET LIGHT REQUESTS On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board deferred consideration until further notice of two street light requests for Bermuda District at the intersection of Mason Avenue and Treebeard Terrace and at the intersection of Beaumont Avenue and General Boulevard; and approved the requests for street lights at the following locations with the funds expended from the District Street Light Funds as indicated: 2. 3. 4. Intersection of Abingdon Road and Lucks Lane, Clover Hill Intersection of Agincourt Lane and Centrailia Road, Dale Intersection of Beulah Road and Brookshire Drive, Dale Intersection of Raynor Drive and Brown Road, Midlothian Vote: Unanimous 9.F.5. SUPPLEMENTARY 1984-85 SECONDARY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT BUDGE~ Mr. McCracken presented the Board with a revised 1984-85 secon- dary road budget revenue projection by the Highway Department an~ stated the County will receive an additional $842,000 and the Department has recommended projects to be accomplished. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted 'the following resolution: 84-596 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors approved on April 11, 1984, the 1984-85 Secondary Road Improvement budget for Chester- field County; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta- tion has revised their revenue projections and now expects Chesterfield County to receive an additional $842,000 above the original revenue projection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors approves the 1984-85 Supplementary Secondary Road Improvement Budget as proposed by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Vote: Unanimous 9.F.6. JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE/JLARC HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION STUDY Mr. McCracken stated the JLARC study of the construction allo- cation formula in the State of Virginia began in 1982. He stated a joint subcommittee has been formed to recommend to the General Assembly views on each of the proposals that the subcommittee and JLARC have recommended. He stated staff has reviewed the rec- ommendations and staff has a disagreement with the philosophy as they have failed to address the inadequacy of highway funding, especially in the urbanized areas. He stated if all the rec- ommendations were approved the County would receive substantially higher funds in the secondary road allocations with~considerably less for primary road construction. -~ On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following resolution: ,, WHEREAS, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission has conducted a study of the reasonableness, appropriateness and equity of the current statutory provisions for allocating highway construction funds; and WHEREAS, Senate Joint Resolution 20 as adopted by the General Assembly contains various bills which will incorporate the proposals of the Commission; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County hag found that the approach taken by the Commission in accessing highway needs fails to address the critical needs which exist in the Commonwealth's regional 'transportation networks and in particular the networks of high growth areas; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has taken a position on each of the bills contained within Senate Joint Resolution 20. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisor~ does not support the Joint Legislative and Audit Review Com- mission's method of accessing highway construction needs; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission and the General Assembly are urged to consider statewide highway network needs with particular emphasi~ placed on the needs within high growth areas. Vote: Unanimous 9.F.7. ROUTE 10 WIDENING PROJECT THROUGH CHESTER Mr. McCracken stated this request is for the County to consider funding for the Highway Department to proceed with a design of a Route 10 widening project through Chester which estimated cost i~ $350,000. Mr. Applegate inquired if these funds were consistent 84-597 with the budget. Mr. Hedrick stated that it is consistent with previous actions by the Board and it has been encumbered for all intents and purposes. Mr. Daniel discussed the funds in the capital projects and requested the staff keep the Board informed of the balance. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors is interested in solving the traffic congestion problems on Route 10 through Chester; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta- tion has advised the Board that the cost of designing plans and studying alternative methods for solving the congestion problem will be approximately $350,000.00; and WHEREAS, the County is currently conducting an update of the land use and transportation plan for the central area of Chesterfield, the results of which will be coordinated with the Highway Department's study. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board requests the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to proceed with the study and design of the Route 10 traffic solution including the consideration of sidewalks and noise and sound barriers in the vicinity of Chester Middle School; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board appropriates $350,000.00 from the unappropriated surplus of the gDneral fund for this design and authorizes the County Administrator to enter into a contract with the Highway Department for the design. Vote: Unanimous /~ 9.F.8. ROUTE 36 GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT - ETTRICK Mr. McCracken stated that in May, 1984 the Board authorized the County Administrator to enter into a contract with the Highway Department for the design of the Route 36 grade separation project. He stated the Highway Department estimated the cost of the original design to be $150,000. He stated the Highway Department had to request bids from consultants for the project due to their internal workload. He stated in addition, the original scope of the project has been increased to include the underpass vs. the overpass alternate. He stated the design costs as submitted by the consultant's engineers will be $315,0001 due to the expanded scope of the project. He stated staff recommends that we proceed with the study of the alternates and that the Board appropriate an additional $165,000. Mr. Mayes indicated his desire that only an underpass be designed. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board hereby requests the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to proceed with a design of an underpass only at Route 36 in Ettrick and that the additional $165,000 be appropriated from Fund balance of the General Fund which added to the previously appropriated $150,000 makes a total of $315,000 for the project. Mr. McCracken stated if the scope of the project is reduced to include design for only an underpass the cost will only be reduced by approximately $25-35,000 based on the figures of the Highway Department. Mr. Applegate stated he did not understand how all designs will cost $315,000 and to reduce the scope to only one design will only reduce the price by $25-35,000. Mr. McCracken stated the cheapest phase of the work was the selec~ of the alternate routes and the study of whether an underpass overpass are virtually the same. He stated when you get into designing an underpass it will be much more complicated than an overpass, there will be additional construction engineering, etc. 84-598 Mrs. Girone inquired if this design will give a cost estimate fo~ construction. Mr. McCracken stated they will and they expect a underpass will cost two or three times as much as an overpass. He stated the overpass was expected to be $1,000,000 and the underpass will cost approximately $2-3,000,000. Vote: Unanimous 9.F.10. STUDY COMMISSION ON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS Mrs. DeHart presented the Board with a report on the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act Study Commission which contains recommendations to the Governor for the allocation of industrial development bonds. She stated the Federal Deficit Reduction Act was signed into law in July which places restrictions on each state on the issuance of private activity bonds. She stated the recommendations in the report would have a negative impact on the County because the commission is placing a high priority on localities with high unemployment rates and high fiscal stress. She stated there will be a public hearing at which the Board members might want to attend to express their interest. Mr. Daniel inquired if it would be appropriate to address in the resolution that the County has long recognized that this mecha- nism o~ financing allows local governments to create jobs and stimulates economy and when it is done in one region which may not be a high stress area, it could benefit other adjacent areas with high stress. Mr. Hedrick stated it was best to take each project on its own merit on a first come first serve basis and not get involved with high stress and other formulas as it is making a socio-economic program out of something that has been strictly for the purposes of enticing economic development. He stated this point by Mr. Daniel would be contradictory. Mr. Daniel stated that industrial development bonds help offer jobs and if there is a stress area next door or within the region the, will benefit from it. Mr. Mayes stated that there are priorities, meaning that all areas are not the same. He inquired if another priority--that of an area being denied Planning District support for the past 30 years could be considered. He stated the County, the State and the federal government pays funds into the Planning District Commission and those services have not been received in the Matoaca Magisterial District. He stated, therefore, he felt this district should be separated int¢ another priority to get some of that support. Mr. Hedrick state, this is also asking that another alternate form of criteria be established and staff recommends that the only criteria be based on each project standing on its own merits and what it does to the economy of the state as a whole. Mr. Mayes stated rules are made that are not always in the best interest of Matoaca District and Chesterfield County. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, a Committee of the General Assembly is currently studying criteria to be used by the State of Virginia in allocat- ing its unused 1984 Industrial Revenue Bond allocation; and WHEREAS, it appears that the Legislative Committee is considering imposing criteria to be used to allocate the State's Industrial Revenue Bond allocation to local governments that would provide priority to those localities perceived to have a high degree of fiscal stress and a high rate of unemployment; and WHEREAS, such artificial limitations will have an adverse effect on the Commonwealth's policy to encourage and foster economic development because it severely hampers industries' discretion when deciding whether to locate in Virginia; and WHEREAS, any fiscal stress criteria would inappropriately attempt to steer private industries' decisions and would 84-599 negatively impact those localities best able to meet the needs industry attempting to locate in Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Chesterfield County opposes creating priority criteria that would inhibit localities from using the portion of the State Industrial Revenue Bond allocation when those localities are capable of providing the economic climate desired by an industry. Vote: Unanimous It was generally agreed that a letter should accompany this resolution signed by the Chairman expressing the concerns men- tioned by the Board at the meeting today. 9.G. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITEMS 9.G.1. WATER ITEMS 9.G.l.a. WATER CONTRACT FOR COURTHOUSE COMMONS On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for W84-154C/6(8)4544, Courthouse Commons off-site water improvements, for O. D. Duncanson and Sons in the amount of $56,986.79, based on Class 51 ductile iron pipe and further transferred $62,700.00 from 380-1-69064-4393 to 380-1-64544-4393 which includes a 10% contingency. Vote: Unanimous 9.G.l.b. REQUEST OF MR. AND MRS. J.O. HUGHES - WATER EXTENSION Mr. Daniel stated several years ago there was an unu§ual situation on a street where citizens did not want small lots so the governing body created a situation where there is a lot owned by Mr. and Mrs. Hughes next to a development and they would like to connect to public water. Mr. Welchons stated Mr. and Mrs. Hughes are not objecting to extending water from a point that it would normally been extended under Mr. LaPrade's development but to paying the additional cost to get the water from where it now exists to that point. He stated Mr. and Mrs. Hughes have agreed to pay for the extension from the point the line would have normally been extended to their property and the normal connection fee. Mrs. Hughes was present and stated this was agreeable. After further discussion~ on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and appropriated $4,00( from 380-1-65091-4393 for the installation of the water line Mr. LaPrade would normally have extended on Jessup Road in order tha~ Mr. and Mrs. J. O. Hughes, lots 39 and 40, Henning Heights, can be served. It is noted they have an additional expense to get the line to their property and that they will pay the normal connection fee. Vote: Unanimous 9.G.l.c. POLICY FOR DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO COUNTY RESERVOIR Mr. Welchons stated in 1971 the Board adopted a policy prohibiting the placement of septic tanks within 100 feet of the Falling Creek Reservoir. He stated this was to protect the quality of water used for the County water supply. He stated staff has reviewed this policy in light of recent Planning Commission concern regarding the development adjacent to the Swift Creek Reservoir. He stated in August the Planning Commission considered tentative approval of Kingspoint Subdivision adjacent to Swift Creek Reservoir and it was recognized that increased development around the reservoir utilizing septic tanks could jeopardize the source of drinking water for the County. He stated the Planning Commission recommended that this be deferred until November to allow staff to study the problem. He stated staff met and discussed this situation and recommended a policy which was discussed by the 84-600 Swift Creek Watershed Committee and the State Health Department. He stated that the State Health Department stated their preference would be that no drainfield be installed around the shoreline but as an alternative they could support the policy as outlined in the Board papers. He stated further that Mr. John Davenport with the Homebuilders Association of Richmond asked that they review the policy before the Board takes action. He stated staff recommends this matter be deferred for further study. Mr. Applegate stated Swift Creek Reservoir only makes up 3% of the drainage area/watershed. He stated consequently with Brandermill and Woodlake in place to be served by sewer, it appears that 90% of the 3% will be served by sewer which leaves only .3 of 1% to be served by possible septic tanks. He stated he agreed with Mr. Welchons about the deferral but there are people with pending applications. He stated staff should not only look at the watershed but the possibility of septic tanks along all sources of water in the County including Lake Chesdin. He stated the deferral did not bother him except for those people who are being held up subject to the study being completed. He stated he talked with two of the applicants, one being Kingspoint which has 8 lots and 4 do not meet the new recommended policy. He stated further there is another individual who has secured a parcel of land adjacent to the reservoir who will meet with the same objection. He stated this makes five septic tanks and he is concerned that the Board not hold up those individuals at this point. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board sent the policy back to staff for more detailed study but at the same time did not prevent the individuals who are on record as having applied for lot development or septic tank permits f~om proceeding with their plans. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Skitch Rudy inquired if that decision protects those who have applied for subdivision approval. The Board indicated that was included. 9.G.2. SEWER ITEMS 9.G.2.a. REQUEST FOR SEWER SERVICE IN NO~4ANDALE TERRACE Mr. Dodd stated he did not know of any area which was denied the opportunity for a survey for public utility service. He stated this area is an old subdivision that has been recently built up and they did not oppose a water tank in the area nor the Proctor~ Creek Treatment Plant° On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board authorized the Utilities Department to survey Normandale Terrace to ascertain the number of people agreeing to connect if public sewer is made available. Vote: Unanimous 9.G.2.c. CONTRACT FOR DESIGN OF PROCTORS CREEK TREATMENT PLANT Mr. Dodd stated the staff has reviewed the contract, he has full confidence in the staff and does not mean to be derogatory but h~ has concerns about the recommended firm. He stated tonight on two issues, the Board has awarded contracts to two firms outside of the County and outside of Richmond. He stated he realizes there is a new procurement law and that it is supposed to be don~ on a professional basis and he wants the lowest dollar for the County residents but he felt there was no criteria being used fo] local concerns to do business with the County and he felt this was wrong. He stated previously the Board had been involved in some of the presentations, which he is not interested in 84-601 returning to but he felt in the future, someone from the Board should be involved in the process to be in tune with some of the local people who can do the work. He stated he did not want to keep the money in Chesterfield if the contractors are charging too much; however, if there is a close figure in money, yes, there should be a method to give business to our local people as long as it is not at the expense of the taxpayer. He stated the State Highway Department makes allowances in State contracts, etc. He stated he felt this would contribute to the economy and we should favor our local business. He stated he looked at the system that staff had with giving points to different companies and it was fair and he did not know if anything could be done. He stated if we can't, then the State law is wrong. Mr. Applegate stated he felt this decision was purely a business decision considering dollars and cents, the quality of firms, etc. with no reflection on the local firms. He stated this coulc be brought up at a later date. He complimented staff on the business decision. Mr. Dodd stated he did not feel this should be delayed but he would like to see it done a little different the future if possible. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board retained the firm of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. to design and manage the construction of the Proctors Creek Wastewater Treatment expansion and authorized the County Administrator to execute the contract for a not to exceed amount of $1,599,631.00. Vote: Unanimous It was generally agreed by the Board that staff assemble informa. tion that could be used for a quantifiable argument ~o the legislators or the trade itself for some mechanism that could provide some form of local preference in the bid process. 9.G.3. CONSENT ITEMS 9.G.3.a. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING ROUTE 10 SEWER On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute an agreement with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for protection of an existing sewer line along Route 10 at Falling Creek subject to approval by the County Attorney's Office and further the Board appropriated $7,500 from 574 Surplus to 380-1- 74554-4393. Vote: Unanimous 9.G.3.b. SLUDGE STORAGE PAD AT PROCTORS CREEK TREATMENT PLANT On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the contract for construction of a sludge storage pad at Proctors Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant to Simons Hauling Company in the amount of $18,000 and further the Board transferred $23,700 from 380-1-7300].-4393 to 380-1-74911-4393. It is noted $5,700 in additional expenditures was necessary for installation of a sump pump, PVC cover for pad, stone for roadway, etc. Vote: Unanimous 9.G.3.c. WATER CONTP~CT FOR PLUM CREEK On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following water contract: 84-602 W84-160CD/6(8)4605, Plum Creek Developer: S & B Development Co. of VA Contractor: R.M.C. Contractors, Inc. Total Estimated Cost: $49,827.50 Total Estimated County Cost: $7,137.00 (Refunds through connection fees) Estimated Developer Cost: $42,690.50 Number of Connections: 58 Code: 566-1-00556-0000 Vote: Unanimous 9.G.3.d. DEEDS OF DEDICATION ALONG RAMBLEWOOD DRIVE On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute, on behalf of the County, three 20 ft. deeds of dedication from M. Dean and Nonie E. Whittington along Rambtewood Drive° Vote: Unanimous 9.G.4. REPORTS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a report of the developer water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. 9.H. REPORTS Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a status report on the contingency account. ,~ 9.I. EXECUTIVE SESSION On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board went into Executive Session to discuss legal matters relating to Stewart vs. Chesterfield Count~ and legal matters relating to the financing of multi-family h~slng projects pursuant to 2.1-344 (a) (6) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous Reconvening: i0. ADJOURAq4ENT On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adjourned at 11:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m. on October 17, 1984 at the School Board Administration Building. Vote: Unanimous Richa/rd L. Hedrick County Administrator 84-603