01-08-1986 PacketCHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE: January 8, 1986 ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT: Procedures of the Board of Supervisors
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
See Attachment. The Board has adopted procedures for governing
its meetings for the past several years and this action would
reaffirm those procedures for 1986.
PREPARED BY;
ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO []
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMI N1STRATOR
PROCEDURES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield
that the following rules of procedures shall govern the conduct of meetings
and work sessions of the Board of Supervisors during the 1986 calendar year.
Presiding Officer
Section 1. Except as modified herein or as provided by law, Robert's
Rules, a Manual of General Parliamentary Law shall be the parliamentary au-
thority of the Board of Supervisors. Any questions involving the interpreta-
tion or application of Robert's Rules shall be addressed to the County Attor-
ney.
Section 2. The Chairman, or the Vice-Chairman, or in their absence,
the most senior member of the Board, shall preside at all meetings of the
Board, and on the appearance of a quorum shall call the meeting to order and
the Board shall then proceed with its business.
Section 3. The presiding officer shall preserve order and decorum. He
may speak, make motions, and vote on all questions and he shall decide
questions of order and procedure.
Section 4. The Chairman shall assign a temporary chairman on a
rotating basis to preside over the zoning portion of meetings in order to
provide experience to other Board members in conducting meetings.
Section 5. A quorum shall consist of at least three members of the
Board. A majority of a quorum shall be sufficient to carry any question
except tax issues and appropriations in excess of $500.00 which shall require
a majority of the full Board for adoption. No Board member is required to
vote on any question, but an abstention, although not a vote in favor of
carrying a question, shall be counted as a vote for the purpose of determin-
ing a quorum. A tie vote shall defeat the motion, resolution or issue voted
Oil.
Order of Business
Section 6. The order of business at a regular meeting of the Board
shall be as follows:
(a) Non-sectarian invocation conducted by members of local clergy;
otherwise by a member of the Board.
(b) Approval minutes of the previous meeting.
(c) County Administrator's comments.
(d) Committe reports.
(e) Requests to postpone action, emergency additions or changes in the
order of presentation with respect to any matter on the agenda.
(f) Special resolutions of recognition.
(g)
Hearing of citizens on unscheduled matters involving the services,
policies and affairs of the county government or claims against the
Board as provided in Section 7.
(h) Items tabled or deferred from previous meetings.
(i) Public hearings.
(j) New business in a format developed by the County Administrator.
(k) Adjournment.
The Board shall confine their decisions to the matters presented on the
agenda.
Section 7. The hearing of citizens on unscheduled matters concerning
the services, policies and affairs of the County or claims against the Board
-2- i~ ;~
shall not exceed thirty minutes. Each citizen desiring to present any matter
within this category shall be allotted appropriate time to present his case by
the presiding officer, not to exceed five minutes. Every citizen desiring to
present a matter to the Board shall by noon on the 6th calendar day prior to
that meeting notify the Clerk of his intent to speak and the topic. The
notice shall describe in detail the nature of the issue to be presented to the
Board and the remedy, if any, that the citizen will ask of the Board. No
citizen shall speak on any matter of business which is the subject of an
ordinance or resolution included on the Board's agenda for that day.
Persons appearing before the Board will not be allowed to:
(a) Campaign for public office;
(b) Promote private business ventures;
(c) Address matters within the administrative province of the County
Administration;
(d) Engage in personal attacks; or
(e) Use profanity or vulgar language.
Section 8. Except in extraordinary circumstances, the maximum time
allotted to persons speaking as .proponents of or in opposition to any matter
under consideration by the Board shall not exceed thirty minutes for the
proponents and thirty minutes for the opposition. Any person speaking to a
matter shall be limited to such period of time as shall be allotted by the
presiding officer.
Section 9. The order of business at a special meeting shall follow that
of a regular meeting to the greatest extent possible.
Minutes of Meeting
Section 10. The Clerk of the Board shall prepare and maintain adequate
minutes of the proceedings of the Board in accordance with the requirements
of the Code of Virginia. Minutes shall be included as part of the agenda
package for the subsequent meeting of the Board.
Section 11. The Board may correct its minutes at any time after ap-
proval of the minutes only upon a clear showing that a clerical or administra-
tive mistake was made.
Agenda
Section 12. The County Administrator shall prepare an agenda for each
regular or special meeting of the Board on which shall appear the title of
each matter on which action is to be taken at that meeting. The agenda for
each regular meeting shall (a) be prepared at least five days prior to the
meeting, (b) be promptly mailed or delivered to each member of the Board or
placed in the repository assigned to such Board member, and (c) be dis-
tributed to appropriate officers and employees of the county government and
members of the public and media requesting copies.
Section 13. The Chairman may, in his discretion, call any item on the
agenda out of sequence.
Section 14. Any matter not on the scheduled agenda, may be heard on
the day of its introduction only if authorized by the Chairman. Any such
matter must be of an emergency nature, vital to the continued proper and
lawful operation of the County.
Section 15. A motion to remove any matter from the agenda may be
made at any time and must be adopted by the vote of at least three members.
-4- 0 5
Motions
Section 16. When a motion is made, it shall be accurately stated by the
presiding officer prior to voting on the question.
Section 17. When a question is under debate no motion may be made
except a motion to adjourn, to table, to substitute, or to amend. Such
motions shall take precedence in the order listed above.
Section 18. A motion to adjourn by a member shall always be in order
and the motion shall be decided without debate.
Reconsideration of Ordinances, Resolutions and Motions
Section 19. No ordinance, resolution or motion previously voted upon
the Board shall be brought forward for reconsideration during the same
meeting of the Board.
Debate
Section 20. The patron of an ordinance, resolution, motion or other
matter may speak to the ordinance, resolution, motion or other matter. Each
member of the Board may participate in discussion of any issue only after
being recognized by the Chairman. Each Board member will be allotted an
appropriate period by the chairman to speak to the matter. Each member of
the Board shall be afforded an opportunity to speak before any member of the
Board may speak a second time. At the conclusion of debate, the question
shall be called and no further debate shall be in order.
Requests by members of the Board of the County Administrator relating
to criticisms or concerns regarding the administration of the County, except
when related to agenda items, shall not be presented or raised at a regular
or special meeting of the Board unless first submitted in writing to the Coun-
ty Administrator and unless his response does not resolve the issue.
Regular Meeting
Section 21. Each year at its organizational meeting the board shall set
the regular meeting times and dates for the following year provided, however,
that the Board shall meet at least once each month. Whenever the regularly
scheduled meeting date shall fall on a legal holiday, the regular meeting of
the Board shall be held on the following day in accordance with §15.1-536 of
the Code of Virginia.
Special Meetings
Section 22. Special meeting of the Board may be called by two members
of the Board in accordance with §§15.1-537 and 15.1-538 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended. Upon making such request the Clerk shall notify
all members of the Board and obtain approvals of such request in accordance
with the requirements of the Code.
Appointments
Section 23. Appointments to committees of the Board and to authorities,
boards and commissions shall be made only by resolution adopted by a majori-
ty of the full Board at a meeting subsequent to the meeting when the name
has been offered to the Board for consideration. Prior to consideration of
the nomination, the Clerk to the Board shall notify the nominee to determine
his willingness to serve and to determine if he meets the minimum qualifica-
tions for such appointment.
Committees
Section 24. The Board or Chairman may recommend the creation of
committees and the Chairman shall appoint members to such committees only
with the approval of the Board. Committees may hold hearings and perform
such other duties as may be prescribed. A committee may be instructed
concerning the form of any report it shall be requested to make and a time
may be fixed for submission of any report.
-6- {) ~'
Amendment of Rules
Section 25. The rules of procedure of the governing body may be
amended at any time during the year by a resolution of a majority of the full
Board.
Section 26. The Board of Supervisors may suspend the application of
any section of these rules by a unanimous vote of the Board members present
taken in advance of an agenda item considered under the suspended rules.
-7-
PROCEDURES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield
that the following rules of procedures shall govern the conduct of meetings
and work sessions of the Board of Supervisors during the 1986 calendar year.
Presiding Officer
Section 1. Except as mo~d herein or as provided by law, Robert's
Rules, a Manual of General Parliamentary Law shall be the parliamentary au-
thority of the Board of Supervisors. Any questions involving the interpreta-
tion or application of Robert's Rules shall be addressed to the County Attor-
ney.
Section 2. The Chairman, or the Vice-Chairman, or in their absence,
the most senior member of the Board, shall preside at all meetings of the
Board, and on the appearance of a quorum shall call the meeting to order and
the Board shall then proceed with its business.
Sect[on 3. The presiding off-er shall preserve order and decorum. He
may speak, make motions, and vote on all questions and he shall decide
questions of order and procedure.
Section 4. The Chairman shall assign a temporary chairman on a
rotating basis to preside over the zoning portk~n of meetings in order to
provide experience to other Board members in conducting meetings.
Section 5. A quorum shall conflict of at least three members of the
Board. A majority of a quorum shall be sufficient to carry any quest[on
except tax issues and appropriations in excess of $500.00 which shall require
a majority of the full Board for adoption. No Board member is required to
v~te on any question, but an abstention, although not a vote in favor of
carrying a question, shall be counted as a vote for the purpose of determin-
ing a quorum. A tie vote shall defeat the motion, resolution or issue voted
on.
Order of Business
Section 6. The order of business at a regular meeting of the Board
shall be as follows:
(a)
Non-sectarian invocation conducted by members of local clergy;
otherwise by a member of the Board, followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(b) Approval of minutes of the previous meetLng.
(c) County Administrator's comments.
(d) C ommitte reports.
(e) Requests to postpone acg/on, emergency additions or changes in the
order of presentation with respect to any matter on the agenda.
Special resolut6ons of recognition.
(g)
Hearing of citizens on unscheduled matters involving the services,
policies and affairs of the county government or claims against the
Board as provided in Secg/on 7.
(h) Items tabled or deferred f~om previous meetLngs.
(i) Public hearings.
(j) New business in a format developed by the County Administrator.
(k) Adjournment.
The Board shall confine their decisions to the matters presented on the
agenda.
Section 7. The hearing of citizens on unscheduled matters concerning
the services, ~s and affairs of the County or c/aims against the Board
-2-
shall not exceed thirty minutes. Each citizen desiring to present any matter
within this category shall be allotted appropriate time to present his case by
the presiding off~er, not to exceed ~ive minu%es. Every citizen desiring to
present a matter to the Board shall by noon on the 6th calendar day prior to
that meeting notify the Clerk of his intent to speak and the topic. The
not[ce shall describe in detail the nature of the issue to be presented to the
Board and the remedy, if any, that the citizen will ask of the Board. No
citizen shall speak on any matter of business which is the subject of an
ordinance or resolution included on the Board's agenda for that day.
Persons appearing before the Board will not be allowed to:
(a) Campaign for public o~n~e;
(b) Promote private business ventures;
(c) Address matters within the administrative province of the County
A dministration;
(d) Engage in personal a~acks; or
(e) Use profanity or vulgar language.
Section 8. Except in extraordinary circumstances, the maximum time
allotted to persons speaking as proponents of or in opposition to any mat~er
under consideration by the Board shall not exceed thirty minutes for the
proponents and thirty minutes for the opposition. Any person speaking to a
matter shall be limited to such period of thee as shall be ~d by the
presiding officer.
Section 9. The order of business at a special meeting shall follow that
of a regular meeting to the greatest extent possible.
-3-
Minutes of Meeting
Section 10. The Clerk of %he Board shall prepare and maintain adequate
minutes of the proceedings of the Board in accordance with the requirements
of the Code of Virginia. Minutes shall be included as part of the agenda
package for the subsequent meeting of the Board.
Section 11. The Board may correct its minutes at any time after ap-
proval of the minutes only upon a clear showing that a clerical or administra-
tive mistake was made.
Agenda
Sect~n 12. The County Administrator shall prepare an agenda for each
regular or special meeting of the Board on which shall appear the ~ of
each matter on which ac~on is to be taken at that meeting. The agenda for
each regular meeting shall (a) be prepared at least five days prior to the
meethng, (b) be promptly mailed or delivered to each member of the Board or
placed in the repository assigned to such Board member, and (c) be dis-
tributed to appropriate officers and employees of the county government and
members of the public and med~a requestkng copies.
Sect~n 13. The Chairman may, in his discretion, call any item on the
agenda out of sequence.
Section 14. Any matter not on the scheduled agenda, may be heard on
the day of its introduction only if authorized by the Chairman. Any such
matter must be of an emergency nature, vital to the continued proper and
lawful operation of the County.
Section 15. A mot[on %o remove any matter from the agenda may be
made at any ~ime and must be adopted by the vote of at least three members.
-4-
Motions
Section 16. When a mot[on is made, it shall be accurately stated by the
presiding officer prior to vothng on the question.
Section 17. When a quest[on is under debate no motion may be made
except a motion to adjourn, to table, to substitu%e, or to amend. Such
motions shall take precedence in the order listed above.
Section 18. A motion to adjourn by a member shall always be in order
and the motion shall be decided without debate.
Reconsideration of Ordinances, Resolutions and Motions
Sect[on 19. No ordinance, resolution or motion previously voted upon
the Board shall be brought forward for reconsideration during the same
meeting of the Board.
Debate
Section 20. The patron of an ordinance, resolution, motion or other
matter may speak to the ordinance, resolution, motion or other matter. Each
member of the Board may participate in discussion of any issue only after
being recognized by the Chairman. Each Board member will be allotted an
appropriate period by the chairman to speak to the matter. Each member of
the Board shall be afforded an opportunity to speak before any member of the
Board may speak a second thne. At the conclusion of debate, the question
shall be called and no further debate shall be in order.
Requests by members of the Board of the County Administrator relating
to crit~ms or concerns regarding the administration of the Coun%y, except
when related to agenda items, shall not be presented or raised a% a regular
or special meetLng of the Board unless first submitted in writhng to the Coun-
ty Administrator and unless his response does not resolve the issue.
-5-
Regular Meeting
Section 21. Each year at its organizational meethng the board shall set
the regular meetLng times and dates for the following year provided, however,
that the Board shall meet at least once each month. Whenever the regularly
scheduled meeting date shall fall on a legal holiday, the regular meetLng of
the Board shall be held on the following day in accordance with ~15.1-536 of
the Code of V/r~.
Special MeetLngs
Section 22. Special meeting of the Board may be called by two members
of the Board in accordance with ~§15.1-537 and 15.1-538 of the Code of
Virgirda, 1950, as amended. Upon making such request the Clerk shall no,fy
all members of the Board and obtain approvals of such request in accordance
with the requirements of the Code.
Appchntments
Section 23. Appointments to committees of the Board and to authorities,
boards and commissions shall be made only by resolution adopted by a majori-
ty of the full Board at a meetLng subsequent to the meetLng when the name
has been offered to the Board for consideration. Prior to considerath)n of
the nomination, the Clerk to the Board shall not~y the nominee to determine
his w~l]~ngness to serve and to determine if he meets the minimum qua]~ca-
tions for such appointment.
Committees
Section 24. The Board or Chairman may recommend the creation of
committees and the Chairman shall appoint members to such committees only
with the approval of the Board. Committees may hold hearings and perform
such other duties as may be prescribed. A committee may be instructed
concerning the form of any report it shall be requested to make and a thne
may be f/xed for submission of any report.
-6-
Amendment of Rules
Sect[on 25. The rules of procedure of the governing body may be
amended at any thne during the year by a resolution of a majority of the full
Board.
Section 26. The Board of Supervisors may suspend the application of
any sect~n of these rules by a unanimous vote of the Board members present
taken in advance of an agenda item considered under the suspended rules.
Section 27. A Deputy Sheriff may serve as Sergenat at Arms.
-7-
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF' SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
'L
MEETING DATE: Jan~aary 8, 1986 ITEM NUMBER:
Consideration of Readoption
SUB4ECT: Policies
of Prior Board
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION'
Because the
Board of Supervisors technically must
reorganize itself annually, it is desirable for the Board to
readopt policy statements that reflect understandings and
commitments involving the operation of the Board that have
been approved in the past. Attached are copies of the
policies regarding the relationship between the Board of
Supervisors and the County Administrator (adopted January 1,
1984), the Williamsburg Accord (adopted March 3, 1984), the
Williamsburg School Board understanding (adopted August 3,
1984), the Zoning Policy (adopted in September, 1984) %;~
the Brandermill Statement (adopted February 21, 1985).
I~'~o~,~a Travel and District Expenditure Policy
is include~ for Board consideration. The policy clarifies
individual 'Board members' ability to incur travel expenses
related to County business and further defines the ability
of Board members to use public funds to pay for gatherings
within each Magisterial District. The policy would legally
validate the use of public funds for those purposes while
ATTACHMENTS: YES '~
NO []
(Cont ' d) -
~ :~ .;. . ~. ,
"PREPARED ~'~ '~'~'i>~.~L4~BY; ~,
County Attorney
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
r.',,'
_/--
.Consideration of ~adoption of Prior Board ~ icies
and Adoption of Travel and District Expenditure Policy
January 8, 1986
Page 2
providing guidelines that will assist the financial staff in
determining appropriate expenses. If there are any meetings
within any individual districts which would require specific
Board approval, each Board member should identify those
situations so that they may be included as part of the
adoption resolution.
5. RELATIONSHIP STATEMENT BETWEEN BOARD AND COUNTY ADMIN]STRATO!
Mr. Daniel inquired if there were any discussion regarding the
policy statement defining the relationship between the Board and
the County Administrator. Mrs. Girone stated a minor technical
change that should be made is that the resolution speaks to the
"County Administrator" form of government which is actually the
"Traditional" form of government. Mr. Daniel stated this
resolution is not proposil~g to change the form of government and
all references to the County Administrator form of government
'should be changed to the Traditional form in the resolution.
Mrs. Girone stated that item ~5 states that problems should be
handled through the County Administrator rather than requesting
assistance from County employees. She inquired if this covered
such as actions as notifying the Police Department of a road
situation where speeding occurs and should she, in the future,
address this to the County Administrator. Mr. Mayes stated that
was not the intent of the item, but to establish guidelines and
not place the County Administrator in an embarrassing situation.
Mrs. Girone stated that small, mundane items that ~re brought to
her attention need not be brought to the attention of the County
Administrator. Mr. Daniel stat(~d something of that nature would
be considered an inquiry rather than a problem. There being no
further discussion, it was on mo't'[on of Mr. Mayes, seconded by
Mr. Applegate, resolved tha+ the f~].low]ng resolution be adopted
Whc,',,as, Ch~sterl'ield C'¢,~.~,ty, as a rapidly urbanizing,
full-service.: County ~s ent,.~ri, ng a.i era which demands imaginative
responses by the Board of ~qup~'~'visors to problems never before
faced in this County; .~,nd
Whereas, The most imp~'.rtant ~ballencu? will be to continue
provide a multitude of ser.'vices in an efficient and tranquil
manner without repeating many ,of the mistakes made by existing
counties and older citie..~; and
Whereas, The m.-'~nner of operating any county that may have
worked well years ~'~g~ when counties were rural in character, and
offered few services, may not be the model this Board should
adopt to address the challenges this County faces today; and
Whereas, It is incumbent upon this Board to apply sound
business management techniques to the Chesterfield County
Government. The experience of private industry has shown that
any large organization must establish an administration with
well-defined operational relationships and areas of
responsibility in order to operate effectively. Chesterfield
County retains the Traditional form of government, which, by
statute, is perhaps the least defined of all forms of county
government; nevertheless, this form of government provides great
flexibility to the Board to structure the responsibilities of th,
County Administrator to execute the desires of the Board; and
Whereas, This Board, under the Traditional form of
government, should act as a legislative body, and should focus
attention and enerqies on the legislative and policy-making
functions while leavinq the execution of Board policies, and the
administration of the County, based on Board policies to the
County Administrator. Once Board policies are in place, no
individual member of the Board should attempt to subvert the
uniform application of these policies by interfering in the
proper administration of Board policies as defined by the Board;
and further, no individual member of the Board shall, in any for!
or fashion, direct the County Administrator, or any member of hi
subordinate staff, to perform a function or take an action, in
the name of the Board, unless that member acts in concert with
the Board and in compliance with general laws of State and Count
regulations; and
Whereas, With respect to problems of administrative service
to the County, Board members should first make inquiry through
the Office of the County Administrator; no individual member of
the Board should give orders, either publicly or privately, to
any individual or County employee concerning such problems,
until, and after, the County Administrator has been informed; an¢
Whereas, The members of the Board, collectively, recognize
that they are the Chief Administrative officers for all of the
affairs of the County; and that, it is the function of the Board
to provide objective policies for the County which reflect moderr
management concepts. This Board should respect the
responsibilities of the County Administrator, and should be
committed to allowing him to execute Board policies on a day to
day basis without interference from individual members of the
Board; and
Whereas, This Board of Supervisors and the County
Administrator must never become competitors or adversaries, and
therefore, should make sure that there is an understanding of
what ~ach Board policy means before it is executed by the County
Administrator; and
Whereas, Thls Board has chosen the County Administrator as
the Executive Arm of the Board because it is felt that the County
Administrator has the neces~:ary executive and administrative
expertise to provide the Board with positive proposals for Board
actions based, on sound _pri~]cipals of public managejnent; and
Whereas, Richard l.. ]'edrick, over approximately the last
three years, has demonstra~d a broad range of behavioral skills
that are necessary to make decisions in the give-and-take of a
democratic qovernment, this Bc, srd of Supervisors should recogDize
the contributions of Mr. Hedrick to Chesterfield County in this
resolution.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by this Board of Supervisors
that:
Vote:
Chesterfield County will be governed by the Traditional form
of government·
This Board, under the Traditional form of government, will
act as a legislative body, and will focus its attention and
energies on the legislative and policy-making functions
while leaving the execution and the administration of Board
policies to the County Administrator.
Once Board policies are in place, no individual member of
the Board will subvert the uniform application and
administration of these policies.
No individual member of the Board will, in any form or
fashion, direct the County Administrator, or any member of
his subordinate staff, to perform a function or take an
action, in the name of the Board, unless that member is
acting in concert with the Board and in compliance with the
general laws of the State and County regulations.
With respect to problems of County administrative servi, ces,
Board members will first make inquiry through the Office of
the County Administrator, and no individual member of the
Board will give orders, either publicly or privately, to
County employees concerning such problems, until and after
the County Administrator has been informed.
This Board respects the responsibilities of the County
Administrator and is co;[~itted to allowing him to execute
Board policies on a day to day basis without interference
from individual members of the Board.
The County Admin].strator serves at the pleasure of the Board
of Supervisors, and Richard L. Hedrick has the full
confidence and support of this Board.
Unanimous
WIL~LIAMSBURG ACCORD
PERSONAL COMMITMENT TO IMPROVING THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF Tt{E BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Aa individual members of the Board of Supervisors, we e~eh reeognt[e
an individual obligation to act responsibly to improve the effeetiveneas of
the Board. Although each of us is elected from a district, we were el~(~to~
to govern the County ss , whole and to bring speel-I insights and experi-
ences to the gt'oup decision-making process of the Board of Super'visors.
The Board of Supervisors can only be effective and responsive if eae~.
individual member commits himself or herself to the following principles:
I. EACH MEMBER OF THE BOARD SHOULD STRIVE TO ELIMINATE TH!
IMPACT OF SPECIAL INTERESTS THAT SEEK TO UNDEI~MINE TH!
BOARD'S PERCEPTION OF STAFF
The Board represents tile County and its citizens and the star:
represents the policies and goals of the Board of Supervisors. The star:
is an extension of th,, Board and criticisms and complaints about the staf:
are, in effect, criticisms and complaints of the Board of Supervisors,
When someone complains about any County employee to a Supervisor, he o~
she should either (1) have the County Administrator investigate the mattes
and report the finding~ to the S~lpervisor or (2) have the staff, througi
the County Administrator, call directly the person complaining and handh
the mati,:r. At all times the staff will keep the Board member informed o
the resolution of thc matter. No longer will any Board member create m
adversarial environment piiting II~e Board member and a citizen against th,
staff, bui rathec will in . positive way use. staff to resolve problems. Th,
County cannot function effectively, if we create a situation pitting "we"-
the Board member and a citizen or special interest group against "they"-
County employees.
!1. EACH BOARD MEMBER WILL STRIVE TO MINIMIZE AND ELIMINATE
THE PERCEPTION OF A NORTH/8OUTH SPLIT
Board members will always be mindful of the importance of working in
the interest of the WHOLE COUNTY rising above pai, oehial interests. We
must each exercise leadership in candidly disclosing our position8 on issues
without attempting to accomplish "hidden agendas."
111. EAClt BOARD MEMBER WILL STRIVE TO UPHOLD ALL FORMAL AND
INFORMAL COMMITMENTS MADE TO THE BOARD Ol~ SUPERVISOR8
OR INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF TIlE BOARD
All the Board members pledge, as a matter of honor, to stand by any
agreements or decisions reached by the Board regardless of o~le'8 own
original preference with the understanding that if any Super~,tso~ still hss
serious problems with a decision already made, he or aha will come back to
the Board and explain his or her problem and stand openly. No individual
Board member is obligated to agree with decisions of the majority,
however, informal comnlitments must be t~-eated as moral commitments to be
honored unless the individual returns to the Board and explains his or her
inability to follow that commitmc,t rather than undermining that under-
standing with staff or the public.
-2-
IV. EACH BOAHI] MEMFIER WILL AGitEE TO DISAGREE WITHOUT NEGA-
TIVE OR PERSONALIZED CONSEQUENCES
Each of the Board members agrees to:
(a) not be judgementai;
(b) not air the Board's differences and disagreements tn public;
.criticisms of the Board as a governing body reflect as well on each indi-
vidual member;
(e) not personalize dif£erencea;
(d) work out individual differences in private as much as possible;
and
(e)
mutual support and earing.
relflte to such other with' mutual respect with an attitude of
' ' t, ARg'Y O. DAN,~L
t~{Ol~{{)RE¥ ii. A~u"L~G~--
R. GARLAND ~ "
AN GIRONE
WILLIAMSBURG SCHOOL BOARD UNDERSTANDING
JOINT MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND SCIIOOL BOARD
MINUTES
August 2, 3, and 4, 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
School Board Members in Attendance:
Dr. George R. Partin, Chairman
Mrs. Maria Keritsis, Vice Chairman
Mr. Jeffrey S. Cribbs
Mr. C. E. Curtis, Jr.
Mrs. Dawana O. Sheppard
Dr. Howard 0. Sullins
Superintendent
Staff in Attendance:
Mr. Steve Micas, County
Attorney
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Public Info. Officer
Mr. Daniel called the meeting to order at the Holiday Inn 1776 in
Williamsburg at 9:00 a.m. (EDST). The Chairman welcomed the two
Boards to the training session and expressed optimism about the
value of meeting together. The Board and School Board
participated in a training session to improve communications
conducted by Dr. Pak from the fuculty of Virginia Commonwealth
University.
On motion of Mr. D.-~I~I, seconded by Mrna. Girone, th~ Board
recessed at 5:30 p.m. until 9:00 a.m. ~,n August 4, 1984.
On motion of Mr. Applegz~te, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
recessed at 9:30 p.m. until 9:00 a.m. on August 3, 1984.
Vote: Unanimous
Reconvening:
Vote: Unanimous
Reconvening:
Mr. Daniel called the meeting to order at the ][~liday Inn 1776 at
9:00 a.m. (EDST).
After much discussion both Boards agreed on the following
understandings and commitments:
84-441
Administrative matters were discussed reg~rding the training
session to be held Friday and Sat6~;day with Dr. Pak, the School
Board and the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Daniel called the meeting to order at the Holiday Inn 1776 in
Williamsburg, Virginia at 7:30 p.m. (EDST). Dr. Partin stated
the School Board was glad to participate and looked forward to a
productive session.
ROLE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS VIS-A-VIS THE SCHOOL BOARD
TO provide financial support to public education;
To gather information related to public education and relay
it to the School Board;
To provide information related to finances, priorities,
land-use planning, personnel, etc. to the School Board;
To continue to offer support services from the General
Government to the School Board, i.e. data processing; and
To incorporate needs of School Board in County planning.
ROLE OF SCHOOL BOARD VIS-A-VIS THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Manage the educational process and resources;
Set school policies;
Present yearly budget showing changes in direction and
emphasis and change the format of presentation to the Board
of Supervisors; and
Present short, medium, and long range financial planning and
capital improvement documents including rationale to the
Board of Supervisors.
TECHNIQUES TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Regularly scheduled joint meetings between Board of
Supervisors and School Board will be scheduled at the
beginning of each year;
Board members will strive for more conu~iunication with
individual School Board members;
Public statements of the Board of Supervisors will not be
confrontational or adversarial, place institutional needs
over short run individual needs;
Encourage County administrators to communicate with school
administrators (e.q., attendance at County agenda meetings);
Official Board of Supervisors positions will be expressed
only by the chairman;
No false expectations will be raised by individual Board of
Supervisors members;
Board of Supervisors will not impinge on SChool Board
responsibility to set school policy; and
In the event of an impasse, the Board of Supervisors will
respect each Board's right to disagree.
TECHNIQUES TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION BY '['lie :;CllOOL BOAt{D
Make ourselves more avai]~,l,]e so that thc'~ Board of
Supervisors' issues and co~cerns can be directly expressed
to the School Board before going to the public;
Offer opportunities to tile Board of Su|',,~rvisors to explain
the needs and issues concerning education;
Work sessions on resource needs of the schools between the
two boards;
84-442
ZONING POLICY
Zoning Process, which the Board deferred from the morning
session.
9.D. BOARD POLICY RELATING TO INVOLVEMENT IN ZONING PROCESS
Mr. Daniel stated in January, 1984 the Board of Supervisors,
realizing that there are certain responsibilities that they have
in relationship to the County Administrator, adopted two written
policies at their organizational meeting--one dealt with the way
Board conducts business and meetings and the second with the
relationship of policy and legislation to the Board of
Supervisors in carrying out policies and procedures by County
Administration. He stated since then a few Board members have
suggested that a draft of a written policy dealing with the
zoning process be prepared. He stated he has attempted to
prepare such a resolution for the Board and explained the zoning
process. He stated this in no way impairs any Board member from
carrying out their own elected or legislative responsibilities.
He stated this resolution puts into writing the procedures that
should be followed by the Board of Supervisors in dealing with
zoning matters.
Mr. Dodd stated he felt a Board of Supervisors' member could not
serve on the Planning Commission and support this resolution. He
stated he felt a Board representative no longer needs to serve on
the Planning Commission. He also referred the Board to page 2,
paragraph two (2) of the resolution and asked that the phrase "in
any manner" be removed from the resolution.
Mrs. Girone stated this policy would prevent the Board members
from discussing zoning cases until after they have been heard by
the Planning Commission. She stated she had very serious
concerns for a policy that would put up a wall between her and
the citizens she was elected to represent. She stated she felt
the constitutional ~ights of %he citizens to access their
representatives are being abridged. She stated the proposal
infringed upon the liberties of the citizens of Chesterfield and
unduly hinders a government process and she would vote no on the
issue. Mr. Mayes felt this would notify all, that Board members
are not to make commitments prior to the zoning issue coming
through the proper procedures. He stated he felt these
guidelines are beneficial.
Mr. Applegate stated he did not know if the process is or is not
being adhered to but this paper clearly outlines the steps. He
stated he did not feel this would be denying constituents their
due process. Mrs. Girone stated she did not see anything about
commitment in the paper as referred to by Mr. Mayes and perhaps
the paper is not written all encompassing. Mr. Mayes outlined
his concern and stated he felt it was covered.
After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded
by Mr. Daniel, resolved that the Board adopt the following
resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE BOARD
CONCERNING THE PROPER INVOLVEMENT
OF BOARD MEMBERS IN THE ZONING PROCESS
Chesterfield County, as a rapidly growing and Urbanizing
locality, will be experiencing increased property development to
meet the expanding residential, commercial and industrial needs
of its citizens. As development momentum accelerates, greater
pressure will be placed on individual members of the Board of
Supervisors to become involved in all aspects of the zoning
process. At the same time, it is of paramount importance that
the Board recognize and respect the~administrative and advisory
functions of County staff and the Planning Commission in the
zoning process. It is particularly critical that members of the
Board of Supervisors, understanding the legislative and
policy-making function of the Board, do not interfere or become
84-565
involved in zoning issues until such issues are properly before
the governing body.
Both before and after the filing of a zoning application,
staff members of the County Planning Department meet with
developers to insure conformance with County ordinances and
~olicies. Through this process, the County staff endeavors to
~romote overall zoning and planning policies adopted by the
~oard. After staff review, the Planning Commission, as an
independent advisory body established pursuant to Section
15.1-437, Code of Vir$inia, 1950, as amended, considers the
application in a public hearing, and makes a recommendation to
the Board of Supervisors, based on the comments and concerns of
the developer, County staff, and the public and on the overall
zoning policies and practices of the County. Involvement of
Board members in either of these initial phases of the zoning
process tends to limit the ability of County staff to
successfully negotiate and resolve developer concerns, and of the
Planning Commission to make meaningful recommendations to the
Board. Premature involvement can also unnecessarily create
delay, uncertainty and instability in the orderly processing of
applications which tends to affect public confidence in the
zoning and application review process. Furthermore, involvement
of Board members in a zoning case prior to a decision by the
Planning Commission, is inconsistent with the clear policy
statements, adopted in January, 1984, not to interfere in the
administrative activities of the County administration and staff
but instead to dedicate its efforts toward the formulation of
general legislation and policy.
Therefore, be it resolved by the Board that it shall be
Board policy that no individual member of the Board shall become
involved in a zoning case until the Planning Commission has made
its recommendation on the case. Prior to action by the Planning
Commission, members of the Board shall not discuss the
particulars of the zoning case with the developer nor attempt to
direct the activities or decisions of County employees or
Planning Commission members concerning the outcome of the case.
Members of the Board shall not direct the activities of any
County staff member relating to a zoning case before the Board
except when acting as a Board consistent with general law and
County regulations.
Ayes:
Nays:
Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Dodd.
Mrs. Girone because this policy separates the people from
those elected to represent them and she would not support
this resolution.
Mr. Dodd stated he was not shirking his responsibility of serving
on the Planning Commission and did not want it to appear he was.
He stated he felt as well as others that the Board representation
on the Planning Commission was no longer necessary.
Mr. Daniel appointed Mr. Mayes and Mr. Dodd to serve as a
ommlttee along with the County Attorney to prepare a resolution
regarding the Board's representation on the Planning Commission
for action at the October 10, 1984 meeting.
Mr. Daniel stated that Mr. Mayes would be the presiding officer
during the zoning session per the procedures of the Board of
Supervisors.
9.L. REQUESTS FOR MOBILE HOMES
Mr. Dodd stated that he is in the mobile home business, although
not directly related to sales. He requested anyone purchasing a
mobile home from his company to make it known, in order that he
could excuse himself from the meeting to prevent any conflict of
interest.
84S165
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Clayton L. Ramey, requested a
Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which he
84-566
Complete Chippenham and Parham Bridge
Protect quality of life
Protect disciplines with a highly educated work force
Planned growth
IV.
Develop goals and accomplishment for our present and
future businesses and industries:
Need to develop and maintain good relationships with
the business and industrial sectors by meeting with
them regularly to inform them of policies designed to
promote the quality of life and the quality of growth
in the County.
Philosophy of government regarding growth and service:
Each Supervisor assumes the responsibility to commu-
nicate to and educate the public concerning the limit
of government's capability to be "everything to
everybody" and the implications of providing more
services beyond the present level.
Economic Development
Goal - Balanced Growth
By balanced growth we mean - 70% (residential) and
30% (commercial and industrial)
For that - we need to resolve "road" issue.
V. To emphasize economic development:
Get the new Director of Economic Development (when
he/she is hired) to develop overall program for
economic development for consideration by the Board.
VI.
To establish list of priorities managed by the same as
opposed to crisis:
Get the list of existing projects from the County
Administrator, and then establish priorities and time
frame for each in a work session.
VII. Develop a model of equitable distribution of resources:
The model takes into account economic aspects of
areas which are densely populated as well as areas
which are rural. Make sure each area is fairly
treated.
VIII. Road Priorities:
A. Route 288 - $30 million
Route 60 (the portion not included in the 6 year
plan) - $4.3 million
Route 10 (City limits to the Courthouse) -
$15.5-million
D. Chester Improvements - $5 million
Courthouse Road - from Route 60 to Route 360 -
$17 million
Fe
Bridge over the railroad track and Appomattox
River at Route 36 - $15 million
IX. Comprehensive policy on public safety:
Contribution requests to the Board from Rescue Squads
should be made through the County Administrator.
85-090 ~}~J
BRANDERMILL STATEMENT
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTES
February 21 and 22, 1985
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mr. G. H. Applegate, Chairman
Mr. 'Jesse J. Mayes, Vice Chairman
Mr. Harry G. Daniel
Mr. R. Garland Dodd
Mrs. Joan Girone
Mr. Richard L. Hedrick
County Administrator
Staff in Attendance:
Mr. Steve Micas, County
Attorney
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Dir., News/Info. Ser.
Mr. Applegate called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. at the
Brandermill Conference Center.
Dr. Chung Pak conducted a two day retreat with the Board. He
surveyed the Board with a questionnaire as to their feelings as
to the individual effectiveness of the "Williamsburg Accord."
Other issues discussed during the two day retreat were:
To eliminate the impact of special interests that seek to
undermine the Board's perception of staff:
When an interest group calls a Board member regarding
an issue, he/she informs them of the existing policy
on the issue. If any more information or action is
needed, refer them to the County Administrator before
making any commitment.
When an interest group calls the County Administrator
expressing its interest in meeting with the Board he
gathers as much information as possible regarding the
requested meeting with the Board, informs the Board
collectively of the interest's groups desire and
attempts to take care of t.he matter within the existing
policy. If it does not meet the need of the interest
group the County Administrator notifies the Board.
II.
To minimize and eliminate the perception of a North-South
split or any other perception of distrust:
We need opportunities to discuss issues and resolve
conflict before action is taken. Otherwise conflict
will develop after the action is taken.
The more we get together, share information and
exchange views and opinions as a group the better we
will understand each other and minimize and eliminate
any perception of distrust.
Each meeting should specify the objectives of the
meeting and make sure necessary information is
available in concise and useful manner for decision-
making, if such is needed, in advance.
III. To define in a clear and concise manner 1) our objectives
and 2) how we are going to achieve them in a proactive
manner:
Continue to be a member of MEDC
Hire Director of Economic Development
Look at ABIDCO's future
Complete Powhite, Route 288 and Chippenham and
Laburnum Bridges
85-089
Restructure presentation of budget/planning documen%s to
address program and facilities needs;
Provide more complete documentation of required changes to
the appropriated levels of funding and services;
Develop common agenda items and regularly hold dinner or
other meetings to discuss issues;
Support Board of Supervisors in their responsibilities to
balance educatio~al needs within the total County budget;
8. Work to develop an open, honest, trusting relationship; and
Assure Board of Supervisors concerning School Board's
accountability to the public.
On motion of the Board, the above listed commitments were agreed
upon.
Vote: Unanimous
Dr. Su]lins requested that the Board of Supervisors authorize the
use of $3,000,000 in frozen Literary Loan proceeds for new school
projects rather than the originally anticipated purpose of
repaying $3,000,000 in bond anticipation notes. The effect of
changing the application of the Literary Loan proceeds will
permit the School Board to issue the full $6,000,000 unissued
debt remaining from the $27,000,000 School Bond issue rather than
the reduced amount of $3,000,000. On motion of Mr. Dodd,
seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board agreed in concept to the use
of the frozen Literary Loan proceeds for new projects rather than
the repayment of bond anticipation notes subject to satisfactory
completion of administrative and legal requirements.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded bY Mr. Dodd, the Board adjourned
at 12:15 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. on August 8, 1984.
Vote: Unanimous
Rid]~ar'd L. H~adrick
County Administrator
,
iiarry G. /Daniel
Chairman~
84-443
County Administrator informs the Board 1) of the
amount requested, 2) the reason for the request, and
3) his recommendations regarding each request.
X. Medical transportation:
Maintain the present policy and make it a continued
part of the budget process.
Board agrees to back County Administrator as he
functions as the Director of Civil Defense.
XI. General Plan 2000:
This is a part of the list requested of the County
Administrator.
The projects and how they are going to be
accomplished will be taken up at the March 13 work
session.
XII. Review of the policies:
Board will review ordinances of all kinds, including
zoning, apartments, signs, subdivisions, utilities,
housing and others, update those which are needed and
implement them in the interest of consistency and
continuity.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adjourned
at 3:45 p.m. on February 22, 1985 until 9:00 a.m. on February 27,
1985.
Vote: Unanimous
ichard L. Hedrick
County Administrator
Chairmah- - U
85-091
BOARD TRAVEL AND DISTRICT EXPENDITURE POLICY
Each Board member may incur travel or conference expenses
related to County business in the 1986 calendar year in an amount
not greater than 1/5 of the amount budgeted for the Board of
Supervisors; provided, however that travel or conference expenses
for each Board member may exceed such amount if approved in
advance by the Board of Supervisors. All other requirements of
the County's "Travel Policy" shall apply to the members of the
Board of Supervisors in accordance with the terms of that
policy.
No expenditure of public funds shall be incurred for events,
meetings, tours, forums or other similar gatherings within
individual districts unless such gatherings are attended by all
Board members, are open to the public and are for a public
purpose or unless such gathering and expenditure is approved in
advance by the Board of Supervisors and such expenditure is for a
public rather than individual purpose.
CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT ON PRINTED AGENDA BUT CAN BE ADDED
IF BOARD SO DESIRES. COUNTY ATTORNEY RECOMMENDS ADOPTION.
BOARD TRAVEL AND DISTRICT EXPENDITURE POLICY
Each Board member may incur travel or conference expenses
related to County business in the 1986 calendar year in an amount
not greater than 1/5 of the amount budgeted for the Board of
Supervisors; provided, however that travel or conference expenses
for each Board member may exceed such amount if approved in
advance by the Board of Supervisors. All other requirements of
the County's "Travel Policy" shall apply to the members of the
Board of Supervisors in accordance with the terms of that
policy.
No expenditure of public funds shall be incurred for events,
meetings, tours, forums or other similar gatherings within
individual districts unless all Board members are invited and
such gatherings are open to the public and are for a public
purpose or unless such gathering and expenditure is approved in
advance by the Board of Supervisors and such expenditure is for a
public rather than individual purpose.
POLICY STATEMENT OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Chesterfield County as a rapidly urbanizing, full-service County is
entering an era which 'will demand imaginative responses by the Board of Super-
visors to problems never before faced in this County. The most important
challenge will be to continue to provide a multitude of services in an efficient
manner without repeating many of the mistakes made by older cities. The
manner of governing the County that may have worked well years~ ago when the
County was rural in character and offered few services may not be the model
we should adopt to address the challenges we face today.
It is incumbent on the Board to apply sound business manag~ement tech-
niques to public government. The experience of private industry has shown
that any large organization must establish an administration With well-defined
operational relationships and areas of responsibility in order to operate
effectively. The first step in reaching that goal is to define the relationship
between the chief executive officer and the governing body. Chesterfield
County retains the traditional County Administrator form of government which,
although by statute perhaps the least defined of all forms of County govern-
ment; nevertheless, provides great flexibility to · the governing body to
structure the responsibilities of. the County Administrator to meet particular
local desires. The extent to which we choose to delegate administrative respon-
sibilities can be as broad and as flexible a~ is necessary to meet the changing
needs of our County.
Although the Board under this form of government may act as a legislative
and administrative body, it is critical that we focus our energies on the legis-
lative and policy-making functions while leaving the administration of the County
to the County Administrator. Once those policies are in place, we should not
attempt to subvert the Uniform application of those policies by interfering in the
proper administration of Board-defined policies. Nor should any individual
member of the Board direct the County Administrator to perform a function or
take an action unless that member acts in concert with the full Board and in
compliance with general law and County regulations. For the purpose of inquiry,
we should resolve problems with the administrative services of the County solely
through the County Administrator. No member of the Board should give orders
either publicly or privately to any individual County employee. ~
Any County Administrator must recognize that he is' the Chief Adminis-
trative officer for all the affairs of the County. It is the Chief Administrator's
function to provide the Board with objective recommendations reflecting modern
management concepts so that the Board will have available all the information it
needs to make policy decisions. The Board is committed to allowing the CounTy
Administrator to properly act as administrator by respecting his responsibility
to make administrative decisions and to run the day to day affairs of the
County without interference. Importantly, the Board of Supervisors and the
County Administrator must never become competitors or adversaries so it is also
the continuing duty of the County Administrator to understand and properly
interpret policy decisions of the Board.
-2-
A County Administrator is chosen by the Board because we feel that that
person has the necessary executive and administrative abilities to provide~ the
Board with positive proposals for action~ based on sound principals of public
management. Richard L. Hedrick over the last three years has demonstrated a
broad range of behavioral skills that are necessary to make decisions in the
give-and-take of democracy. The Board of Supervisors recommits itself to
conducting the affairs of the County in the manner summarized in this statement
and expresses our continued confidence in Richard L. Hedrick as County
Administrator.
-3-
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
MEETING DATE: January 8, 1986
ITEM NUMBER; 7,
SUBJECT:
Executive Session for consultation with legal counsel regarding
legal matters pertaining to the Powhite ParkWay Agreement
pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (6).
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
See Attached.
PREPARED BY;
ATTACHMENTS: YES BI NO I"!
SIGNATURE: ,~'~./'~ ....
C OU NTY ADM I N! STRATOR
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832
(804) 748-1491
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
~embers of the Board of Supervisors
R. L. Hedrtck, County Administrator
Steven L. Micas, ~unty Attorney
December 20, 1985
Amendment to Powhite Right of Way Agreement
On November 27th, the Board approved amendments to the
Powhite Parkway Right of Way Agreement which increased the amount
available for transfer to the VDH&T from $I$,000,000 to $22,000,000.
The $22,000,000 represents the total amount available from the County
ibr use by VDH&T to construct Powhite Parkway. One of the pro-
posed contract revisions creates a ~)mmttment by VDH&T to continue
right of way acquisition even if the total cost exceeds the $22,000,000
available from the County. VDH&T further agTeed that any costs
incurred in excess of $~2,000,000 for right of way acquisition ulti-
mately would be included as part of the total project cost.
VDH&T through the Attorney General's office has now raised
legal objections to those two provision~ arguing:
1. That the VDii&T cannot agree to acquire all right of way
regardless of cost because they have no appropriation to purchase
right of way beyond that already committed ($22,000,000); and
2. That VDH&T cannot agree to transfer right of way costs in
excess of $22,000,000 to the project c~ost because such an additional
amount could impact the 9(c) certification of the State revenue bonds°
Although the elimination of those two provisions from the latest
drafts weakens the certainty that VDH&T will follow their verbal
commitn'~ent, I believe the Attorney General's legal objections are
sound. Accordingly, unless an individual Board member objects, the
County Administrator will execute the revised draft that eliminates the
Member of the Board of Supervisors
R. L. Hedrick
December 20, 1985
Page 2
two provisions objected to by the Attorney ~eneral's office (see
attached draft). Other commitments to transfer $2~000,000 of right of
way costs to construction costs and to permit use of unexpended
funds at the end of construction for projects related to Powhite
Parkway (soundwalls, etc.) remain in the draft. With the execution
of this agreement, VDH&T will continue acquiring right of way until
they reach the $22,000,000 cap; thereafter the County and VDH&T
will have to identify alternative methods for funding right of way
acquisition.
SLM/cdll-85C13
Attachment
bcc: Jeffrey B. Muzzy
R. J. McCracken
AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF
RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE POWHITE PARKWAY
EXTENSION BY THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 1985, between
the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia ("County"), and the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION ("VDH&T").
WHEREAS, the location and design for the Powhite Parkway extension in
Chesterfield County have been approved by the State Highway and Transporta-
tion Commission after duly-held public hearings; and
WHEREAS, the 1984 General Assembly Section 9(c) State Revenue bonds
backed by the full faith of credit of the Commonwealth approved by Chapter 89
(1984) Acts of Assembly approved the issuance of Commonwealth of Virginia
Transportation Facilities Bonds not exceeding $70,000,000 for the construction
of Powhite Parkway Extension Toll road and on June 12, 1984 the voters of
Chesterfield approved the issuance of $22,000,000 in general obligation bonds to
contribute toward such road; and
WHEREAS, the County is desirous of expediting the completion of such
road by guaranteeing to VDH&T the cost of acquiring necessary right of way
for such road; and
WHEREAS, the VDH&T is interested in facilitating the completion of Powhite
Parkway Extension; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority set forth in §33.1-75.2 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, Chapter 89 (1984) Acts of Assembly, the parties
are entering into an agreement to finance the acquisition of right of way; and
WHEREAS, the VDH&T and the County in January, 1984, entered into a
right of way agreement, that was revised in June, 1985; and
WHEREAS, right of way costs have exceeded $18,000,000 and the existing
agreement must be amended to increase the amount available for right of way
costs.
WITNESSETH :
That in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. Both parties agree that the $22,000,000 in County General Obligation
bonds is an approved source of funding for this project and that the cost of
right of way expended pursuant to this agreement will be financed through the
proceeds of such borrowing.
2. VDH&T, using its employees, consultants and attorneys, agrees to
continue acquiring right of way necessary to construct Powhite Parkway Exten-
sion from the existing terminus of the RMA project in Richmond in a coordinated
manner so as to facilitate construction of that portion of the Parkway extending
westwardly from its terminus with the existing Powhite Parkway. Such efforts
shall include all necessary relocation and assistance payments called for under
§25-235, et. seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Such efforts
shall include all needed work to relocate or to schedule for relocation existing
-2-
utility facilities that may be needed to be moved prior to construction. The
VDH&T agrees to consult with the County in order to insure that the schedule
of acquisition and the particular parcels to be acquired best suits the needs of
the County and VDH&T. The acquisition of such right of way shall be
scheduled in such a way as to facilitate early construction of such project as
soon as the financing package for the construction cost has been arranged.
3. Such right of way shall be acquired in the name of the Common-
wealth, provided, however, that the VDH&T agrees to convey such right of way
acquired pursuant to this agreement or its predecessor agreement to the County
at no cost if ibr any reason construction of such road has not commenced by
January 1, 1988. The parties shall agree at that time on a method to dispose
of real property for which VDH&T has only defensible title after receiving a
written request from the County. The VDH&T agrees to consult with the
County to develop a mutually agreeable reporting system by which the VDH&T
itemizes monthly all charges against the County's right of way account and all
parcels acquired in the Commonwealth's name.
4. The County agrees to pay to the VDH&T, or provide payment from an
alternate source, all costs or expenses arising out of the acquisition of such
right of way on a monthly basis, as funds are expended by VDH&T in an
amount not to exceed 22 million dollars ($22,000,000).
5. VDH&T agrees to transfer approximately $2,000,000 of utility relo-
cation costs from right of way expenses to construction costs, an~I--V{H4~-T
a gi~es--t~---'acq~i-re- -~H - i'q~gh,~ - ~f--w~y--in --a-n- -e~ p~i~i, ok~_ fa.,~hie.n. _ e v~ ~_ ~ _~
-3- U° t
ae q,~i si-t-ion- cos{ s- wi H- ~e--i neku ded--es--p-a~- ~f- { he- ~ot-&~ ~~- e o s ~.
$. The parties recognize that total project costs may not be determinable
at the time the construction contracts are received by the VDH&T including the
total cost of certain right of way acquisitions. VDH&T agrees that it will
expeditiously proceed to acquire right of way and bill the County for such
right of way costs so as to attempt to limit such unknown right of way costs
prior to execution of the construction contract. Any funds unexpended at the
completion of construction of the project will be available to the County for
projects related to the Powhite Parkway.
7. Nothing herein shall be construed as creating any personal liability on
the part of any officer or agent of the parties; nor shall it be construed as
giving any rights or benefits hereunder to anyone other than the parties to
this Agreement.
8. This agreement repeals and supercedes all previous written agree-
ments or oral understandings relating to the acquisition of right of way neces-
sary to complete Powhite Parkway Extension and this agreement represents the
sole document regulating the payment of right of way costs by the County to
the VDH&T.
9. This agreement may be cancelled by either party upon fourteen (14)
days written notice, provided, however, that the County will reimburse the
VDH&T for all expenses incurred up to the date of cancellation, or for which
VDH&T may become liable for as a result of any Certificates described in
§33.1-131 of the Code of Virginia which have been filed or options exercised,
but on which payments had not been made.
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA
Approved as to form:
By:
County Administrator
Steven L. Micas
County Attorney
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND
TRANSPORTATION
By:
Title:
Approved as to form:
Assistant Attorney General
85C12
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE:
SUB,~I~CT:
January 8, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
18. A.
Membership - Crater Planning District Commission
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Hilda Trains, Chairman, and Denny Morris, Executive Direc-
tor, of the Crater Planning District Commission, will be present
to address the Board regarding Chesterfield's official membership
in the Crater Planning District Commission (CPDC).
The process for official membership began with the 1985 General
Assembly action allowing Chesterfield's dual Planning District
Commission's membership. With the legislation becoming effective
this summer, the necessary actions by the CPDC have now been
completed and the Commission's charter has been officially
changed and unanimously accepted by the nine member
jurisdictions. At this meeting the Board will be asked to
vote to also accept the amended charter and to officially become
a full member.
For the purpose of determining the number of allowed voting
members and the fiscal contribution, the proposed limits of
Chesterfield County to be included in the CPDC roughly follows
the current portion
of Chesterfield included in t/~ Tri-Cities
south of a line from ~~}attox River
PREPARED
MPO, being that area
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO r't
Assistant County Administrator
for Development
SIGNATURE: ~ -~ ....
COUNTY ADMI N! STRATOR
Crater Planning District Commission
Page Two
along Route 10 to the Courthouse area, then following Courthouse
Road to Route 360. The subject area represents 35,000+ people
which permits three (3) voting members. The CPDC membership
fee of $.55 per capita equates to a membership fee of $19,250
per year. This year since only one-half of the fiscal year
remains, the contribution will total $9,625. Member compensation
for the remaining portion of the year will total $3600. Inasmuch
as the details of Chesterfield's membership were not resolved
at budget time, no monies were appropriated.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervi-
sors approve the proposed charter and full membership in the
Crater Planning District Commission. In addition, staff
recommends $13,225 be appropriated from the General Fund
Contingency and that the County Administrator be authorized
to sign a contract setting forth these and other pertinent
details as relate to full membership in the CPDC. A request
for appointments will be placed on the Board's January 22,
1986 agenda.
pb
Attachment
I. CHARTER
CHARTER AGREEMENT OF THE
CRATER PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION
This Charter Agreement to organize a Planning District Com-
mission made this 1st day of May 1970, by and between the undersigned
governmental subdivisions as authorized by the ~irginia Area Development
Act (Title 15.1, Chapter 34, Sections 15.1-1400, et seq., Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended).
NOW THEREFORE it is agreed that:
Section 1.
Section 2.
Section 3.
ARTICLE I
Name, Location, Authority, Purpose
The name of this organization shall be the Crater Planning
District Commission, hereinafter called the "COMMISSION".
The principal office ~f the COMMISSION shall be in the
area of Petersburg, ¥irginia. The location of the principal
office may be changed by the concurrence of a majority of
theCOMMISSION members present at a regular meeting,
provided that the cle?k of the governing body of each
member governmental subdivision has been notified of the
contemplated relocation in writing at least thirty (30)
days before such meeting.
The COMMISSION shall be a public body corporate and
politic with all the powers and duties, granted to it by
the Virginia Area Development Act.
Section 4.
The purpose of the COMMISSION shall be to promote the
orderly and efficient development of the physical, social
and economic elements of the Planning District by planning,
and encouraging and assisting governmental subdivisions to
plan for the future.
Section 1.
ARTICLE II
Membership
(B) Each county, city and town of more than 3,500 population
which is a party to this Charter Agreement shall have at
least two representatives on the COMMISSION, who shall
be appointed by the respective governing bodies of the
participating governmental subdivisions. At least a
majority of the members of the COMMISSION shall be elected
officials of the. governing bodies, of the governmental
subdivisions within the district, and the remaining members
shall be qualified voters and residents of the district
who hold no office elected by the people. An alternate may
serve in lieu of one of the elected of each of the governing
bodies of the participating governmental subdivisions.
(~ A town of 3,500 or less population may petition the
COMMISSION to be represented thereon. The COMMISSION may,
in its discretion, grant representation to such town by
a majority vote of the members of the COMMISSION.
Section 2.
Section 3.
Section 4.
(c) Chesterfield County may become a member of the Crater
Planning District upon such terms and conditions as may
be mutually agreed upon by the board of supervisors of
said county and the COMMISSION. (_Amended - November-
December, 1985)
Governmental subdivisions which are parties to this
Charter Agreement shall appoint members to the COMMISSION
on the following basis: Each governmental subdivision
shall have at least two (2) ~embers. First appointment
shall be an elected official; second appointment shall be
an appointed qualified voter and resident of the political
subdivision who holds no office elected by the people.
In addition to the minimum representation of two (2)
members on the COMMISSION, the governing body of each
participating governmental subdivision having a population
of more than 20,000 persons shall be entitled to appoint
one additional memberfor each 20,000 population (or
fraction thereof) over 20,000, provided, however, that
the total representation of any-participating subdivision
~nay not exceed fou-r members. (~mended - November-December,
1985)
Vacancies on the COMMISSION shall be filled for the
unexpired term in the same ~anner as the original appointment
was made.
Any member of the COMMISSION shall be eligible for reappointment
but may be removed for cause by the governing body which
appointed him.
Section 1.
Section 2.
ARTICLE III
Terms of Office and Voting Rights
The terms of office of the COMMISSION members who are
also members of governing bodies shall be coincident with
their elected terms of office or such shorter term as
their governing bodies shall determine. The terms of
office of the citizen members shall be four (4) years.
Each member of the COMMISSION shall have one equal vote
in all matters before the COMMISSION.
Section 1.
Section 2.
Section 3.
Section 4.
ARTICLE I~7
Officers
Officers of the COMMISSION shall consist of a Chairman,
~ice-Chairman, and Treasurer who shall be elected by the
membership of the COMMISSION.
The Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Treasurer shall be
elected for terms of one year or until their successors
a~e elected.
COMMISSION officers shall be eligible for reelection.
The COMMISSION shall appoint an Executive Director who
shall be an employee of the COMMISSION and shall serve at
the pleasUre of a'majority o__f themembership. The Executive
Director shall also serve as Secretary. In the absence
of an Executive Director, the COMMISSION shall elect a
temporary Secretary..
Section 1.
Section 2.
ARTICLE V
Addition or Withdrawal of Members
Any governmental subdivision within Planning District
Number 19 which is not a party to this Charter Agreement
at the effective date thereof may thereafter join the
COMMISSION provided that such governmental subdivision is
eligible for membership and that it adopts and executes
this, Agreement.
Any governmental subdivision may withdraw from the COMMISSION
by, submitting to the COMMISSION in writing, at least 90
day's before the end of the COMMISSION'S then current
lis, ual year, a notice of intent to withdraw. Such withdrawal
shall not Become effective until the COMMISSION'S fiscal
year has ended.
Section 1.
Section 2.
ARTICLE VI
Appointment of an Executive Committe~ and
Adoption of By-Laws
The COMMISSION may designate an Executive Committee and
delegate,to it such powers as the COMMISSIONmay determine,
P~ovided~that these powers are not inconsistent with
prov£aions of the Virginia Area Development Act.
The COMMISSION may adopt Ry-Laws and such other rules as it
deems necessary to govern its operations.
Section 1.
Section 2.
ARTICLE VII
Meetings
The coMMIssION shall hold regular meetings quarterly or
as called from time to time by the Chairman.
Meetings of the COMMISSION shall be open to the public,
however, the COMMISSION may hold executive meetings.
Section 1.
ARTICLE VIII
Amendments
This Charter Agreement ,may' be amended, supplemented or
superseded only by concurring resolutions from any combination
of member governmental subdivisions whose aR~re~ate
representation of the COMMISSION constitutes ~ quorum.
Ail proposed amendments shall be submitted to the COMMISSION
for its review and comment to the member governmental
subdivisions.
Section 1.
ARTICLE IX
Date of Organization
The organization of the Crater Planning District Commission
shall be effective on the 1st day of July 1970, or at
such time after this date when the Charter Agreememt has
beenadopted and signed by that governmental subdivision
whose population when added to the aggregate population
of those who have already adopted and signed the Charter
Agreement embraces the Majority of the population within
Planning District Number 1~.
The undersigned do hereby execute this Charter on behalf of their respective
localities, which localities have duly approved adoption o2 the Charter,
as amended, and the undersigned are empowered to execute same onbehalf
of their respective localities.
Chesterfield County
City of Hopewell
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Hilda M. Traina
F~yor
City of Colonial Heights
James B. McNeer
Mayor
City of Petersburg
Florence S. Farley
Mayo r
Dinwiddie County
Prince George County
Milton I. Hargrave, Jr.
'Chairman, Board of Supervisors
E. W. Burrow
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
City o{ Emporia
Surly County
William H. Ligon
Mayor
M, Sherlock Holmes
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Greensville County
Sussex County
Peggy R. Wiley
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
J. F. Newsome, Jr.
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE' January 8, 1986
18. H. 1.
ITEM NUMBER;
SUBJECT:
Acceptance of Check from Virginia Water Project
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
BACKGROUND
On behalf of the Virginia Water Project, an official from the Richmond
Community Action Program would like to present a check to the County for
$3,900. This sum is for connection fee assistance for the thirteen
families who will have the opportunity to connect to a planned water
line extension.
On August 22, 1984, the Board of Supervisors authorized the design and
construction of a water system for the Branders Bridge/Bradley's Bridge
area, appropriated funds for this project and authorized Staff to survey
the area residents for eligibility for funds from the Virginia. Water
Project to assist in connection fee payments and service lateral con-
struction fees. Thirteen families were found to be eligible for this
assistance. The Virginia Water Project was able to pay $300 toward the
$500 connection fee for these thirteen families. Planning Staff has
ATTACHMENTS: YES I-I NO []
James P, Zook
Director of Planning
SIGNATURE: _.
COUNTY ADMIN--] STRATOR
/-
Acceptance of Check from Virginia Water Project
December 19, 1985
Page 2
provided assistance along with Richmond Community Action Program Staff
in explaining the program to area residents and encouraging
participation by eligible residents.
RECOMMENDATION
Board of Supervisors accept the check from the Virginia Water Project.
AG1D86/dem
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
January 8, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
15.
The Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Chesterfield County,
Virginia
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Mr. David Hippchen, Chairman of The Spiritual Assembly of Baha'is
of Chesterfield County, Virginia is here to make a presentation to
the Board of Supervisors.
ATTACHMENTS: YES El NO r"l
SIGNATURE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
The Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is
of Chesterfield County, Virginia
December 20, 1985
Mr. Pete Stith
Executive Assistant County Administrator
P. O. Box ~0
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear Mr. Stith:
Following up our telephone conversation of Thursday, December 19, 1985,
Enclosed is a copy of the World Peace Message contained in the presentation
copy that the Local Spiritual Assembly of Chesterfield County would like to
present to the Board of Supervisors.
The Baha'i Faith has been in existence since 1844 and was introduced to his
country in 1893. There are Local Spiritual Assemblies in the Tri-Community area
in Richmond, Henrico County and Chesterfield County. Since the inception of the
Baha'i Faith, world unity has been one of the basic tenants of the Faith. The
world body, The Universal House of Justice, has prepared the attached World Peace
Message. Leaders of thought throught the world are being presented copies of
the message during this Year of Peace as designed by the United Nations. Thus far
the Secretary General of the UN on November 20, President Ronald Reagan on
December 10 and 50 heads of state have received this message. A small delegation
would like to present the Board of Supervisors~ as leaders in the Chesterfield
Co~mty Community, a copy of this message.
As mentioned, the next supervisors meeting is January 8, 1986. The Local
Spiritual Assembly of Chesterfield County looks forward to meeting with the
Board of Supervisors at their convenieuce and time of their choosing.
Sincerely,
LSA OF CHESTERFIELD C~UNTY
Hippc~en
Corresponding Secretary
Phone ~20-4037 (Home)
Phone 323-2626 (Office)
jhh
Enclosure
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
January 8, 1985
ITEM NUMBER',
Youth Services Appointment
16. A. 1.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
At the last meeting of the Board of Supervisors, Ms. Sarah
Gregory from the Bermuda District, was nominated for the
remaining vacancy on the Youth Services Commission.
The Board should appoint Ms. Gregory for a three year term.
ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO ~
PREPARED BY
M.D."Pete" Stith
SIGNATURE:
~~~ISTRATOR
CHESTFRFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF' SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE' January 8, 1986
SUB4ECT: Appointments
COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD
ITEM NUMBER;
16. A. 2.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
The Board nominated Mrs. Carrie Rogers of Midlothian District,
Mr. Peter Ward of Midlothian District, Mr. Stephen Martin of Bermuda
District, and Mr. Roger Haybeck of Bermuda District to the Community
Services Board. Term of office is effective immediately and their
terms will expire as follows:
Mrs. Carrie Rogers' term ends 12/31/88.
Mr. Peter Ward's term ends 12/31/87.
Mr. Stephen Martin's term ends 12/31/88.
Mr. Roger .Haybeck"s term ends 12/31/88.
Formal appointment should be made at this time.
Also, Mr. Harold B. Simmons has resigned from the Community Services
Board representing Dale District. The Board should formally accept
his resignation and nominate a replacement at %his time. See attached
letter.
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO ~
SIGNATURE:
PREPARED BY;
~Y ADM I N ! STRATOR
December 11, 1985
Harold B. Simmons
P.O. Box 34009
Richmond, Va. 23234
Harry Daniel
Supervisor, Dale District
Chesterfield County
P.O. Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear Harry
Please accept my resignation from the Chesterfield County Community
Services Board effective January 1, 1986. This is necessary as a
result of our decision to relocate outside Chesterfield County for the
immediate future.
Thank you for making it possible for me to be involved in this very
inportant county function during the past several years.
SINCERELY/
Harold B. Simmons
COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD
Mrs. Yvette B. Ridley, Chairman
20606 Third Avenue
Ettrick, VA 23803
Term Expires: 12/86
Matoaca District
526-5269
Dr. W. Clinton Pettus, Ph.D, Vice-Chairman
P. 0. Box 555
Virginia State University
Petersburg, Virginia 23803
Term Expires: 12/88
Matoaca District
520-6411 Business
520-1262 Home
Mr. Richard Spencer
]4301 Aldengate Road
Midlothian, VA 23113
Term Expires: 12/88
Midlothian District
281-3645 Business
794-8968 Home
Mrs. Mary Jo Lux (Robert)
9929 Providence Road
Richmond, Virginia 23236
Term Expires: 12/88
Clover Hill District
276-1776 Home
Mrs. Carrie Rogers
11800 Winfore Drive
Midlothian, VA 23113
Term Expires: 12/85
Midlothian District
794-5829 Home
Mr. John R. Grundy
1003 Point of Rocks Road
Chester, VA 23831
Term Expires: 12/88
Bermuda District
233-8351 Business
458-2083 Home
43
Mr. Stephen Martin
3805 Cutshaw Avenue
Suite 500
Richmond, Virginia
Term Expires: 12/85
Bermuda District
355-5433
23230
Rev. Malcom Hutton
4500 Scotlow Circle
Richmond, VA 23234
Term Expires: 12/86
Dale District
275-7807 Business
271-4162 Home
Mr. Richard Gayle, Secretary
220 Stanmore Road
Richmond, Virginia 23225
Term Expires: 12/85
Clover Hill District
272-3277 Home
798-6654 Business
Mr. Harold Simmons
3700 Echoway Road
Richmond, Virginia 23234
Term Expires: 12/86
Dale District
281-3816 Business
271-0363 Home
EX-OFFICIO BOARD MEMBERS
Ms. Pat Borinski
12800 Donegal Drive
Chesterfield, Va. 23832
786-3434 Business
790-1390 Home
Ms. Pam Russell
6262 Verditt Court
Chesterfield, Va. 23832
748-4721 Home
Mr. Peter Ward
14341Aldengate
Midlothian, VA
23113
44
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
January 8, 1986
MEETING DATE:
ITEM NUMBER:_
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS
Appeals Panel Pursuant to the Virginia Set-Off Debt Collection Act
16. A. 3.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
The Board nominated Mr. James Harris, Mr. Sam West and Mrs. Mary L. Lyle
to the Appeals Panel for the Virginia Set-Off Debt Collection Act.
The appointments would be effective immediately and the appointees would
serve at the pleasure of the Board.
PREPARED BY;
ATTACHMENTS: YES 1'3 NO ~
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMI NISTRATOR
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF' SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE'
SUBJECT:
January 8, ~986 ITEM NUMBER; 16. B.
Reconsideration of a Request from Residents in Chestnut
Hills, Sections A & B, for Public Sewer Service
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Staff recommends that a portion of the surveyed area be
provided with public sewer service and the contracts for the
remaining portion be voided and returned.
As a result of a petition, the Board authorized the
Utilities Department to conduct a survey to determine the number
of residents that would connect to the public sewer system, only
32% (31 of 98) of the residents signed and returned contracts
agreeing to connect to the public sewer system. On November 13,
1985, this matter was presented to the Board of Supervisors and
the matter was deferred for sixty (60) days. Staff has studied
the results of-the overall survey (see Exhibit A) in more detail
and find that a portion of the surveyed area does have 70% (21 of
30) of the residents that have signed and returned contracts
agreeing to connect to the public sewer system. Staff has
estimated the cost to extend sewer to the thirty (30) residents
to be approximately $250,000.00.
PREPARED BY;_~/~-'~ ~
ATTACHMENTS: YES '~ NO []
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADM I NI STRATOR
January 8, 1985
Page 2
Staff recommends that the Utilities Department be authorized
to design and construct sewer lines to the thirty (30) residents
as outlined on Exhibit B and that $250,000.00 be transferred from
5P-5835-900R (CIP Sewer Extensions) to 5P-5835-602E. Staff
further recommends that the contracts within the remainder of the
survey area be cancelled due to poor response and that the
contracts be voided and returned to the property owners.
District: Clover Hill
Recommend Approval
~D
ILL,
ROVIDENCE
GRE'GLYNN!
ESO. 7*6----.
t?
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE; January 8, 1986
ITEM NUMBER: ]7_ A.
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to Sections 21-80,
21-81, 21-150, and 21-151 Relative to Conditional Uses for
Public and Private Utility Uses
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
During consideration of the substantial accord request by Plantation
Pipeline Company, it was noted that neither the Zoning nor Subdivision
Ordinance regulates the installation of sub-surface pipelines. To
address the concerns raised by the public and the Board over potential
safety considerations, the attached Zoning Ordinance Amendment was.
prepared which will require Conditional Use approval to construct such a
facility. Through this process, setbacks, buffers, and other land use
compatibility issues can be addressed by appropriate conditions.
Currently, other forms of utility uses such as pump stations are con-
sidered by the Board of Zoning Appeals as Special Exceptions. Under the
proposed Ordinance Amendments, those uses would now also be considered
by the Board of Supervisors as Conditional Uses.
RECOMMENDATION
On November 19, 1985, the Planning Commission considered the attached
Amendment at a public hearing and recommended that the Board adopt this
Ordinance. Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance Amendment as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
AG1D74/dem
ATTACHMENTS: YES BI NO 1'3
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMI NISTRATOR
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD,
1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 21-80,
21-81, 21-150 and 21-151 RELATING TO
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITY USE
AS CONDITIONAL USES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County:
(1) That Section 21-80 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield,
Virginia, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted as follows:
Sec. 21-80. Same -- Conditional Uses.
The following uses may be allowed by conditional use subject to the
provisions of section 21-34:
o o o
(p) Public and private utility uses, so long as they require a struc-
ture, to include all water, sewer, solid waste disposal, electric, gas,
communications, and natural gas, liquified petroleum gas (LPG) and petroleum
products transmissions facilities; in addition, natural gas, liquified petro-
leum gas, and petroleum products transmission facilities above or below the
ground. The following utility uses shall be permitted without obtaining a
conditional use: (1) public water and sewer lines and appurtenances; (2)
service lines to individual users, (3) cables, wires or pipes above or below
ground when such uses are located in easements on public roads, or in public
roads.
(2) That Section 21-81 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield,
Virginia, 1978 as amended, is amended and reenacted as follows:
Sec. 21-81. Same -- Special exceptions.
The following uses may be allowed by special exception, subject to the
provisions of section 21-15:
o o o
ORDNV223/dem
0
d~
co
RICHMOND NE~SPAPERS~ INC.
THE RICHMOND NEWS LEADER
was published in The ~ichmo~d News Leader~ a new pub-
l~shed ~n ~he City of~chmond, $~a*e of V~r~nia. ~
The firsg insertion being ~ven ............. P.%$. 2 5 a 1 9 8 5
County of Chesterfield
Box ¥0
Ghester£ield VA 25832
PETERSBURG. VA 2 71
Take Notice - i-:ublic & Fri~&%e
Amendment o£ the i~]as%ern A~ea
DATES OF PU~L~CATIOF~ Land Use & Transpo~ation
~ -~- Dec 24~ Jan. ~
~, ? ~£0
t1.0 _inches~_~ _., Cperlnch
Miller, Publisher
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
k.
MEETING DATE; January 8, 1986 ITEM NUMBER: 17. B.
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing on a Technical Amendment to the Eastern Area
Plan
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
BACKGROUND
On November 26, 1985, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a
technical amendment to the Eastern Area Plan which will specify recom-
mended rights of way for area roads and bring that Plan into compliance
with other adopted plans. The amendment is more of a housekeeping
measure and does not represent an initiative based on further study of
the Plan recommendations. Once adopted the Plan would more clearly
define the County's right of way needs in eastern Chesterfield. The
change would revise the legend on the adopted Land Use and Transporta-
tion Map in the Eastern Area. The objectives of this clarification are:
1. Administrative clarification for the development review
process by focusing on rights of way widths.
To make the names of the classifications consistent with those
having particular requirements in the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances.
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO i"1
PREPARED BY;~~J~~
Jame~ P. Zook
DireCtor of Planning
SIGNATURE .' ....
COUNTY ADMI N~TRATOR
/-
Subject: Public Hearing on a Technical Amendment to the Eastern Area
Plan
January 8, 1986
Page 2
To make the classifications consistent with those in other
adopted Area Plans.
The old and new legends are as follows:
OLD LEGEND FOR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
Limit Access
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
NEW LEGEND
Limited Access
Major Arterial
Major Arterial
Collector
200 feet right of way
120 - 200 feet right of way
90 feet right of way
70 feet right of way
The recommended revised Plan Map and a memorandum from the Planning
Commission are attached.
In discussing this clarification of right of way designations within the
Eastern Area Plan, the Planning Commission expressed concern about the
need for creating a Route 288/I-295 connector in this area of the
County. In addition, the Planning Commission recently deferred a
request for zoning which would potentially conflict with a 288/I-295
connector. The Planning Commission has endorsed and forwarded the
technical amendment to the Eastern Area Plan to the Board with a request
that an Eastern Area Land Use and Transportation Plan be developed for
the area north of Route 10. This plan would assess the need for the
connector, revise the transportation plan, and suggest appropriate
changes to the land use plan. Staff will evaluate the best way to
address the Planning Commission's request and will have a recommendation
for the Board of Supervisors to consider at a subsequent meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
The Board of Supervisors, after public hearing adopt the technical
revision of the transportation facility classifications on the Eastern
Area Plan Map.
Attachment
AG1D101/dem
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
G.H. APPLEGATE, CHAIRMAN
CI,.OV~R NM.I. ol~rRtCT
dES.SE d. MAYES~VICE: CHAI~
MAYO&CA
HARRY G. DANIEL
DALE DI~T'RtCT
· R. GARLANO
~ERMUD& DISTRICT
JOAN GIROflE
M IOLOTHIAN D~'TRICT
CHESTER FIELD COUNTY
P.O. BOX 40
CHESTERFIELD,VIRGINIA 25832
RICHARD L. HEDRICK
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
County Planning Commission~~
Chesterfield
November 26, 1985
Eastern Area Plan Amendment
The attached Eastern Area Plan Amendment would change the land use and
transportation map for this area to include recommended rights of way for area
roads and bring that plan into compliance with other adopted plans. In
considering this amendment, the Planning Commission was concerned that the
present Eastern Area Plan does not examine the possible connection of Route
288 to Interstate 295 as has been recommended in the Central Area Plan. The
Commission feels that this is a critical issue which should be addressed. The
Planning Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the Eastern
Area Plan Amendment relative to the {ight of way recommendations and that the
Board of Supervisors direct Staff to undertake ia detail land use and
transportation study Of the area north of Route 10 between Interstate 95 and
Interstate 295 to determine if, and how, Route 288 can be connected to
Interstate 295 and to preserve the industrial development opportunity that
such a connection would create.
BD1NV203/rgb ,
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE' January 8, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
17. C.
SUBJECT: Request for thr6ugh truck traffic restriction on
Pocoshock Boulevard
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Mr. Applegate has received a request from the Surrywood Civic
Association to restrict through truck traffic on Pocoshock Boulevard
(Route 733) between Hull Street Road (Route 360) and Elkhardt Road
(Route 663). Pocoshock Boulevard serves as a collector road for the
area and carries approximately 5000 vehicles per day. The volume of
through truck traffic has not yet been determined.
The development adjacent to Pocoshock is predominately residential.
If a restriction were imposed, the recommended alternate route
for through trucks would be Hull Street Road to Turner Road to
Elkhardt Road. Turner Road is currently scheduled to widened to
four lanes in 1987 and would provide a much safer route for through
truck traffic. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the
restriction.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution
requesting the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
to restrict through truck traffic on Pocoshock Boulevard.
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO []
PREPARED BY: ~j.~~
Director
SIGNATURE:
'~3 0 U N TY A~'-~'DI~flltiST R AT OR
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY: At the
regular meeting of the Board
of Supervisors held at the
Courthouse on January 8, 1986
at 7:00 p.m.
WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
has received requests from citizens to restrict through truck
traffic on Pocoshock Boulevard (Route 733) between Hull Street
Road (Route 360) and Elkhardt Road (Route 663) by any truck
or truck and trailer or semi-trailer combination except pickup
or panel trucks; and
WHEREAS, the Board has conducted a public hearing on the
question.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
to restrict through truck traffic on Pocoshock Boulevard from
Hull Street Road to Elkhardt Road.
Vote:
Certified By:
Joan S. Dolezal, Deputy Clerk
to the Board of Supervisors
'TOWN DR
MUSTANG
DR
JNIARTHAVEN
OR
IENNINGTON
LA
IIIIIIIlII
P~blisher o£
THE RICHMOND NEWS LEADER
Jan 1 ~ 1986
.....................................
lished in the C~W of F{~chmoa d~ State of Virg/aia.
Dec 25, 1985 Jan l, 19~L
Dec 25, 1985
Notary PubJt~c
State of Virginia, C~ty of Rich mend:
T~TLE
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
!4,EF_T lNG DATE
SUBJECT:
January 08, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
1.R. 'R. 1..
Budget Amendment, Economic Development
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OFINFORMATION:
The County's Economic Development Office has requested additional
funding for the operation of that office.
Action Required:
Transfer $210,600 from the General Fund Balance to Economic
Development.
ATTACHMENTS: YES FI NO []
SIGNATURE:
NIYRATOR
BOA..RO OF SUII~RVISORS
G.H. APPLEGATE, CHAIRMAN
JESSE J. MAYES,VICE CHAIRMAN
E4d~RY G. D4MEL
MI~
CHESTER FIELD COUNTY
P.O. BOX 40
CHESTERFIELD,VIRGINIA 23852
COgJ~TY
RICHARD L. HEDRICK
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Chesterfield Co un ty Boar d/~~~, rs
Stanley R. Balderson, ~.,,~Dir~ctor
Department of Econo~j~ Development
./
December 19, 1985
SUBJECT: Economic Development Program Implementation
Each Board member has reviewed Economic Development's proposed program
for revitalization of Chesterfield's effort in this area. It was agreed
that the program is a sound, pro-active approach to assuring a healthy
Chesterfield economy. Further, the members of the Board indicated
that the resources necessary to advance the program were justified and
should be provided.
To these ends, the January 8, 1986 meeting agenda contains a $210,600
Economic Development Department budget adjustment item. The attached
chart and calendar capsulize the program presented. The schedule
affecting implementation of the strategies is predicated on resources
and time required to achieve the objectives.
cc: Richard L. Hedrick
County Administrator
Jeffrey B. Muzzy, Assistant County
Administrator for Community Development
0 ~ '~ '~ -~ -~ '
~ 0 I C ~ 0 0 g I~0/01011 0 I g ,, 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ O0 OC O0 0 C 0/0101000 0 ~ O0 0
o o I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~0 0 0 0 0 I I I 0
///
~: ooooo o o occo o cooo o coo o co o o
~ ~ ',
~ 0 0
~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o
~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~0 C 0 0 0 C,O C C 0 0 00I 0 0 ~ 0 0 0
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE: January R,. ~9.R~___ ITEM NUMBER: 18. B. 2.
SUB41~CT: Elderly and Handicapped Transportation Service
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: ~ '
We are requesting permission for the County to collaborate
with the private sector in providing essential transportation
services to our Elderly and Handicapped citizens who have
no other means of transportation.
BACKGROUND
You will recall that the Board of Supervisors appropriated
$35,000 in last fiscal year's budget for transportation of
the handicapped. When this appropriation was made, we assumed
that we would be able to purchase service from current
providers. Unfortunately, they are stretched to the limits
of their capacity and could not provide additional service
to the County. With the assistance of the Social Services
Board, we explored every plausible option to no avail.
ATTACHMENTS: YES I-1 NO ~!
'~ Robert'L~. Ma-~de~
Assistant County Administrator
Human Services
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMI NISTRATOR
P~ge 2
We finally began working with other relevant agencies in
the metropolitan area having similar difficulties. These
agencies included the United Way, Red Cross, Area Agency
on Aging, Henrico County, the City of Richmond, Spectran
and others. Pending the results of this joint effort, the
Board carried over the $35,000 appropriated for FY '85 and
appropriated an additional $35,000 for FY '86.
During the last eighteen months, in conjunction with this
group of representatives, we have researched the literature
on successful models for providing low cost transportation
services for special populations. Thereafter, various
committee members visited the most successful programs for
a first-hand look at alternative models providing such service.
Finally, through contributions from participating agencies,
a consultant was hired to make specific recommendations on
how we should address the problem in this area.
CONSULTANT'S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. It is recommended that the Greater Richmond Specialized
Transportation Consortium continue in existence.
2. It is recommended that the Greater Richmond Specialized
Transportation Consortium employ a Specialized Transpor-
tation Coordinator.
3. It is recommended that a second major specialized
transportation provider be created and promoted in the
Greater Richmond area.
4. It is recommended that the second major specialized
transportation provider be the Virginia Capital Chapter,
American Red Cross.
5. It is recommended that SPECTRAN concentrate its service
provision in the City of Richmond and Henrico County
for the short term (24 to 36 months); the Virginia Capital
Chapter, American Red Cross should concentrate its service
provision in the counties of Chesterfield and Hanover
for the short term (24 to 36 months).
6. It is recommended that the Virginia Capital Chapter,
American Red Cross initiate specialized transportation
services first in Chesterfield County and then expand
to Hanover County.
7. It is recommended that the contract between the Greater
Richmond Transit Company and SPECTRAN be modified to
provide SPECTRAN with more flexibility to market its
services to other consumers.
8. It is recommended that SPECTRAN broaden its funding
base by decreasing reliance upon the Greater Richmond
Transit Company for operating revenues.
9. It is recommended that the Capital Area Agency on Aging
and the United Way of Greater Richmond revise their
policies and procedures to actively promote and support
the two major specialized transportation providers:
SPECTRAN and the Virginia Capital Chapter, American
Red Cross.
Page 3 A ~
10. It is recommended that community consumers (i.e., funders)
of specialized transportation services in the greater
Richmond area revise their funding approaches so that
funds for capital and operating expenses for both SPECTRAN
and the Virginia Capital Chapter, American Red Cross
can be maximized.
11. It is recommended that a specialized transportation
district be created covering the greater Richmond area
in order to overcome multi-jurisdictional funding and
service delivery problems.
Based upon the work of the Task Force and the Consultant's
recommendations as well as the urgings of the Task Force
Members, the Capital Chapter of the American Red Cross has
agreed to serve as coordinator for the Service to be initiated
in Chesterfield County beginning in January 1986.
The Red Cross has committed to the following:
1. Recruit and train volunteer drivers.
2. Commit at least two vehicles immediately to Chesterfield
Program.
3. Provide all insurance coverage for drivers, vehicles
and passengers.
4. Hire and compensate a full time program coordinator.
5. Seek assistance from others in the private sector to
minimize costs to all.
6. Provide office space and a base of operations at their
Chester Office.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: As Chesterfield's initial commitment,
we are asking the Board of Supervisors to authorize the County
Administrator to transfer the balance of the funds ($66,400)
appropriated for Specialized Transportation to the Red Cross,
as a donation, for the purpose of providing essential
transportation to our Elderly and Handicapped Citizens to
the extent that resources available will permit. In addition,
we request that the County Administrator be authorized to
cooperate in this endeavor wherever it is in the mutual benefit
of the County and private sector entities providing such
services including, but not limited to, the sharing of
vehicles, training of drivers, etc. provided that transporta-
tion needs heretofore provided by the County are continued
at essential levels. In addition to private donations, this
program to remain viable and responsive. We will probably
need similar donations in future years.
Dll/020
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE: January 8, 1986
18. C. I
ITEM NUMBER;
SUBJECT: Approval of bids for Iron Bridge Park Lights
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Bids have been received for the pony field lights at Iron Bridge
Park, Phase 1. There were three (3) bids received ranging from a
low of $83,246 to a high of $115,981. The low bid was submitted by
Structural Contractors Limited for $83,246. This figure is in
keeping with our original estimates for the project. Completion
is expected by May 6, 1986 which would allow for the field to be
used for the baseball season in 1986. Funds are included in the
1985 parks' bond account.
Recommendation:
The Parks and Recreation Department recommends that the Board of
Supervisors:
1)
approve the low bid of $83,246 from Structural Contractors Ltd.
and,
2)
authorize the County Administrator to sign all necessary docu-
ments for this contract.
ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO ~
SIGNATURE: ....
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Budget & Management Comments:
This action requires that the Board appropriate $83,300 from the
1985 Bond funds to the Iron Bridge Park project.
~L~ B. Ram~ey, Direct6
B~get & Accounting >~
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF' SUP[ RVI$ORS
RI~PORTS
REPOR~ 9N~
Request for Funds for Chesterfield Girls Basketball League
The Parks and Recreation Department has been approached by the
Chesterfield Youth Basketball League (CBL) who wish to start a new
basketball program for girls 9 through 16. CBL did ~not consider
such a league for girls until they started their registration in
September for the boys' division. At that time, a number of girls
who wished to participate in a girls' league came forth. Currently,
there are over 1400 boys participating in the Chesterfield Basketball
program, excluding the cheerleaders associated with each team. This
new league would be organized, like our other youth leagues, around
the elementary schools.
Based on registration numbers it is anticipated' there would
be 300± '
girls who will participate in the program in 1986. Since
this is a new program and service, the Parks and Recreation Department
is currently not funded to cover the additional costs for the school
use associated with this program. Based on a normal schedule for
practices and games, the department would need $10,250 to pay the
costs of schools (custodians and rental). The league would cover
all other costs associated with the program, such as officials,
equipment, etc. The league would start immediately, if funded,
and continue into mid-March, 1986.
We have included this item in report format since it contemplates
an increase in service levels within a budgeted year. After reviewing
this request, the Board may wish to add this item to the agenda
for the meeting on January 8, 1986. If the Board chooses to act
positively on this request, it will require the appropriation of
$10,250 from the Board's Contingency Fund for this fiscal year.
Similar amounts will be needed in future years.
ATT~t~,IMENTS: YES ~
NO
SIGN~,T UR[
'coUNTy Al)MINI STRATOR
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE'
SUBJECT:
January 8, 1986
18. J. 2.
ITEM NUMBER:
Request for funds for Chesterfield Girls Basketball League
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OFINFORMATION:
The Parks and Recreation Department has been approached by
Chesterfield Youth Basketball League (CBL) who wish to start a new
basketball program for girls 9 through 16. CBL did not consider
such a league for girls until they started their registration in
September for the boys' division. At that time, a number of girls
who wished to participate in a girls' league came forth. Currently,
there are over 1400 boys participating in the Chesterfield
Basketball program, excluding the cheerleaders associated with each
team. This new league would be organized, like our other youth
leagues, around the elementary schools.
Based on registration numbers, it is anticipated there would be
300~ girls who will participate in the program in 1986. Since this
is a new program and service, the Parks and Recreation Department is
currently not funded to cover the additional costs for the school use
associated with this program. BaSed on a'norma1 Schedule for .......
practices and games, the department would need $10,250 to pay the
costs of schools (custodians and rental). The league would cover
all other costs associated with the league, such as officials,
equipment, etc. The league would start immediately, if approved,
and continue into mid-March, 1986.
PREPARED BY;
ATTACHMENTS: YES I-1 NO []
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Board of Supervisors ~genda
C~sterfield Girls Basketball
January 8, 1986
Page 2
Recommendation:
The Parks and Recreation Department recommends that the Board of
Supervisors appropriate $10,250 for the Chesterfield Girls
Basketball program.
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
January 8, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
Consideration of Request by
Reduce Amount of Performance Bond
18. D.
Storer Cable to
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
At all times during the term of the franchise
agreement, Storer Cable is required by ordinance to submit a
performance bond to the County to ensure the faithful
performance and discharge of its obligations under the
franchise agreement. The County Code provides that the
Board, upon a petition from Storer, may reduce the initial
$100,000 bond by a maximum of $50,000 upon a finding that
Storer . has fulfilled a "significant portion" of its
obligation to serve the initial franchise area ("IFA").
Storer has requested that the Board reduce the bond to the
statutory minimum of $50,000, based upon the fact that
approximately 90% of the 60,000 homes in the IFA have been
serviced. To date, approximately 54,000 of the 65,000 homes
in Chesterfield County are able to receive cable, of which
approximately 35,600 are subscribers. Based on the rapid
growth of the County during the last 5 years, the fact that
985.3 miles of cable have been installed, and that 90% of
the homes in the IFA are able to receive cable service,
staff is of the opinion that Storer has met the requirements
of ~he ordinance to reduce the bond.
PREPARED BY;_ ·
Steven L. Micas
County Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:
YES [3
NO
SIGN AT URE:
COUNTY ADMI N;ISTRATOR
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
MEETING DATE' January 8, 1986 ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJ[CT: Appointments
Community Corrections Resources Board
18. E.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
The terms of Mr. Gary F. Johnson and Mr. D~ane C. Watson expired
on the Community Corrections Resources Board on December 31,
1985. Mr. Johnson has expressed an interest in being reappointed
while Mr. Watson would accept an alternate verses a regular
appointment. There would still remain one full appointment if
the above recommendations were accepted. The appointments are
at-large appointments, would be effective immediately and would
expire on December 31, 1987.
Recommend nomination of Mr. Gary F. Johnson as a regular member
with Mr. Duane.Watson as an alternate. One other nomination would
be necessary as well.
ATTACHMENTS: YES []
NO
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADM I NISTRATOR
0'; 6
CHESTERFIELD/COLONIAL HEIGHTS
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS RESOURCES BOARD
CDI
Mr. Duane C. Watson
2339 Jimmy Winters Road
Bon Air, Va. 23235
12-31-85
272-3195 Home
274-3343 Work
Term: Dec. 31, 1985
(Chesterfield Co.)
Mrs. Thomas deBree
4101 S. Cresthill Court
Chester, Virginia 23831
748-4171 Home
Term: June 30, 1985
(12th Judicial Circuit)
Mr. Erick F. Yarchin, Jr.
Don Anderson Accounting Firm
1910 Boulevard
Colonial Heights, Virginia 23834
526-4848 Work
Term June 30, 1985
(12th Judicial Circuit & Col. Hgts.)
Mr. Gary K. Johnson
17411 LeMaster Road
Petersburg, Virginia
590-1835 Home
271-6094 Work
Term: Dec. 31, 1985
(Chesterfield County)
23803
Sheriff John F. A%wood
P. O. Box 157
Prince George, Virginia 23875
862-9799 Home
732-2164 Work
Term: June 30, 1985
(Prince George)
Ms. Ruth Tate
3608 Jackson Farm Road
Hopewell, Virginia 23860
458-2734 (Un]is-ted)
Term: Dec. 31, 1986
(Hopewell)
37
Mr. George N. Fludd
1300 South Crater Road
Petersburg, Virginia 23803
732-5989 Home
541-4668 Work
Term: June 1, 1985
(6th Judicial Circuit)
Mr. J. P. Murphy
Chief Probation & Parole Officer
9520 Ironbridge Road, P. O. Box 88
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
748-9031 Home
796-4225 Work
Term: Dec. 31, 1986
(Dept. of Corrections)
Mr. Joseph T. Langley, Jr.
Probation & Parole Officer
600 S. Main Street
Emporia, Virginia 23847
need phone and term
Term: Dec. 31, 1985
(District 38)
38
COMMUNITY DIVERSION INCENTIVE
P. O. BOX 40
CHESTERFIELD. VIRGINIA 23832
PROGRAM
GLEN R. PETERSON
PROGRAM DIRECTOR
(804) 796-6969
SERVING:
CHEgTERFIELD I COLONIAL HEIGHT8
HOPEWELL. ! PRINCE GEORGE
December 9, 1985
Ms. Joan Dolezal, Secretary
Board of Supervisors
P. O.Box 40
Chesterfield, VA 23832
Dear Ms. Dolezal:
RE: Community Corrections
Resources Board Appointments
We were recently advised by Mr. Duane C. Watson, Chairman of
the Community Corrections Resources Board, that he will not seek
to be reappointed as a regular member of the Community Corrections
Resources Board when his present term expires December 31, 1985.
Mr. Watson's present term begin January 1, 1984 and will expire
December 31, 1985. Mr. Watson has been a hard-working, effective
member of the Community Corrections Resources Board since the program
was initiated in 1981. This will be his third term on that Board.
Mr. Watson has stated he would be willing to serve as an
alternate to the Community Corrections Resources Board if the Board
of Supervisors would so appoint. The Community Corrections Resources
Board ammended their By-Laws at their September 1985 Meeting to allow
for each appointing authority to appoint alternate to the Community
Corrections Resources Board. Mr. Watson was appointed as an 'at
large' appointment.
At a regular meeting, July 10, 1985, the Board of Supervisors
appointed Mr. Gary K. Johnson of 17,411 LeMaster Road, Petersburg,
VA 23803, to serve the unfulfilled portion of a two (2) year term
to the Community Corrections Resources Board. That term will expire
December 31, 1985. Mr. Johnson has indicated he is willing to be
Ms. Joan Dolezal, Secretary
Board of Supervisors
RE: Community Corrections Resources
Board Appointments
Page--2--
re-appointed should the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors chose
to appoint him to a new term with the CCRB for the period January
1, 1986 through December 31, 1987.
If I may provide any additional information, please let me
know.
Sincerely,
Glen R. Peterson
CDI Program Director
cc: Mr. Robert L. Masden, Assistant County Administrator
Mr. Duane C. Watson, CCRB Chairman
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
January 8, 1986 ITEM NUMBER: 18. F. 1.
Request for Bingo/Raffle Permits
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
The County Attorney's Office has reviewed the following
bingo/raffle applications and has determined that these applica-
tions meet all statutory requirements:
o St. Augustine Church
Manchester-Richmond Lodge No. 699
Loyal Order of Moose
O
Chester Lodge No. 1980
Loyal Order of Moose
ATTACHMENTS
YES fl
.o/
PREPARED BY;
Steven L. Micas
County Attorney
S IGNAT URE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
APPLICATION FOR A P'F/tM/T TO CONDUCT BINGO CJiMES OR RAFFTF.$
The undersigned applicant, pursuant to Section 18.2-340.1, et. seq. of the Code of Vir$Lnia,
1950, as amended, requests the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County to issue a pernut to
conduct bingo games or raffles during the f~ calendar year.
In support of this application, the applicant offers the following information under oath:
1. A. Proper name of organization: ~Dy~L ~)RD~R O~ /v;~s~/ C//W-S~ /.z~D~ ~ /~f~9, .
B. Address of organization ' s headquarters :./~Z~.~6//~,~T/ .rZZ/,%/~/~ ~-.~ ~ .
C. Address where all records of receipts and disbursements are pe_rrm3nently filed:
D. Name and address of cTwner of the property described in C above:
e
E. Type of permit applied for: Bingo games w/ Raffles /.
F. Address or addresses where bingo games will be held or raffle drawings conducted:
G, Dates or ~ays of ~,~e~ and times o£ day ~t~e.~ bingo~a~es or raffles will be hel~ at
above address or addresses: a/J/~D- ,~U/JD/;y$//R/~/ScZaS -
A. Date when organization was founded: / ~ ~/~ 6)~6£ ~=
B. F~s your organization been in existence and met regularly in Chesterfield County for
two years ~iately prior to making this application? Yes ~' No .
C. Is your organization currently and has your organization always been operated in the
past as ~ nonprofit organization? Yes p/' No
D. Tax Exempt Status No. (If Auplicable): 7-~;~ ~;{f~?F ~d/CD~ 227~T6~U~£
E. State the specific type and purpose of your organization:
F. This application is for a new permit or a renewal permit Y"/'" (if for renewal
permit, answer G below).
3... Off/cern. Of.-~nnization:
G. Gross receipts frcxn all sources related to the operation of bingo games or instant
bingo ~y calendar c~]arter for the 12 month period ~iately prior to the date of
" t~i~'-app~i'eat ion:
-" let qtm.~.er ~ 2nd quarter 3rd quarter
Vice P~e'~'ident:/)~N~;LD //, /4P~£g
Address:
~r au~oriz~ wi~ ~ o~ization to ~ res~ns~le for ~ndu~g ~d o~ation of
b~go g~s or raffles:
~: A~e,~ R. ~ow~z~ ~ess: ~ f,~~ sr5 0~7~, V~ ~3~1.
II~ Telephone N~r 7~f-677~ _. B~iness Telephone N~[~.-~-~T~_.f~ .
~ you, each officer, director ~d ~ of ~e org~ization fully ~derst~d each of
~e foll~g:
A. It is a violati~ of law to ent~ into a ~ntract wi~ ~y ~rson, fire, ass~iation,
org~ization, ~ers~p or ~ration of ~y class~ication, ~ts~r, for ~e
P~s~of org~iz~g, ~ag~g or ~nducting b~go g~s or raffles?
Yes_ ~ ~ ...... .
~e org~ization ~st ~in~ ~d file with ~e ~ty Inte~al A~i~r on or
~fore ~v~r 1, ~lete records ~d disb~s~ts ~a~g to b~go g~s ~d
raffles ~ ~t 'su~ records ~e s~ject to a~it by ~e ~ty ~te~al A~i~r?
Yes ~ ~ .
C. Any organization found in violation of Section~I~.2-340.10 of the Code of Vir~in/a
authorizing this permit is subject to having such permit r~v~ked and any organiza-
tion or person, shareholder, agent, member or employee of such organization who
violated Section 18.2-340.10 or Article 1.1 of Chapter 8 of Title 18.2 of the
Code of Virginia may be guilty of a felony? Yes / No .
}~as y~r organization attad~ed to this application each of the following?
A. A copy of the organization's charter, articles of incorporation, bylaws, and other
legal documents which describe t~e specific purposes for which the organization is
chartered or organized? Yes ~-/ No .
B. A copy of a resolution of the organization's board of directors authorizing the under-
signa~ to apply for this permit? Yes v/ No .
C. A check in the amount of $25.00 payable to Treasurer, Chesterfield County as an
application fee? Yes / No .
D. Additional pages where necessary to fully cc~plete th/s application? Yes V/ No
Have you and each officer of your organization read the attached permit and do you and
each of you agree on behalf of the organization to cc~ply with each of the conditions
therein? Yes ~ NO .
I hereby swear or affirm un~er the penalties of perjury as set forth in Section 18.1-434
of the Code of Virginia, that all the above questions have been cc~pletely answered and
that all the state~_nts herein are true to the best of my knowledge, information and
beliefs.
W~.TNESS the following signatures and seals:
Signature of -Applican~ '~/ Title
STATE OF VIRGINIA
~ OF CHESTERFT~n
I, /~,c/4/~ ~. ~(~f30~ , a Not__~y Public in and for the County and State afore-
said, do hereby certify that ~~ %4, '~L~J-~-- in his capacity as A0/N~9~(~
of ~.~"/4~7'F~, ~/~35~_._6.~__~ou66 ~,~ organization and whose na~? is signed to the
foregoing appeared before ms this day and acknowledged, subscribed and swore the sa~e
before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand this ~/ ~qday of
My Cc~mission Expires:
CHESTER LODGE No. 1980
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
P.O. BOX 34514 · RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23234
TO:
Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
From:
Chester Moose Lodge #1980
December 5, 1985
Dear Sirs:
The nine-member Board of Officers of the Chester Moose Lodge, located at 9500 Jefferson
Davis Highway, has unanimously approved for our Lodge to obtain another Bingo permit
for the year 1986, our present permit running out at the end of this year. This was
approved at our regular Officer's meeting which was held on October 7th of this year.
On behalf of the Board of Officers of our Lodge, we are making a request for renewal of
our permit.
Sincerely,
-William ~. Ballar~-, ~.
Administrator
Chester Moose Lodge
APPLICATION FOR A PEF~V[IT ?0 CONDUCT B1]WC~ C~MES OR RAFFLES
~he undersigned applicant, pursuant to Section 18.2-340.1, et. seq. of the Code of Virqinia,
1950, as an~_nded, rec~mests the Board of SUpervisors of Chesterfield County to issue a perm~ to
conduct bingo games or raffles during the 1986 calendar year.
In support of this application, the app. lic~nt.off~r.s~the followin~ information under oath:
1. A. ~vmncnesner-Richmond Lodge ~699-
L
Proper name of organization: Loyal Order of Moose
Address of organization's headquarters: 11110 Trade Road, Richmond, Va. 23236
Address where all records of receipts and disbursen~nts are permanently filed:
same as above "B"
Dw
Name and address of owner of the property described in C atxr~e:
same as above "A" & ' 'B"
E. Type of permit applied for: Bingo games X Raffles X
F. Address or addresses where bingo games will be held or raffle drawings conducted:
same as above "A" and "B"
NOTE: This permit is valid only at the above location.
G. Dates or days of w~ek and tim~s of day when bingo games or raffles will be held at
above address or addresses: Sunday 6 P.M. Thursday 7:30 P.M.
A. Date when organization was founded:June 3, 1962
B. Has your organization been in existence and met regularly in Chesterfield County for
two years ~iately prior to making this application? Yes X No
C. Is your organization currently and has your organization always been operated in the
past as a nonprofit organization? Yes X No
D. Tax Exempt Status No. (If Auplicable): 501 (c) (8)
E. State the specific type and purpose of your organization: Fraternal Organization
pperating through Supreme Lodge a Home for Children and a Home for the Aged,
and contributing to other Charitable Organizations.
This application is for a new .permit
permit, answer G below).
__ or a renewal permit X
(if for renewal
Gross receipts fr~n all sources related to the operation of bingo games or instant
bingo by calendar quarter for the 12 n~nth period ~iately prior to the date Of
this application: ~ _ .
let q er,,28973,93
4th q~arter 28973,93
Officers of Organization:
Governor:
t~: Norman A. Gileau
~c~~: Allen N. Martin
~r:ator: Hairy Keller
Treasurer: Grady B. Daniel
2nd q~te~ 28973,93
3rd quarter 28973 93
Address:
1210 Perry Street-Richmond, Va. 232~
416 King William Terrace, Midtothian, Va 23113
11228 Misty Hollow Road, Midlothian, Va. 2~113
11207 Misty Hollow Road, Midlothian, Va. 23113
Member ~uthorizedwith the organization to be responsible for conducting and operation of
bingo gEures or raffles:
Name: Rodn~yHumphries Address: 1806 Wakefield Ave. Colonial Heights,~a.
H~ne Telephone Number 526-6089 B~siness Telephone ~:umker: 23834
Do you, each officer, director and member of the organization fully understand each of
the follc~ing:
A. It is a violation of law to enter into a contract with any person, firm, association,
organization, partnership or corporation of any classification, whatsoever, for the
purpose of organizing, managing or conducting bingo games or raffles?
Yes X No
B. The organization must maintain and file with the County Internal Auditor on or
before November 1, complete records and disbursements pertaining to bingo games and
raffles and that such records are subject to audit by the County Internal Auditor?
Yes X No
C. Any organizat~..~, found in violation of Section ~[2-340.10 of the Code of
author~zing this permit is subject to having such permit r~voked and any organ~z=-
tion or person, shareholder, agent, m~_mber or ~ployee of such organization who
violated Section 18.2-340.10 or Article 1.1 of Chapter 8 of Title 18.2 of the
Code of Virginia may be guilty of a felony? Yes X No .
}~as y~lr organization attad%ed to this application each of the following?
A. A c~py of the organization's charter, articles of incorporation, bylaws, and other
legal docum~_nts which describe the s~ecific purposes for which the organization is
ch~rtered or organized? Yes X No .
B. A copy of a resolution of the organization's board of directors authorizing the under-
signed to apply for this permit? Yes X No .
C. A check in the amDunt of $25.00 payable to Treasurer, Chesterfield County as an
application fee? Yes X No .
D. Additional pages where necessary to fully ccmplete this auplication? Yes X No
Have you and each officer of your organization read the attached permit and do you and
each of you ag~..ee on behalf of the organization to cc~ply with each of the oonditions
therein? Yes X No .
I hereby swear or affirm under the peD~lties of perjury as set forth in Section 18.1-434
of the Code .of Virginia, that all the above questions have been oa~letely answered and
that ali the state~=_nts herein are true to the best of n~ knowledge, informaticn and
beliefs.
WITNESS the following signatures ar~ seals:
''<~ ~/~,~u- ~/~,---' Administrator
Signat~ of App~"~ca~t- Title
11228 Misty Hollow Road, Midlothian, Va. 23113
Address
I,
sai~, do .hereby// ~c~.ertify that ~-.;~}_.~;~'~~/ in his capacity as ~.,~,~.~
on .... /]L~.~.~,,~,~.~ organization ~ ~o~ ~ is si~ to ~e
for~o~g a~~ ~fore ~ ~s ~y ~ a~l~g~, s~scr~ ~ ~re ~e ~
before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid.
My .Cc~mis$ion Expires:
Given under my hand this j3~day of
~otary Public
lOYAl,
OI MO0$g
AAANCHESTER-RICHM~ND LODGE No. 699
11110 TRADE ROAD
RiCHA~OND, VA ~3236-3998
DECEMBER 10, 1985
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS: MANCHESTER-RICHMOND LODGE #699, LOYAL ORDER OF MOOSE, IS
DESIROUS OF SECURING A PERMIT TO OPERATE RAFFLES AND/OR BINGO GAMES
DURING THE 1986 CALENDAR YEAR, BE IT THEREFORE
RESOLVED: THAT WE, THE MEMBERS OF MANCHESTER-RiCHMOND LODGE #699,
LOYAL ORDER OF MOOSE, DO HEREBY PET!iTIO~ THE BOARD OF SUPERVISIORS OF
THE COUN,TY OF CHESTERFIELD FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH PERMIT, AND
AUTHORIZE HARRY KELLER, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS
ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF OFFICERS OF MANCHESTER-RICHMOND LODGE #699,
LOYAL ORDER OF MOOSE ON THE §TH, DAY OF DECEMBER,
ADM I N I STRATOR
APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONDUCT BINGO GAMES OR RAFFLES
The undersigned applicant, pursuant to Section 18.2-340.1, et. seq. of the Code of ¥irqinia, 1950, as
amended, requests the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County to issue a permit to conduct hinge games ~t
raffles , or both during the j~?~ calendar year. This application is for a new or renewal ~..
permit.
In support of this application, the applicant offers the following information under eath:
I= A. Proper name of organization: ~'~T7 ~z~/~(~7~x~,~ ~o~7~ Cif-l~/~.~; CLiz.~I .
B. A~ldress of organization's headquarters: ~7~ ~/~ ~;~,,~ 7~,~71~ ~ ~-~ .
C. Address where all records uf receipts and disbursements are permanently filed:
D. Name and address of owner of the property described in C above:
E.- Address or addresses where bingo games will be held or raffle drawings conducted:
NOTE: THIS PERMIT IS VALID ONLY AT THE ABOVE LOCATION.
Dates or days of week and times of day when bingo games or raffles will be held at above address or
addresses: F~ "J ~"~
G. Time patrons are admitted and sales begin: ~ P/1/L ~,'~ ·
P. A. Date when organization was founded: X/'q//'i'~ '
B. ltas your organization been in existence and met regul~ly in Chesterfield County for two years
immediately prior to making this application? Yes
C. Is your organization current.~and has your organization always been operated in the past as a non-
profit organization? Yes ~No .
D. Internal Revenue Code section under which tax-exempt status was granted (if applicable): ~----~" .
E. Organization's Taxpayer Identification Number:
F. State the specific type and purpose of your organization-'
4a
3. If this application is for renewal of a permit, answer A and B below.
A. Were financial reports filed on time and in compliance with applicable legal requirements?
Yes ~ No .
B. Gross receipt~ from all sources related to the operation of bingo games or instant bingo by calendar
quarter for the 12 month period immediately prior to the date of this application:
1st quarter -'°~ '-
41;h quarter /(! ? 3 Z
2nd quarter
3rd Quarter
Officers of Organization:
Presi dent: ~/~//~1
Vice President:
Secretary:
Treasurer:
Address
Member authorized within the organization to be responsible for conducting and operation of bingo g~mes
or raffles:
Home Teleph6ne Number 7L~-~.~ Business Telephone Number:
6. Do you, each officer, director and member of the organization fully understand each of the following:
It is a violation of law to enter into a contract with any person, firm, association, organization
(other than another qualified organization pursuant to Section 18.2-340.13 of the Code of
Virginia), partnership or corporation of any classification whatsoever, for the purpose of organiz-
ing, managing or conducting bingo games or raffles?
Yes l/~'No .
The organization must maintain and file with the County Internal Audit Department complete records
of receipts and disbursements pertaining to bingo games and raffles as required by State and County
law, and that'~such records are subject to audit by the County Internal Audit Department?
Yes _fNo
C. The organization must remit an aUdit fee of 1% of gross receipts with the Annual Financial Report
not late~ than November 1 unless gross receipts are less than $2,0007 Yes f No ~.
D. The organization must furnish a complete list of its membership upon the request of the County
Internal Audit Department or other designated representative of the Board of Supervisors?
Yes ~ No ·
Any organization found in violation of Section 18.2-340.10 of the Code of Virginia authorizing this
permit is subject to having such permit revoked and any organization or person, shareholder, agent,
member or employee of such organization who violated Section 18.2-340.10 or Article 1.1 of Chapter
8 of Title 18.2 of the Code of VirAinia may be guilty of a felony? Yes ~ No__.
7. Has your organization attached to this application each of the following?
A copy of the organization's charter, articles of incorporation, bylaws, and other legal documents
whic~i~cribe the specific purposes for which the organization is chartered or organized?
Yes ~No .
B. A copy of a resolution of the~organiz~t~ion's boar~ of directors authorizing the undersigned to
apply for this permit? Yes// No ,. · '.
C. A check in the amount of $25.00 payable to Treasurer, Chesterfield County as an application fee?
Yes /~ No__.
D. Additional pages where necessary to fully complete this application? Yes~ No / .
8. Have you and each officer of your organization read the attached permit and do you and each of you agree
on behalf of the organization to comply with each of the conditions therein? Yes / No~.
I hereby swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury.as set forth in Section 18.2-434 of the Code of
Virginia, that all the above questions have been completely answered and that all the statements herein
are true to the best of my knowledge, information and beliefs.
WITNESS I~he folio_wing s~gnatures
Signature of~4~p licaq~
and sea ls:
Title
~JTATE--~P V~RG~IA ..............................................................
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD
I, ~~.~' , a N o~;ary Public in' and f or~he County and State aforesaid,, d~eby
ce~t~ha~~~. ~ in his capacity as~ of ~-~~ '
~.~ organiz~lon and who~ name 3s s3gned to the foregoing appeared before me this day and
acknowledged, subscribed~d swore the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid· Given under my
hand this~ day of~ , , 19~
~. '~ommi ssi on Expi res:
/
' .o -arY'.ubl ? //
December 27, 1985
The Board of Supervisors
Chesterfield County, Virginia
Greetings:
St. Augustine Parish herewith submits an application for
a permit to conduct Bingo games or raffles.
St. Augustine Parish is a Roman Catholic parish church,
validly and licitly erected under the authority of the
Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond, according
to the norms of universal church law (CoJex Iuri$
Ca~oni~). It is owned and directed by the Bishop of
Richmond according to these same norms. The bishop
has appointed the Reverend William H. Carr, pastor,
and the Reverend John B. Hesch, parochial vicar, as
administrators with power to govern the parish.
Proceeds from our Bingo games are used solely for ecclesi-
astical and charitable purposes. As a parish church, St.
Augustine Parish is a non-profit organization.
Sincerely yours,
ev~.) John B. Hesch
December 27, !985
The Board of Supervisors
Chesterfield County, Virginia
Greetings:
I hereby authorize Thomas Hoof to submit an application for
a permit to conduct Bingo games ~or raffles at St. Augustine
Parish.
Si ~cerely yours,
(/~ev.) John B. esch
Parochial Vicar
'FO:
DATI :
COUNTY OF
CHESTERFIELD
VIRGINIA 0
MEMO
Members of the Board of Supervisors
R.L. L. Micas, County Attorne~~y~
Hedrick, County Administra~ii)~_
Steven
January 3, 1986
Application of the Chester Moose Lodge for Bingo Permit
The Chester Moose Lodge ("Lodge") has submitted an application
for a 1986 permit to operate bingo games in Chesterfield County. The
Lodge first received a bingo permit in early 1984 and ceased
operations in May of 1985 due to a shortage of members to operate the
games. Recently, the County's Internal Audit Department contacted
the Lodge for a routine field audit of the Lodge's bingo financial
records at which time the Lodge indicated that a former Secretary had
possibly embezzled funds from the Lodge. The Lodge removed ~the
individual from office in July of 1985 and contacted the national Moose
organization to request an audit and investigation which has not yet
begun. Internal Audit's review of the financial records for the bingo
reporting years of 1984 and 1985 is complete but inconclusive as to
whether or not funds were actually embezzled.
Unlike the problems exhibited by the recordkeeping of the
Veterans of Foreign Wars, Robert E. Lee Post 2239 (see attached
agenda item) which have been continuous and organization-wide since
late 1982, the current situation of the Lodge is attributable to one
individual. The Lodge has taken the initiative and necessary action
to correct the problems in recordkeeping. In addition, the financial
records kept since July of 1985 appear to be adequate and, if a
permit is granted, the Lodge will develop a set of procedures to
ensure that proper records are maintained.
Based on the action taken by the Lodge and the current status
of its financial records, staff recommends that the 1986 bingo permit
be granted.
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE: -3=_nuary 8, 1986 ITEM NUMBER:
SUB4ECT: Application by Veterans Of Foreign Wars, Robert E.
Lee Post 2239 for a 1986 Bingo/Raffle Permit
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
At its last meeting, the Board deferred consideration
of the application of the Robert E. Lee Post 2239 of the
Veterans of Foreign Wars ("VFW") for a 1986 permit to
operate Bingo and Raffle games until problems uncovered in
the review of the VFW's 1985 Annual Financial Report for
Bingo Games/Raffles ("Report") could be investigated.
As in the two'previous years, the 1985 Report of all
receipts and disbursements relating to bingo and raffle
games contained numerous errors and inaccuracies which had
been identified for the VFW by letter and in a meeting with
members of the Interal Audit Department (see attached
letter). On the 1985 report, the VFW failed to identify
proceeds received from raffle games and overstated the cost
of operating bingo games by approximately $7,500 by
recording certain checks twice on the Report. In addition,
rather than reporting the actual amount from bingo proceeds
which was spent for goods or services, the VFW reported the
(Cont'd)
ATTACHMENTS: YES I-I NO r'l
PREPARED BY%
Steven L. Micas
County Attorney
SIGNATURE:~ ~
COUNTY ADMI NI STRATOR
Application by ~terans of Foregin Wars, k ~ert E. Lee
Post 2239 for a 1986 Bingo/Raffle Permit
January 8, 1986
Page 2
amount of the advance check written to the member who was
responsible for purchasing the goods or obtaining the
service. In many cases the cost of the service was less than
the advance check, resulting in an incorrect reporting of
use of bingo proceeds.
Such errors and inaccuracies in the 1984 and 1985
Reports prompted an extensive audit of the VFW's complete
financial records for the past two years which indicated
that the VFW's recordkeeping was incomplete and inadequate.
Most notably, approximately $3,000 of cash receipts from two
nightly bingo games could not be traced to deposits listed
on the bank statement for the bingo account. Upon
investigation by Interal Audit, these funds were found in a
building fund account the VFW believed had been closed out
prior to the date of deposit. In addition, cancelled checks
totalling $545 were listed as "void" in the check register
and deposits recorded in the register as the return of
advance funds could not be traced directly to deposits on
the bank statement. Also, the VFW lacked the necessary
receipts to verify expenditures.
By law, the County is charged with the duty to
investigate any organization which applies for a permit and
monitor the use of any funds received from bingo games and
raffle. According to Internal Audit, the records of the VFW
were adequate until, approximately 3 years ago. Since that
time, Internal Audit has observed a continuous decline in
the reporting and recordkeeping of the VFW, which
creates a prime opportunity for the misuse of bingo
proceeds, theft or embezzlement.
Based upon the identified problems, the staff
recommends that the VFW be placed on a probationary status
and receive a 1986 permit only upon the following
conditions:
The VFW must maintain a separate account for bingo
and raffle proceeds from their general fund for
monies received from other sources. For each of
these accounts, the VFW must maintain an adequate
set of records which show the generation of
receipts and disbursements.
Any use of bingo proceeds must be paid directly
out of the bingo account. No transfers from the
bingo account to the general account are
permissible.
Application by'~terans of Foregin Wars, ~ert E. Lee
Post 2239 for a 1986 Bingo/Raffle Permit
January 8, 1986
Page 3
The VFW must reconcile the amount of an advance
from bingo proceeds to the amount actually spent.
4. The VFW must retain all receipts to verify
expenditures.
The approximately $3,000 which was erroneously
deposited into the VFW's building fund account
must be deposited into the VFW's separate bingo
account.
The VFW must establish a new nightly settlement
procedure to resolve the problem of overages and
shortages after each bingo game.
Should the VFW violate any of these conditions during
the 1986 permit year, staff will refer the matter to the
Board for a hearing to revoke the permit.
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE: Janu_~_ry 8, !98~ ITEM NUMBER: 18. F. 2.
SUBJECT: Application by Veterans Of Foreign Wars, Robert E.
Lee Post 2239 for a 1986 Bingo/Raffle Permit
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
At its last meeting, the Board deferred consideration
of the application of the Robert E. Lee Post 2239 of the
Veterans of Foreign Wars ("VFW") for a 1986 permit to
operate Bingo and Raffle games until problems uncovered in
the review of the VFW's 1985 Annual Financial Report for
Bingo Games/Raffles ("Report") could be investigated.
As in the two previous years, the 1985 Report of all
receipts and disbursements relating to bingo and raffle
games contained numerous errors and inaccuracies which had
been identified for the VFW by letter and in a meeting with
members of the Interal Audit Department (see attached
!etter). ' On the 1985 report, the VFW failed to identify
proceeds received from raffle games and overstated the cost
of operating bingo games by approximately $7,500 by
recording certain checks twice on the Report. In addition,
rather than reporting the actual amount from bingo proceeds
which was spent for goods or services, the VFW reported the
(Cont' d)
ATTACHMENTS
YES p NO []
PREPARED BY;
Steven L. Micas
County Attorney
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADM I N! STRATOR
Application by V ~rans of Foregin Wars, Ro~'~t E. Lee
Post 2239 for a 1986 Bingo/Raffle Permit
January 8, 1986
Page 2
amount of the advance check written to the member who was
responsible for purchasing the goods or obtaining the
service. In many cases the cost of the service was less than
the advance check, resulting in an incorrect reporting of
use of bingo proceeds.
Such errors and inaccuracies in the 1984 and 1985
Reports prompted an extensive audit of the VFW's complete
financial records for the past two years which indicated
that the VFW's recordkeeping was incomplete and inadequate.
Most notably, approximately $3,000 of cash receipts from two
nightly bingo games could not be traced to deposits listed
on the bank statement for the bingo account. Upon
investigation by Interal Audit, these funds were found in a
building fund account the VFW believed had been closed out
prior to the date of deposit. In addition, cancelled checks
totalling $545 were listed as "void" in the check register
and deposits recorded in the register as the return of
advance funds could not be traced directly to deposits on
the bank statement. Also, the VFW lacked the necessary
receipts to verify expenditures.
By law, the County is charged with the duty to
investigate any organization which applies for a permit and
monitor the use of any funds received from bingo games and
raffle. According to Internal Audit, the records of the VFW
were adequate until approximately 3 years ago. Since that
time, Internal Audit has observed a continuous decline in
the reporting and recordkeeping of the VFW, which
creates a prime opportunity for the misuse of bingo
proceeds, theft or embezzlement.
Based upon the identified problems, the staff
recommends that the VFW be placed on a probationary status
and receive a 1986 permit only upon the following
conditions:
The VFW must maintain a separate account for bingo
and raffle proceeds from their general fund for
monies received from other sources. For each of
these accounts, the VFW must maintain an adequate
set of records which show the generation of
receipts and disbursements.
Any use of bingo proceeds must be paid directly
out of the bingo account. No transfers from the
bingo account to the general account are
permissible.
Application by V ~rans of Foregin Wars,
Post 2239 for a 1986 Bingo/Raffle Permit
January 8, 1986
Page 3
Rok'~t E. Lee
The VFW must reconcile the amount of an advance
from bingo proceeds to the amount actually spent.
4. The VFW must retain all
expenditures.
receipts to
verify
The approximately $3,000 which was erroneously
deposited into the VFW's building fund account
must be deposited into the VFW's separate bingo
account.
The VFW must establish a new nightly settlement
procedure to resolve the problem of overages and
shortages after each bingo game.
Should the VFW violate any of these conditions during
the 1986 permit year, staff will refer the matter to the
Board for a hearing to revoke the permit.
BOARO OF SUPERVISORS
G. H, APPLET~TE,CHAIRMAN
CLOVER HILL DISTINCT
JF_~ J, MAYF.,s~vICE CHAIRMAN
I~ATOACA DI~FRICT
HARRY G. DANIEL
OALtr
R. GARLAND
S~MUOA Dior RIGT
dOAN GIRONE
MIDLOTHIAN 04~TRICT
CHESTER FIELD COUNTY
P.O. BOX 40
CHESTERFIELD ,VIRGINIA 23832
RICHARD L. HEDRICK
October 18, 1985
Veterans of Foreign Wars
Robert E. Lee Post f2239
Mr. John R. Blahs, Commander
P. O. Box 67
Colonial Heights, VA 23834
Dear Commander Blahe=
We have completed our review of your organization's Financial Report for
Bingo Games/Raffles for the year ended September 30, 1984 (the Report). Our
objective in conducting this review was to determine that the Report is accurate
and fairly stated in accordance with the financial reporting requirements of the
Code of Virginia, 1950, aa amended.
We are unable to express an opinion on the accuracy of your Report because
our review was limited by incomplete or nonexistent accounting records. These
limitations included:
1)
Cancelled checks for the period October I, 1983 through December 31,
t983 as well as selected ones during the remainder of the reporting
year were missing. Accordingly, we were unable to observe cancelled
checks for approximately $10~100 of operating costs and uses of pro-
ceeds included on the Report.
a)
Receipts and/or invoices documenting nongame disbursements [operating
costs, other than prizes, and uses of proceeds) were available for
only approximately $6,100 of reported expenses.
3)
Cash receipts and cash disbursements journals summarizing daily bingo/
raffle activity far preparation of the Report were not available.
Without the above Listed records, we cannot verify that disbursements were
made either in the amount or for the purpose reported. In addition, failure to
keep adequate and proper records of receipts and disbursements violates section
18.2-340.6 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
While we are unable to express an overall opinion on the accuracy of the
Report, we identified several errors and/or problem areas which require correc-
tion. These include:
I} Bingo receipts were understated on the Report by $1,494.80 ($49E.80
Veterans of Foreign Wars
Robert E. Lee Post #2239
October 18, 19S5
Page 2
3)
4)
5)
8)
7)
9)
miscellaneous sales and $1,002.00 admissions) based on game settlement
sheets reviewed. In addition, game settlement sheets indicated prizes
awarded were overstated on the Report by $2,033.00.
The amount included on the Report as Other Operating Costs
($21,335.68] does not agree with the total of the supporting detail on
Schedule "C" ($11,237.58). In addition, Schedule "C" included the
permit fee ($25.00) and the audit fee ($1,230.70) which should have
been reported in the separate spaces provided for these expenditures.
The audit fee of $1,678.86 shown on the Report was improper because it
was disbursed to the County after the cut-off date for the 1984
Report, It would, therefore, be reported as the audit fee on the
Report for the twelve months ended September 30, 1985.
Amounts reported for Operating Costs and Uses of Proceeds in several
instances did not agree with the amounts of the cancelled checks for
those disbursements. It appears that the Report was prepared using
erroneous amounts recorded in the check register. Bank statements and
cancelled checks should be reconciled on a monthly basis to the
organization's accounting records aa that errors of this type would be
discovered.
Special Bingo and Jackpot receipts were included in Admissions on the
Report rat'~er than being reported in the separate space provided.
While sales of Instant Bingo tickets were included an the Report,
expenses for Instant Bingo supplies were not reported in the space
provided,
Refreshments were purchased from bingo receipts for the volunteers
operating the bingo 9ames during the period audited. As explained in
our September 25, 1985 letter, this practice is a violation of the
Code of Virginia and, accordingly, must be discontinued.
Members of the organization were often the payee on checks written for
operating costs and uses of proceeds. This practice should be avoided
whenever possible to increase the control over disbursements and,
accordingly, the credibility of the organization's accounting records.
In circumstances where disbursements must be made to members, an
invoice or other receipt for; must be maintained to clearly document
the amount and purpose of the expenditure. Furthermore, in cases
where funds are advanced to members for the purchase of supplies, etc.
your accounting records must clearly document settlement of these
advances based on members' actual expenditures.
Veterans of Foreign Ware
Robert E, Lee Poet #2238
October 19, 1985
Page 3
8)
Interest on the investment of any bingo receipts (i.e. interest-bear-
ing checking accounts, certificates of deposit, passbook savings
accounts, otc.) should be included as Other Receipts on the Report.
It appeared to us that your organization had a certificate of deposit
during the period audited which was purchased using bin~o receipts.
Accordingly, interest income should have been included on the Report.
10) Your current procedure of transferring a percentage of bingo receipts
to the Ladies Auxiliary each month and reporting its actual disburse-
ments to charities es uses of proceeds on the Report complicates your
accounting for bingo receipts. The difficulty arises because the
unspent balance of transferred amounts must be included in the Ending
Balance on the Report, A method should be developed which allows both
the uses of bingo proceeds and unspent balances to be documented in
your organization's accounting records.
11) One bank account is being maintained by your organization for all
activities, including bingo. We strongly encourage use of a separate
bank account for bingo activity, as pointed out in our September 25,
1985 letter, so that bingo deposits and disbursements are clearly
identified.
12) We Learned during our examination that the Ladies Auxiliary occasion-
ally conducts small raffles for charity. If the Auxiliary plane to
continue holding these raffles, you must be sure that the VFW has a
binge/raffle permit. According to our records, the VF~/ has a 1985
bingo/raffle permit, however, you obtained only a bingo permit for
1984. Furthermore, cash receipts end disbursements related to these
raffles should be included on the VFW's Annual Financial Report for
bingo/raffles filed with this office.
We have enclosed en amended copy of your 1984 Report reflecting adjustments
for the errors discussed in items 1 through 4 above. You will note that the
Ending Bank Balance has been adjusted to $26,549.97. This amount should be
reported as the Beginning Bank Balance on the 1985 Report due in this office on
or before November 1, 1985.
We are concerned about the problems noted during our audit, especially
since we have already corresponded with you on October 22, 1984 concerning
similar recordkeeping problems. Accordingly, we would like for you to bring
your supporting records to us when you file the 1985 Report so that we can
review them to determine whether improvements have been made in recordkeeping
since that date. The results of this review will be communicated to the Board
of Supervisors for their consideration when your application for a 1986 bingo
permit is reviewed.
Veterans of Foreign Wars
Robert E, Lee Post ~2239
October lB, 1985
Page 4
If you have questions about anything contained in this letter~ please feel
free to contact us,
Sincerely~
MLL:ah
Mary Lou Lyle
Director~ Internal Audit
Enclosure
'*ArtfcJe ~, Oonstitution of ~he Veterans 02" Foreign ~rarso ~'he objects
of the Vegerans o~ ~oreign Wars are /ra~ernaJ~ ~a~rio~ic~ his~oFica2 and
edu~agiona2; ~o flreserue and s~reng~hen comradsh~ among ig~ members; go
assfs* mor¢~F comrades, ~o ~er2etuate ~ae memorR a~ ~i~org o~ ou'k dead~
a~ to assist t~eir widows and or. hans; to maintain tru~ aJJegiance.,~o the
Government of the United States of America; a~ fide2ftF to its Constitution
and law~; to foster true ~atriotismI to mantain and.ext.~ th. tn~titution,.
of American freedom; and to preserve anddd.~e~..~~nited ~tate~ from
a22 her enemies, whomsoeoer. · -
ATTACHMENT # 1
As the Commander of the Robert E. Lee Post2239 of the
Veterans of Foreigns, I hereby certify that the above
Article t is a true and accurate of. Arzicle ! of the
Constitution of the Veterans of Foreign Wars which has
been adopted by the Robert E. Lee Post 2239.
o~R. Blaha
Date: //_ ~ ~,~ ~/~J
AN ASSOCIATION OF MEN
WHO HAVE FOUGHT AMERICA'S
FOREIGN WARS ON LAND, SEA
AND IN THE AIR.
VETER , S OF FOREIGN
OF THE UNITED STATES
FOUNDED 1B99
DEPARTMENT OF VIRGINIA
WA .$
ROBERT E. LEE POST 2239
ROUTE I NORTH~ P. O. BOX 67
PHONE (804) 748-4896
COLONIAL HEIGHTS~ VIRGINIA 23834
ll NOVEMBER 1985
Mr. Richard L. Nedrick
County Administrator
Board Of Supervisors
Chesterfield County
Chesterfield, Va. 2]832
Dear Mr. Nedrick:
You will find attached herewith a permit application by Robert E. Lee Post 22]9,
Veterans Of Foreign Wars, requesting permission to conduct bingo games and/or
raffles at the Post Home during the calendar year 1986.
A copy of the State Corporation Commission 1985 annual report and VFW Post 22]9
Certificate of Incorporation, together with a check in the amount of $25.00, are
also attached.
The required financial report was forwarded to the County's Internal Audit
Department on 30 October 1985.
We trust that you will act favorably upon this request, and will so advise
us promptly.
Yours very truly,
COMMANDER
AN ASSOCIATION OF MEN
WHO HAVE FOUGHT AMERICA'S
FOREIGN WARS ON LAND, SEA
AND IN THE AIR.
VETER , S OF FORBG
OF THE U~ITED STATES
FOUNDED 1899
DEPARTMENT OF VIRGINIA
WA .$
ROBERT E. LEE POST 2239
ROUTE 1 NORTH, P. O. BOX 67
PHONE (804) 748-4896
COLONIAL HEIGHTS, VIRGINIA 23834
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COMMANDER JOHN R. BLAHA TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT TO CONDUCT
BINGO AND/OR RAFFLES DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR 1986.
Extracted from the minutes of Robert E Lee Post 2239 VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS
meeting held 7 November 1985 at the Post Home.
"It was moved by Floyd Melvin, seconded by George Spiers that an application be
made by Commander John R. Blaha to the County Of Chesterfield to renew it's permit
to operate bingo games and/or raffles during the calendar year 1986."
The motion l~as unanimously adopted ? November 1985.
This is to certify that the above is a true copy of the motion passed at the
regularly scheduled post meeting of the membership held ? November 1985 at the
Post Home.
CO~ANDER
APPLICATION FOR A PEr{MIT TO CONDUCT B~ C~MES OR RAFFLES
~he undersigned applicant, pursuant to Section 18.2-340.1, et. seq. of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as am~_nded, requests the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County to issue a pernut to
conduct bingo games or raffles during the 1986 calendar year.
In support of this application, the applicant offers the following information under oath:
1. A. Proper name of org~%nization: VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE U.S. .
NATIONAL HEADOUARTERS ~i~ILDING
B. Address of organizatiOn' s headquarters: KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI .
C. Address where all records of receipts and disbursements are permanently filed:
VFW POST 2239~RT I NORTH, P.O. BOX 67, COLONIAL HEIGHTS, VIRGINIA 23834
De
Name and address of owner of the property described in C above: ROBERT E. LF.E
POST 2239 VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE U.S., INC. P.O. BOX 6? COL. HC~, VA.
E. Type of permit applied for: Bingo games X Raffles X
F. Address or addresses where bingo games will be held or raffle drawings conducted:
ROBERT E. LEE VFW POST 2239, RT 1 NORTH, P.O. BOX 6?, COLONIAL HEIGHTS, VA. 23834.
e
NOTE: This permit is valid only at the above location.
G. Dates or days of week and times of day when bingo games or raffles will be held at
above address or addresses: SATURDAY OF EACH WEEK 7: 00PM-IhT05 JEFF-DAVIS HIGHWAY ~ .
A. Date when organization was founded: 17 MAY 1949 .
B. Has your organization been in existence and met regularly in Chesterfield County for
t~o years ~iately prior to making this application? Yes X No
C. Is your organization currently and has your organization always been operated in the
past as a nonprofit organization? Yes X No .
D. Tax Exempt Status No. (If Applicable): 1735-SEC. 501(C) INT REV CODE
E. State the specific type and purpose of your organization: SEE ATTACHMENT # 1
This application is for a new permit
permit, answer G below).
~ or a renewal permit X
(if for renewal
Gross receipts frc~ all sources related to the operation of bingo games or instant
bingo by calendar quarter for the 12 month period in~iately p~ior to the date of
this application:
1st quarterS48,511.95 2nd quarterS49,645.75
4th quarter $49,588.00
Officers of Organization:
3rd quarter $50~747.00
~Address:
President: (CMDR) JOHN R. BIAHA 221 CHESTERFIELD AVE., COL. HGTS, VA. 23834.
Vice President: (S V/C) DONALD R. McCABE JR 14207 HAPPY HILL ROAD~ CHESTER, VA. 23831 .
Secretary: (ADJ.) THOMAS B, BLOW .~636 CHEASWOOD DRIVE~ CHESTER~ VA. 23831 .
Treasurer: (QM)THOMAS V. ROBINSON · ~1~ CHERRY STREET, CHESTER, VA. 23831
Member authorized with the organization to be responsible for conducting and operation of
bingo games or raffles:
Name: JOHN R. BIAHA (CO~4ANDER) .... . Address: 221 CHESTERFIELD AVE.~ .COL. HGTS~ VA. 23834
Hc~re Telephone Number 526-0659 Business Telephone ~;umber: SAME AS HOME
Do you, each officer, director and n~ of the organization fully understand each of
the fol lc~ing:
It is a violation of law to enter into a contract with any person, firm, association,
organzzation, partnersh/p or corporation of any classification, whatsoever, for the
purpose of organizing, managing or conducting bingo games or raffles?
Yes X No
The organization must maintain and file with the County Internal Auditor on or
before November 1, complete records and disbursements pertaining to bingo games and
raffles and that such records are subject to audit by the County Internal Auditor?
Yes X No
C. Any organizati~' found in violation of ~=ction 1~.2-340.10 of the Code of Virginia
authorizing this permit is subject to having such permit revoked and any organiza-
tion or person, shareholder, agent, rr~rl~er or employee of such organization who
violat~d Section 18.2-340.10 or Article 1.1 of Chapter 8 of Title 18.2 of the
Code of Virginia may be guilty of a felony? Yes X No
}Las your organization attadled to this application each of the following?
A. A copy of the organization's charter, articles of incorporation, bylaws, and other
legal ~d .oguments which describe the si~cific purposes for which the organization is
chartered or organized? Yes X No .
B. A copy of a resolution of the organization's board of directors authorizing the under-
signed to apply for this permit? Yes X No .
C. A'check in the amount of $25.00 ~yable to Treasurer, Chesterfield County as an
. application fee? Yes X No .
D. Add[ itional pages where necessary to fully cc~plete this aPPlication? Yes if No
Have you and each officer of your organization read the attacJlg~ permit and do you and
each of you agree on behalf of the organization to cc~ply with each of the conditions
therein? Yes X NO .
pi hereby swear or affirm unde~ ~he ~penalties of perjury as set for~ in Section 18.1-434
of the Code of Virginia, that all the above questions have been completely answered and
that all the state~_nts herein are true to the best of my knc~ledge information and
beliefs. '
W~.TNESS the follc~in~ signatures and seals:
COMMANDER
JOHN R. BLAHA ~ ~, _~~,.~/ ~itle
Signature of Ap~lXicant
221 CHESTERFIELD AVE. COL. HGTS, VA. 2383h
,~_~.C~i/ssion Expires:
O~3NTY O~~TEr n
I.~~-~! ~.~'~./. a Notary Public in and for the County and State afore-
foregoing appeared before mm this day and acknowledged, subscribed and swore the same
be~or rr~ in the jurisdiction j~foresaid. Given under my hand this ~ ~ day of
~orporation ~ommi~ion, ho [terehg certifg ii, at
LEE POST NO. 2239, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED
STATES, INCORPORATED, ROBERT E. is a corporation organized and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of Virginia and that it ls in good
standing.
Nothing more is hereby certified.
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE' January 8, 1986
SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance
ITEM NUMBER;
18. F. 3.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS;
SUMMARY OFINFORMATION:
CLOVER HILL DISTRI~CT:
Cabin Creek, Section C-1 and C-2
Holly Ridge, Section 6
DALE DISTRICT:
Robinwood, Section 5
Virginia Pine Court
MATOACA DISTRICT:
Nash Grove
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO []
Richard ~. McElfish, P.E.
Director
En~vironmental Engineering
SIGNATURE
COUNTY ADM I N I STRATOR
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Board of Supervisors
Environmental Engineering
State Road Acceptance - Cabin Creek
Sections C-1 and C-2
MEETING DATE:
January 8, 1986
Boones Trail Road: Beginning where State Maintenance ends,
Boones Trail Road, State Route 2245, and going northwesterly
to the intersection with Conestoga Place and then continuing
southwesterly to the intersection with Long Tom Lane and
then continuing westerly to the intersection with Boones
Trail Court and then continuing southwesterly to tie into
proposed Boones Trail Road, future section of Fernbrook
Subdivision.
Conestoqa Place: Beginning at the intersection with Boones
Trail Road and going southeasterly to a cul-de-sac.
7-/O
,State Road Acceptance -
Cabin Creek, Sections C-1 & C-2
January 8, 1986
Page Two
Long Tom Lane: Beginning~ at the intersection with Boones
Trail Road and going southerly to the intersection with Long
Tom Court and then continuing southerly to a temporary turn
around.
Long Tom Court: Beginning at the intersection with Long
Tom Lane and going southwesterly to a cul-de-sac.
Boones Trail Court: Beginning at the intersection with
Boones Trail Road and going to a cul-de-sac.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Board of Supervisors
Environmental Engineering
State Road Acceptance,
Holly Ridge, Section 6
January 8, 1986
Newbys Court: Beginning at the intersection with Newbys
Bridge Road, State Route 649 and going southeasterly to a
cul-de-sac.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE:
Board of Supervisors
Environmental Engineering
State Road Acceptance -
Robinwood, Section 5
January 8, 1986
Oakhill Lane: Beginning at the intersection with Robinwood
Drive, State Route 2888 and running northerly to end in a
temporary turn around.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE:
Board of Supervisors
Environmental Engineering
State Road Acceptance -
Virginia Pine Court
January 8, 1986
Virginia Pine
Whitepine Road,
a cul-de-sac.
Court: Beginning at intersection with
State Route 701, and going southwesterly to
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Board of Supervisors
Environmental Engineering
State Road Acceptance -
Nash Grove
Buttevant Drive: Beginning at the intersection with Nash
Road, State Road 636, and running westerly to the
intersection with Wellesley Drive, then continuing westerly
to end in a temporary turn around.
Wellesley Drive: Beginning at the intersection with
Buttevant Drive and running northerly to end in a temporary
turn around. Again, Wellesley Drive beginning at the
intersection with Buttevant Drive and running southerly to
end in a cul-de-sac.
GROVE
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
k.
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
January 8, 198~
18. F.4.
ITEM NUMBER;
Setting Date for Model County Government Day
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION'
The Board is requested to include in its 1986 planning calendar,
April 30, 1986 for activities for the Model County Government Day
Program.
ATTACHMENTS: YES FI NO (~
SIGNATURE:
M.D. "Pete" Stith
/-
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
MEETING DATE: January 8, 1986
SUBJECT: Highway Engineer
ITEM NUMBER;
18. G.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
This is the normal time scheduled from Mr. Dennis Morrison, Resident
Engineer with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.
or his representative, to discuss road matters~.with each Supervisor.
PREPARED BY;,
ATTACHMENTS: YES I'1 NO ~
SIGNATURE :,,
COUNTY ADM I N! STRATOR'
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
MEETING DATE; January 8, 1986 ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT: Street Light Installation Cost Approvals
18. H. 2.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY 0FINFORMATION:
MATOACA DISTRICT: Locations approved May 22, 1985
Braebrook Drive and Braebrook Court
Cost to Install Light - $906.00
Locations approved July 24, 1985
Vernetta Lane and Edwin Lane
Cost to Install Light - $1077.00
Vernetta Lane and Serena Lane
Cost to Install Light - $1135.00
Glenlivet Drive and Glenlivet Court
Cost to Install Light - $ 903.00
Shire Oak Drive and Glenlivet Drive
Cost to Install Light - $ 705.00
Perthwood Lane and Perthshire Drive
Cost to Install Light - $1006.00
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO []
Richard M~/~c~.ifish, P.E.
Director
EnVironmental Engineering
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Agenda
Street Light Installation
Cost Approvals
January 8, 1986
Page Two
Locations approved July 24, 1985
Shire Oak Drive and Perthwood Lane
Cost to Install Light - $989.00
Braebrook Drive and Branders Bridge Road
Cost to Install Light - $1021.00
NOTE:
Funds available for installation - $5,305.00
Cost of installation of ~lights - $7,742.00
If installation costs are approved, additional funds
must be appropriated. ($2,437.00)
MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT: Locations approved October 9, 1985
Old Buckingham Road and the bridge at Falling Creek
Cost to Install Light - $174.00
Robious Road and Old Gun Road West
Cost to Install Light - $276.00
Post O~ce Box 511
Petersburg Virgirlia 23804-0511
VIITGINIA POWER
December 11, 1985
Mr. Richard M. McElfish
Director, Environmental Engineering Dept.
Chesterfield County
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear Mr. McElfish:
The cost for installing the outdoor lighting you requested at
Braebrook Drive at Braebrook Court is $906.00. This was calculated by
applying four years of revenue to the cost to Virginia Power of
installing the facilities. This cost is good for 60 days from the date
of this letter. We will proceed with construction upon the receipt of a
letter authorizing Virginia Power to bill the County of Chesterfield for
the installation cost.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 733-9222.
Michael W. Clark
Senior Service Representative
MWC/bwd
Post Office Box_511
Petersburg Virginia 23804-0511
VIRGINIA POWER
December 11, 1985
Mr. Richard M. McElfish
Director, Environmental Engineering Dept.
Chesterfield County
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear Mr. McElfish:
The cost for installing the outdoor lighting you requested at
Vernetta Lane at Edwin Lane is $1077.00. This was calculated by
applying four years of revenue to the cost to Virginia Power of
installing the facilities. This cost is good for 60 days from the date
of this letter. We will proceed with construction upon the receipt of a
letter authorizing Virginia Power to bill the County of Chesterfield for
the installation cost.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 733-9222.
Sincerely,
Michael W. Clark
Senior Service Representative
MWC/bw
Post Office Box 511
Petersburg Virginia 23804-0511
VIRGIltlIA POWER
December 11, 1985
Mr. Richard M. McElfish
Director, Environmental Engineering Dept.
Chesterfield County
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear Mr. McElfish:
The cost for installing the outdoor lighting you requested at
Vernetta Lane at Serena Lane is $1135.00. This was calculated by
applying four years of revenue to the cost to Virginia Power of
installing the facilities. This cost is good for 60 days from the date
of this letter. We will proceed with construction upon the receipt of a
letter authorizing Virginia Power to bill the County of Chesterfield for
the installation cost.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 733-9222.
Sincerely,
Michael W. Clark
Senior Service Representative
MWC/bw
Post O~ce Box 51l
Pete~burg Virginia 23801-0511
Mr. Richard M. McElfish
Director, Environmental Engineering Dept.
Chesterfield County
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear Mr. McElfish:
The cost for installing the outdoor lighting you requested at
Glenlivet Drive at Glenlivet Court is $903.00. This was calculated by
applying four years of revenue to the cost to Virginia Power of
installing the facilities. This cost is good for 60 days from the date
of this letter. We will proceed with construction upon the receipt of a
letter authorizing Virginia Power to bill the County of Chesterfield for
the installation cost.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 733-9222.
MWC/bw
Sincerely,
Michael W. Clark
Senior Service Representative
Post O~ice Box 511
Petersburg Virginia 23804-0511
Mr. Richard M. McElfish
Director, Environmental Engineering Dept.
Chesterfield County
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear Mr. McElfish:
The cost for installing the outdoor lighting you requested at Shire
Oak Drive at Glenlivet Drive is $705.00. This was calculated by
applying four years of revenue to the cost to Virginia Power of
installing the facilities. This cost is good for 60 days from the date
of this letter. We will proceed with construction upon the receipt of a
letter authorizing Virginia Power to bill the County of Chesterfield for
the installation cost.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 733-9222.
Michael W. Clark
Senior Service Representative
MWC/bw
Post Office Box 511
Pewrsbuvg Virginia 23804-0511
Mr. Richard M. McElfish
Director, Environmental Engineering Dept.
Chesterfield County
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear Mr. McElfish:
The cost for installing the outdoor lighting you requested at
Perthwood Lane at Perthshire Drive is $1006.00. This was calculated by
applying four years of revenue to the cost to Virginia Power of
installing the facilities. This cost is good for 60 days from the date
of this letter. We will proceed with construction upon the receipt of a
letter authorizing Virginia Power to bill the County of Chesterfield for
the installation cost.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 733-9222.
Sincerely,
Michael W. Clark
Senior Service Representative
MWC/bw
Post O.[/'ice Box 51 l
VIRGIfllIA POWER
December 11, 1985
Mr. Richard M. McElfish
Director, Environmental Engineering Dept.
Chesterfield County
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear Mr. McElfish:
The cost for installing the outdoor lighting you requested at Shire
Oak Drive at Perthwood Lane is $989.00. This was calculated by applying
four years of revenue to the cost to Virginia Power of installing the
facilities. This cost is good for 60 days from the date of this letter.
We will proceed with construction upon the receipt of a letter
authorizing Virginia Power to bill the County of Chesterfield for the
installation cost.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 733-9222.
Michael W. Clark
Senior Service Representative
MWC/bw
Posl OJ]~ce Box 511
VIRGINIA POWER
December 11, 1985
Mr. Richard M. McElfish
Director, Environmental Engineering Dept.
Chesterfield County
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear Mr. McElfish:
The cost for installing the outdoor lighting you requested at
Braebrook Drive and Branders Bridge Road is $1021.00. This was
calculated by applying four years of revenue to the cost to Virginia
Power of installing the facilities. This cost is good for 60 days from
the date of this letter. We will proceed with construction upon the
receipt of a letter authorizing Virginia Power to bill the County of
Chesterfield for the installation cost.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 733-9222.
Sincerely,
Michael W. Clark
Senior Service Representative
MWC/bw
9121Midlothian Turnpike
Richmond, Va. 23235
VII~GIAIIA POWER
December 2, 1985
Mr. Calvin L. Viar
Principal Engineer Assistant
Environmental Engineering
Chesterfield County
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear Mr. Vi ar'
Engineering for the street light installation at Old Buckingham Road and the
bridge at Falling Creek has been completed. The {nstallation cost to the
County of Chesterfield is $174.00. Installation is contingent upon completion
of highway permit request.
The relocation charge for the street light presently on pole #XE-99 is $276.00.
A sketch of both installations are enclosed. ~o~'~o~ ~-c~, ~ o~ ~ ~.~, CU0
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Yours truly,
R. H. Byrd, Jr.
Service Representative
320-7811, Ext. 2029
97566030
T~c11STF-
P~'esen5 Vepco Poles
"F' ,,
Proposed Vepco Poles
" " .1_ ;),. 3
~ ~,o o I X F fl 2.
f -- ~ -- -~-
0 Present Vepco
Proposed
Poles
Proposed Vepco Poles
106
.&
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE: January 8, 1986
SUBJECT: Street Light Requests
ITEM NUMBER:
18_ H. 3.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OFINFORMATION:
BERMUDA DISTRICT:
Intersection of Heather Stone Dr. and Walnut Drive
CLOVER HILL DISTRICT:
Intersection of Condrey Ridge Dr. and Academy Dr.
DALE DISTRICT:
Intersection of Vauxhall Road and Vauxhall Court
MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT:
Intersection of Midlothian Turnpike and Otterdale Road
Intersection of Kentford Road and W. Brigstock
ATTACHMENTS: YES E! NO I-!
Richard M/McElfish, P.E.
Director
E~vironmental Engineering
SIGNATURE: .....
COUNTY ADMINTS'TRATOR 1 ~,'I ~'~
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Bermuda District
DATE OF REQUEST December 10, 1985 TAX MAP 135-12
NAME OF REQUESTOR Gloria A. Kiffe
ADDRESS 14421 Heather S~o~e D~ive
PHONE NUMBER - HOME WORK
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF Heather Shone Dr.
AND Walnut Drive ·
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
~PLACED
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE
COMMENTS Meets criteria
OR SET POLE
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
14421 Heather Stone Drive
Chester, VA 23831
December 10, 1985
County of Chesterfield
En§i neeri n§ Department
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, VA 23832
Dear Sir:
I have recently moved to the address shown above and am most concerned about
the lack of light at the corner of Walnut Drive and Heather Stone Drive. In
addition, Heather Stone Drive is located on a cul-de-sac; consequently, both
ends of the street are extremely dark.
Other t~han the fact that I am concerned for my family and my neighbors, Enon
Elementary School is located directly across from the corner in question.
I would think that this would reinforce the need for a streetli§ht to be in-
stalled,
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Clover Hil~istrict
TAX MAP
DATE OF REQUEST December 11, 1985 38-10
NAME OF REQUESTOR M. Theo Lewis
ADDRESS 2000 Condre¥ Ridqe Drive
PHONE NUMBER - HOME 745-1182 WORK
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF Condrey Ridge Dr.
AND Academy Dr. ·
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
~PLACED
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE
COMMENTS Meets criteria
OC98 OR SET POLE
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
38 -9
I ~ 20
lO
5
~-9-(I)-;
~ 40 I
I ~ ~07§z \
December 10, 1985
Mr. Calvin Viar
Engineering Department
Post Office Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia
23832
Dear Mr. Viar:
Per our telephone conversation of December 9, 1985, I am writing
to request a streetlight be installed on pole #0C98 on Condrey
Ridge Drive and Academy Drive in Solar II area off Courthouse Road.
The undeveloped Academy Drive has numerous late night visitors,
for whatever reasons, and the completely dark area does not give
adequate security.
Please give this request one of your top priorities.
Sincerely,
M. Theo Lewis
MTL/lma
116
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Dale District
DATE OF REQUEST 11/22/85
NAME OF REQUESTOR John Warlick
ADDRESS 4441 Vauxhall Road
TAX MAP 52- 3
PHONE NUMBER - HOME WORK
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF Vauxhall Road
AND Vauxhall Court .
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
~PLACED
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE
COMMENTS Meets criteria
OR SET POLE
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
i.I 4
0
poodles
\
\
\
0
0
November 22, 1985
Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Supervisor
Dale District
4833 Melody Road, South
Richmond, Va. 23234
Dear Mr. Daniel:
We, the undersigned, would like to request that
a street light be placed at the intersection of Vauxhall Road
and Vauxhall Court in Garland Heights.
Thank you for your consideration.
i16
DATE OF REQUEST
NAME OF REQUESTOR
ADDRESS
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Midlothian District
12/4/85 TAX MAP 15
Joan Girone
PHONE NUMBER - HOME WORK
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF Midlothian Turnpike
AND Otterdale Road .
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
.PLACED
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE ~
COMMENTS Meets criteria-existinq pole
OR SET POLE
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
POWERHAM
JAMES
RIVER
WEST
Salisbury CC
IDLOTHIAN
O~rERDAL[
Midlothia
!
IDLOTHIAr
HS
FOUR
SEASONS
MIDLOTHI
BI CJ
VA GRID 2,240,000 FT
D E F G
Joins Map 8
BUCCI
TURNPIKI
,250,000 FT H
Pond
STREET LIGHT REQUEST
Midlothian District
DATE OF REQUEST 12/6/85
NAME OF REQUESTOR Grace Hutton
ADDRESS 2715 W. Briqstock Road
TAX MAP
7-7
PHONE NUMBER - HOME 794-9455
WORK
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
AND W. Brigstock
Kentford Road
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION.
.PLACED
IT IS REQUESTED TO BE
PLEASE INSTALL LIGHT ON POLE #
COMMENTS Meets criteria
OR SET POLE
ATTACHMENT: (Vicinity Sketch)
7
7-3
f$
5
.See 7-11-(I)
THE SALISBURY
PcL8
6
MIDLO'FH~&~
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE'
SUBJECT:
January 8r 1986 ITEM NUMBER; 18. H. 4.
Subdivision Ordinance Amendments Relating to the
Provision of Curb and Gutter
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
On May 22, 1985, the Board of Supervisors asked the Planning Commission
to consider an ordinance requiring curb and gutter in subdivisions which
would generally be developed to R-12 standards or smaller. During the
deliberations on this item, the following options were considered:
Require curb and gutter where any lot, not on a cul-de-sac,
has less than 100 feet of public road frontage.
Require curb and gutter where any lot, not on a cul-de-sac,
has less than 80 feet of public road frontage and where the
average frontage for all lots is less than 90 feet.
Require curb and gutter where any lot, not on a cul-de-sac,
has less than 80 feet of public road frontage and where the
average frontage for all lots is less than 85 feet.
Require curb and gutter where any lot is smaller than 15,000
square feet in area, less than 100 feet wide at the building
line, or where more than 2% of the total number of lots are
flag lots.
Continued next page -
ATTACHMENTS: YES []
NO I~
James P. Zook J~
Director of Planning
SIGNATURE:
RLH
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Subdivision Ordinance Amendments - Curb and Gutter
Page Two
At a work session and public hearing held by the Commission on
December 17, 1985, the merits of each idea were discussed. The
Commission's recommendation was that the fourth alternative should
be adopted. The Commission also recommended that asphalt pavement
should be required on all streets where curb and gutter is provided.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board set February 12 19_86
· . . ~ ~ ' I ~ ~
as the date for its public hearing on this Subdlvlslo~ Ordinance Amend-
ment. Staff further recommends that the Board schedule a work session
to discuss the Amendment prior to the public hearing.
AG1D144/jac
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY
AMENDING SECTION 18-36 RELATING
TO CURB AND GUTTER
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County:
(1) That the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, be
amended by amending Section 18-36 as follows:
Sec. 18-36. Arrangements.
o o o
(j) In any subdivision where the minimum lot width, at the right of way
line, is less than 100 feet, curb and gutter shall be installed. The width of
lots that have radial fronta efz~_around the terminus of a _Eermanent cul-de-sac
shall not be included in these minimum lot widths.
(k) Where concrete curb and gutter is provided, the minimum pavement
design shall include two inches of S-5 bituminous concrete.
ORDIN/MY197/dem
ITEM 7 DRAFT 6/25/85
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
L.
MEETING DATE: January 8, 1986 ITEM NUMBER:I18' H. 5.
SUBJECT: Through trUck traffic restriction - Smoketree Drive
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
On December 12, 1984, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution
requesting VDH&T to restrict through truck traffic on Smoketree Drive.
VDH&T has completed their traffic investigation for this request and
has advised staff that they will not recommend a restriction to the
Highway Board. The Board of Supervisors is requested to withdraw the
request for a restriction or advise VDH&T to continue with the
investigation of the request.
Background:
The main factors in VDH&T's decision to recommend against the
restriction are as follows:
There have been no truck related accidents on Smoketree Drive
or Spirea Road.
Of the 88 trucks observed on Smoketree Drive, only 13 made
uninterrupted through trips.
ATTACHMENTS: YES [~ NO []
Of the 25 trucks observed on Spirea Road, only 13 made
uninterrupted through trips·
PRE PARED BY;.
R~/.' McCracken
D//rector
SIGNATURE: _.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Agenda
Through Truck Traffic Restriction -
Smoketree Drive
January 8, 1986
Page Two
Alternatives:
1)
The Board can withdraw its request for a restriction on Smoketree
Drive. If this alternative is selected, VDH&T will cease further
investigation of the restriction.
2)
The Board can advise VDH&T to continue with the investigation
of the restriction. If this alternative is adopted, VDH&T will
conduct their own public hearing on the matter. The probability
of VDH&T reversing their position is not very good, however, the
citizens in the area would be given the opportunity to
participate in VDH&T's public hearing process.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board select Alternative 2 instructing
VDH&T to proceed with the investigation of the restriction of
through truck traffic on Smoketree Drive and that the attached
resolution be adopted,
I
I
I
0,55
I
sm
:ntral Churc~
REAM:
ACADE: hay
16
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY: At the
regular meeting of the Board
of Supervisors held at the
Courthouse on January 8, 1986
at 7:00 p.m.
WHEREAS, on December 12, 1984, the Board of Supervisors
of Chesterfield County requested the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation to restrict through truck traffic
on Smoketree Drive; and
WHEREAS, VDH&T has completed a traffic study for this
request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board requests
VDH&T to proceed with the restriction of through truck traffic
on Smoketree Drive.
Vote:
Certified By:
Joan S. Dolezal, Deputy Clerk
to the Board of Supervisors
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE : January 8, 1986 ITEM NUMBER: 1R. T-~.
SUBJECT: Turner Road Widening Project from Route 60 to Route 360
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
The Board is requested to adopt the attached resolution urging
VDH&T to proceed on schedule with the Turner Road widening project.
Background:
On May 22, 1985 the Board adopted a resolution requesting
VDH&T to widen Turner Road to four lanes from Route 60 to Route
360. VDH&T agreed with the Board's recommendation and indicated
that the widening would be scheduled for advertisement in the
Spring of 1987. Staff has now learned that the advertisement
date for the project is in jeopardy and may be delayed for as
much as one year.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution
requesting VDH&T to take all steps necessary to have the Turner
Road project advertised in the Spring of 1987.
ATTACHMENTS: YES [] NO []
R.~J. McCracken
Director
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADM I NI STRATOR
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY: At the
regular meeting of the Board
of Supervisors held at the
Courthouse on January 8, 1986
at 7:00 p.m.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County
has requested the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation to widen Turner Road to four lanes from Route 60
to Route 360; and
WHEREAS, the Highway Board has approved the concept
of widening Turner Road to four lanes; and
WHEREAS, VDH&T has advised the County that the Turner
Road project would be advertised in the Spring of 1987
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors
of Chesterfield County hereby requests the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation to take any and all steps
necessary to meet the Spring, 1987 advertisement date for the
Turner Road project.
Vote:
Certified By:
Joan S. Dolezal, Deputy Clerk
to the Board of Supervisors
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
MEETING DATE: ._'r_~nu_ary 8 ~ !986
SUBJECT:
ITEM NUMBER:
Virginia Community Development Block Grant Appropriations
and Satisfaction of Federal and State Requirements
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
The County has been notified that it will receive the full grant amount
in Community Development Block Grant funds for the Bellwood/Bensley
area. The County had originally applied for $700,000 and last month was
awarded $400,0001 On December 30, we were notified than an additional
$300,000 would be awarded to Chesterfield. To initiate the Bellwood/
Bensley Community Improvement Program, it is necessary that the Board of
Supervisors appropriate in the following manner: $58,100 for adminis-
tration costs, $365,000 for housing rehabilitation, $176,900 for the
water line extension and $100,000 for a neighborhood park.
Federal law states that local businesses and residents should be given
priority for jobs, supplies, or contracts likely to result from Block
Grant activities. The State requires the Board of Supervisors to adopt
a Section 3 Plan. This Plan seeks to involve local businesses and local
low income residents in the contract or employment opportunities which
may be stimulated by the expenditure of CDBG funds. Therefore, the
Board of Supervisors is requested to adopt the attached Section 3 Plan
which satisfies the Federal and State mandates.
ATTACHMENTS: YES ~/
NO []
PREPARED
Jame . Zook
Dire~t°r of Planning
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINiSTRATOR
Subject: Virginia Community Development Block Grant Appropriations and
Satisfaction of Federal and State Requirements
January 8, 1986
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
The Board of Supervisors appropriate the $700,000 Virginia Community
Development Block Grant in the manner outlined above and adopt the
attached Section 3 Plan.
Attachment
AG1D189/dem
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
SECTION 3 PLAN FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT GRANT FUNDS
The Chesterfield County designates as its Section 3 covered project area
the boundaries of Chesterfield County.
The Chesterfield County, its contractors, and designated third parties
shall, in utilizing Community Improvement Grant funds, utilize businesses
and lower income residents of the Section 3 covered project area in
carrying out all activities to the greatest extent feasible.
In awarding contracts for work and for procurement of materials, equip-
ment, or services, the Chesterfield County, its contractors, and
designated third parties shall take the following steps to utilize
businesses which are located in or owned in substantial part by persons
residing in the Section 3 covered area.
me
The Chesterfield County shall ascertain what work and procure-
ments are likely to take place through the Community Improve-
ment Grant funds.
be
The Chesterfield County shall ascertain through various and
appropriate sources including
The Chesterfield Gazette
the business concerns covered by Section 3 which are likely to
provide materials, equipment, and services which will be uti-
lized in the activities funded through Community Improvement
Grant.
The identified business concerns shall be apprised of opportu-
nities to submit bids, quotes, or proposals for work or
procurement contracts which utilize CIG funds.
de
To the greatest extent feasible, the identified businesses and
any other project area business concerns shall be utilized in
activities which are funded with CIGs.
In the utilization of trainees or employees for activities funded through
CIGs, the Chesterfield County, its contractors, and designated third
parties shall take the following steps to utilize lower income persons
residing in the Section 3 covered project area.
me
The Chesterfield County in consultation with its contractors
(including design professionals) shall ascertain the types and
number of positions for both trainees and employees which are
likely to be utilized during the project funded by CIGs.
1 SSlD224/dem
be
The Chesterfield County shall advertise through the following
sources the availability of such positions
The Chesterfield Gazette
with the information on how to apply.
The Chesterfield County, its contractor~, and designated third
parties shall be required to maintain a record of inquiries and
applications by project area of residents who respond to
advertisements, and shall maintain a record of the status of
such inquiries and applications.
To the greatest extent feasible, the Chesterfield County, its
contractors, and designated third parties shall utilize lower
income project area residents in filling training and employ-
ment positions necessary for implementing activities funded by
CIGs.
In order to ascertain substantial compliance with the above affirmative
actions and Section 3 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1968, the Chesterfield County shall keep, and require to be kept by
contractors and designated third parties, listings of all persons em-
ployed and all procurements made through the implementation of activities
funded by CIGs. Such listings shall be complete and shall be verified by
site visits and interviews, crosschecking of payroll reports and invoic-
es, and through audits if necessary.
2 SS1D224/dem
NEAI J. BARBER
}{{~t~l~ DIRECTOR
COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjINIA
DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
January 6, 1986
Fourth Street Office Building
205 North Fourth Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219-1747
(804) 786-1575
Mr. Richard L. Hedrick
County Administrator
County of Chesterfield
Post Office Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
Dear ~. ~~
I am pleased to inform you that, due to the availability of returned
funds, we are able to offer Chesterfield County an additional $294,306.00
in Community Improvement Grant funds for its fiscal year 1985 Bellwood/
Bensley Residential Improvement Project. The County's total allocation
for this project is now $700,000.00--the full amount of the County's original
request.
We are looking forward to working with Chesterfield County on the
completion of the total project as proposed.
Sincerely,
Neal J. Barber
clt
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE: January 8, 1986 ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT: Route 36 Grade Separation Project in Ettrick
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
On May 22, 1985, the Board authorized VDH&T to proceed with the
design of the Ettrick Grade Separation project as a River Road
to East River Road overpass. Since that time, citizens have
expressed concern to Colonel Mayes regarding the concept of
the project. Colonel Mayes has requested a public hearing
on the concept of the grade separation project.
RECOMMENDATION:
If the Board desires to have a public hearing on the concept of
the Route 36 Grade Separation project, ~. ~ ~ ~;o~F.m. should be
established as a public hearing date and the ~dvertisement for
that hearing should be authorized. .~
I, '
L¢ . I
ATTACHMENTS: YES r'! NO []
SIGNATURE: ,,,
R~/J. McCracken~/
D//rector
Transportation
~~O~N~TY ADMI NISTRATOR
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE:
January 8, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:_
18. I. 1. a.
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing to Consider the Conveyance of Right of
Way to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the
Construction of Powhite Parkway
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Staff has received a request from the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation to convey to them three (3) parcels
of land for the construction of Powhite Parkway.
Parcel A, on the attached map, was purchased for $575.00 by
the Utilities Department for construction of the Brighton Green
Lagoon. Parcel B, on the attached map, was dedicated several
years ago as a possible reservoir site and Parcel C was dedicated
to the County by the developers of the "The Boulders" for the
construction of Powhite Parkway.
St'aff recommends that since the Utilities Department
purchased Parcel A that it be sold to the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation at the original purchase price and
that Parcels B and C be conveyed at no cost to the Commonwealth.
The cost to relocate County utilities located on these parcels
will be paid by the project.
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO r-I
SIGNATURE: ,
COUNTY ADM I N!STRATOR
,/
January 8, 1986
Page 2
Staff also recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman
of the Board and the County Administrator to execute the
necessary option and deed for the conveyance of the property.
District: Midlothian
Recommend Approval
18-73-[
4
I
18-'4
L
Io
,6
19-
r~,~DL OTHtA N
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
L.
MEETING DATE:
January 8, 1986
18. I. 1. b.
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT:
UTILITY PUBLIC HEARING: To Consider the Conveyance of
excess Parcels of Land adjacent to North Providence
Road
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMAR__Y O~ INFORMATIO~N:
/
We are requesting the Board t~ approve the conveyance of
excess parcels of land adjacent ~ North Providence Road and
authorize the Chai~an of the Bo~d and the County Administrator
to execute the necessary qui~m deeds.
We have received a r~uest from George D. and Nellie C.
McCeney and William J. ~9~'~and James R. Sowers to convey excess
parcels of land acquired for North Providence Road. This has
been reviewed by staff and the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation and approval is recommended.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the conveyance of
excess' parcels of land adjacent to North Providence Road and
authorize the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator
to execute the necessary quitclaim deeds.
District: Midlothian
Recommend Approval
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO I-I
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMI NI STRATOR
0
RICHMOND
SEVILLE
SOUTHERt ~ ~
RECEPTION
RICHMOND
BRENTFORO DR
~OBIOL~ HALL
!
!
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
January 8, 1986
ITEM NUMBER: 18. I. 1. c.
UTILITY PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance to Vacate a 50'
Right of Way within Buford Estates
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION'
Staff is requesting the Board to adopt an ordinance to
vacate a 50' right of way within Buford Estates.
We have received an application from Harvey F. Crocker, Jr.,
and Victoria J. Crocker, requesting the vacation of a 50' right
of way within Buford Estates. This has been reviewed by staff
and necessary easements will be retained.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the ordinance to
vacate a 50' right of way within Buford Estates.
District: Midlothian
Recommend Approval
PREPARED BY;
ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO []
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
//
o
o
RECEPT:ON
RICHMOND
~RENTFORO DR
~'
17
Poge 6
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
January 8, 1986
Approval of Sewer
Trunk Sewer
18. I. 2.
ITEM NUMBER;
Contract for Upper Michaux Creek
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Staff requests that the Board approve the
contract:
following
Sewer Contract Number S85-144CD/7(8)5E4M,
Creek Trunk Sewer
Developer: Sommerville~ ~
Contractor: RMC Contractors, Incorporated
Total Contract Cost: $112,080.00
Total Estimated County Cost:
Upper Michaux
15,086.50 (Refund through
Estimated Developer Cost:
Number of Connections: 1
Code: 5N-2511-997
$ 96,993.50
connection fees)
This project provides for the oversizing of the sewer lines
to serve ultimate development of the Upper Michaux Creek Drainage
Basin.
District: Midlothian
Recommend Approval
PREPARED BY; _~ ~
ATTACHMENTS: YES ~j~ NO I~
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADM I NISTRATOR
/
-,I
.J
0
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF' SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE
SUBJECT:
January 8, %986
18. I. 3. a.
ITEM NUMBER:
Set Public Hearing to Consider Sale of Surplus Well Lot
in Arrowhead Subdivision
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Staff requests that the Board set a public hearing for
February 12, 1986, to consider the sale of a well lot designated
as Arrowhead Well Lot - Block H, Section 2.
Mr. Conner B. Owen, adjacent property owner of Lot 6, Block
H, has offered to pay the County $500.00 for the well lot.
Mr. Owen has also granted permission to the County for the use of his
driveway during the dismantling and removing of the well house.
We have had an appraisal made of the property and it has been
established that market value would be $500.00.
Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing for
February 12, 1986_~_~.7;gn.4k~m. to consider the sale of the well
lot.
Recommend Approval ~/, '
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO D
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
, D/ST,
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
MEETING DATE:
January 8, 1986
18. I. 3. b.
ITEM NUMBER:,,
SUBJECT:
Set a Public Hearing to Establish a Waterline
Special Assessment District and a Sewerline Development
District.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Developers are currently showing an increased interest
in developing the area of the County east of 1-95 along
Ruffin Mill Road for industrial use. Fiorucci Foods
(U.S.A.), Inc. has recently obtained financing to develop a
40-acre parcel in this area as a meat processing plant, and
other industrial facilities are expected in the near future.
Currently there is no public sewer or water service to this
development area and these public services are necessary to
adequately support the anticipated industrial growth.
The entire cost of extending sewer and water lines, is
currently estimated to be $252,600 for the sewer line and
$392,740 for the water line including the cost of easement
acquisitions. Since it would not be financially feasible
for any one developer in the area to bear the entire cost of
the extensions, it has been proposed that the County
exercise its statutory authority to create a sewer
ATTACHMENTS: YES '~
NO []
(Cont' d. )
PREPARED BY;
Steven L. Micas
County Attorney
SIGNATURE:
Public Hearing t ~stablish a Waterline Spe~ ~1
Assessment District and a Sewerline Development District
January 8, 1986
Page 2
development and water assessment district in the area of the
plant site. By establishing these special districts, the
County could extend the necessary service lines through the
development area and then recover the cost of the
extensions, on a pro-rata basis, from each area landowner
whose property will be served by the extensions. This
financing method is particularly equitable since costs are
spread among those parcels whose value will be specifically
enhanced by the availability of public utilities. In this
case, virtually all properties affected are expected to
develop ultimately for industrial use. Furthermore, this
concept is not new; the County has previously established
similar development districts, the last one being the
Johnson Creek Drainage District to finance a drainage
improvement project.
Waterline-Special Assessement District
In a special assessment district, the cost of a water-
line improvement is pro-rated only among those properties
which actually abut the line based on the acreage of each
parcel. The pro-rated cost is then assessed against the
property like any other tax. While the Board can require
that these assessments be paid immediately upon construction
of the line it may allow that the assessments to be paid in
equal installments over a period of up to ten years with
interest at up to 12% per annum on the unpaid balance. The
Utilities Department has determined which properties will
actually abut the proposed water line and a list of these
parcels and the amount of the assessment attributable to
each parcel is attached.
Sewerline-Development District
In contrast to a water district, a sewer development
district encompasses all properties within a common drainage
area, rather than merely those properties which are adjacent
to the proposed sewer line. Additionally, while each
property is assessed a pro rata portion of total project
costs based on acreage, the assessment is not due for
payment until the landowner actually develops or subdivides
his property. A preliminary study has been performed by the
Utilities Department which defines the boundaries of the
sewer development district in the Ruffin Mill area. A list
of all owners of property in the preliminary district and
the amount of the sewer assessment for each owner is
attached. Once Utilities has completed the final
engineering study of the drainage area, staff will compile a
new list of owners affected. It is not expected that the
boundaries established by the preliminary study will change
significantly as a result of the final study.
Public Hearing t¢ stablish a Waterline Spec 1
Assessment District and a Sewerline Development District
January 8, 1986
Page 3
Action Required
Under state law, for the County to create special
utility assessment and development districts, the Board must
pass a resolution to that effect after holding a public
hearing. Staff recommends that such a hearing be held
relative to both the sewer and water districts at the
February 12, 1986 Board meeting. This will allow sufficient
time for the staff to satisfy all notice requirements and
for the Utilities Department to complete all necessary
engineering studies.
215.33
WATER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
A. Owners of Property Located Within
Water Special Assessment District*
G. L. Howard, Inc.
123.90
Parrish, David S., Sr.
154.342
28.982
18.273
201.597
Roslyn Farm Corp.
Total
73.324
5.849
79.173
Landa, Mark A. & Francine Y.
70.00
Jilek, Edwin Nixon
48.00
WalthalI Investment Co.
23.989
9.219
33.208
Old Stage Motor Lodge, Inc.
Total
20.80
5.00
25.80
Ware, John W., Trustee
Total
17.426
Estate of Mary Belle Baker
12.00
Peterson, Clinton F.
*Lists of owners and averages are not final and are subject to
ch an ge.
10. 504
Shamin, Inc.
10.00
4.00
Roberts, John W., et al.
Heckner, Robert A. and Elizabeth C.
.938
Seibert, John R.
.73
Chesterfield Co.
.682
Exxon Corp. No. 4830
.52
The Southland Corp.
B. Estimated Assessments
Total estimated acreage in water
special assessment district -
Total estimated costs of
waterline to be assessed
against acreage in district
Estimated assessment per acre
921.71 acres
$392,740
$425.81
Ae
SEWER DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Owners of Property Located Within
Sewer Development District*
Acreage
283.20
Owner
KMI Continental Harwood, Inc.
54.342
28.982
18.273
201.597
Roslyn Farm Corp.
Total
67.90
123.90
191.80
Parrish, David S., Sr.
Total
110.40
KMI Land Resources, Inc.
5.849
73.324
79.173
Landa, Mark A. & Francine Y.
Total
30.34
3.349
2.958
36.647
17.426
Fulcher, Harold B. and Lee ti.
Total
Estate of Mary Belle Baker
15.00
Lone Star Cement, Inc.
12.00
Peterson, Clinton F.
* Lists of owners and acreages are not final and are subject to
change.
6.122
Nelson, Theodore P. and Esther R.
5.155
Burton, Ralph G. and Barbara L.
5.00
Logan, James M. and Ima Jean
4.00
Heckner, Robert A. and Elizabeth C.
3.50
Hendrick, Margaret E.
2.755
Woods, Charles R. & Virginia A.
2.606
Phillips, Milton E. and Betty J.
2.12
Vaughan, Wilton L. and Lancaster Y.
1.00
Johnson, J. Dean
1.00
Gregory, Arlen S. and Sally J.
1.00
Gilliam, Charles C. and Notie H.
1.00
Bosher, Marshall D.
B. Estimated Assessments
Total estimated acreage in
sewer development district -
982.52
Total estimated costs of
sewer line to be assessed
against acreage in district -
$252,600
Estimated assessment
per acre
$257.09
-2-
0
/
/
/
/
/
---t
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
MEETING DATE'
SUBJECT:
January 8, !986
18. I. 4. a.
ITEM NUMBER:
Authorization to proceed with Condemnation of a Water
Easement along River Road
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Staff requests the Board to authorize the County Attorney to
proceed with condemnation of a water easement along River Road.
On October 9, 1985, the following offer was made by the
Right of Way Section to the owner listed below for the purchase
of the water easement for the extension of the water line along
River Road to serve:
Carrol A. Roberson and David D. Roberson $1608.00
The owners have proposed a counteroffer in the amount of
$5,000.00. Staff feels this amount to be excessive and therefore
recommends denial.
Since the contract for the installation of this water is
being approved today and since the owner has not accepted the
County's offer, it is necessary to proceed with condemnation on
an emergency basis.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County
Attorney to proceed with condemnation on an emergency basis and
exercise immediate right of entry pursuant ~,~. Secti~n~
PREPARED BY;_
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO r'l
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADM I NISTRATOR
January 8, 1986
Page 2
of the Code of Virginia, and that the County Administrator be
instructed to notify the owner by certified mail on January 9,
1986, of the County's intention to take possession of the
easement.
District: Matoaca
Recommend Approval
PLAT
15' WATERLINE EASEMF~"~T and
IO'TEMPOP, ARy CONSTRtJC3'T~ EASE. M~L_NT
MATOACA I~STRK~T
CI-ESTERRELD COUNTY, V1R~INIA
1tI /
t/'
!
L
59
/ ' 'Tx \
z_
I
t
!
[
Chesdin_
154 I~
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF' SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
L.
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
January 8, 1986
ITEM NUMBER: 18. I. 4. b.
Authorization to Proceed with Condemnation for Sewer
Easements along Turner Road
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Staff requests the Board to authorize the County Attorney to
proceed with condemnation for sewer easements along Turner Road.
The following offers were made to the owners listed below
for the purchase of a sewer easement for the extension of the
sewer force main line along Turner Road:
S84-39C/3 - Robert C. and Ola H. Mitchell
S84-39C/4 - Houston P. and Zona C. Willis
S84-39C/5,6 - John D. Combs, et al
S84-39C/8 - Thomas H. and Vivian G. Rash, Jr.
$256.00
$835.00
$587.0O
$450.0O
Since the contract for the installation has been awarded,
and since the owners have not accepted the County's offer, it is
necessary to proceed with condemnation on an emergency basis.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County
Attorney to proceed with condemnation on an emergency basis and
exercise immediate right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1
of the Code of Virginia, and that the County Administrator be
PREPARED BY; ~~"'~~
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO I-I
SIGNATURE:.,
COUNTY ADMIN! STRATOR
January 8, 1986
Page 2
instructed to notify the owner by certified mail on January 9,
1986, of the County's intention to take possession of the
easement.
District: Dale
Recommend Approval
gl
~NO~HD
,/
f,, Z:
04
O N 0 P~ H O I ~ /
6~
?
(] N 0 R H D I ~t ,/
~G
,/ ,
'6
/
/
/
0 N 0 IAi H E) i H ,/-'~'
o¥
dl
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF' SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
ITEM NUMBER:18- I. 4oc.
Authorization to Proceed with Condemnation of a Sewer
Easement along Turner Road
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Staff requests the Board to authorize the County Attorney to
proceed with condemnation of a sewer easement along Turner Road.
On December 6, 1985, the following offer was made to the
owners listed below for the purchase of a sewer easement for the
extension of the sewer force main line along Turner Road.
S84-39C/2 Robert H. and Carrie M. Belcher $1,788.00
The owners have proposed a counteroffer in the amount of
$3,000.00. Staff feels this amount to be excessive and therefore
recommends denial.
Since the contract for the installation of this sewer line
has been approved, and since the owners have not accepted the
County's offer, it is necessary to proceed with condemnation on
an emergency basis.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County
Attorney to proceed with condemnatiOn on an emergency basis and
exercise immediate right of entry pursuant to Section 15.0-238.1
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO []
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
January 8, 1986
Page 2
of the Code of Virginia, and that the County Administrator be
instructed to notify the owner by certified mail on January 9,
1986, of the County's intention to take possession of the
easement.
District: Dale
Recommend Approval
c
~-,../ R I C H M 0 N D
2.9
BELMONT
,¸3
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEET lNG DATE
SUBJECT:
January 8, 1986
ITEM NUMBER: 18. I. 5. a.
Approval of Water Contract for Sommerville
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OFINFORMATION:
Staff requests that the Board approve the
contract:
Water Contract Number W86-~D~~i l~e
Developer: Sommerville ~ ' '
E=nt~zp~iS~S, incorporated
Contractor: RMC Contractors, Incorporated
Total Contract Cost: $176,320.00
Total Estimated County Cost:
Estimated Developer Cost:
Number of Connections: 1
following
35,000.00 (Cash Refund)
$141,320.00
Staff recommends that the Board approve the contract and
authorize the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents. Staff further recommends that $14,437.50 be
transferred from 5H-5724-2009 to 5H-5724-6279 and $17,164.20 be
appropriated from 5D surplus to 5H-5724-6279 for the cash refund
for oversizing of lines. The refund for oversizing is the cost
difference between 12 and 16 inch water line. The refund amount
includes a 10% contingency.
District: Midlothian
Recommend Approval
PREPARED By; .}~Z~ ~
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO []
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE
SUBJECT:
January 8, !986
ITEM NUMBER;
18. I. 5. i.
Acceptance of Deed of Dedication along the Northern
Line of Midlothian Turnpike
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION'
Staff requests that the Board authorize the County
Administrator to accept a deed of dedication from Thomas S.
Winston, III, and Michael T. Barr, Trustees, for the right of way
to serve Sommerville Development and the Vepco property on
Midlothian Turnpike across from Otterdale Road.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County
Administrator to sign the deed accepting it on behalf of the
County.
District: Midlothian
Recommend Approval
ATTACHMENTS: YES ~] NO r-I
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
GARNETT
........... -jo~ -i ~'--~ ..........
THO~GAT [
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
January 8, 1986
18. I. 5. b.
ITEM NUMBER:
Award of Contract for River Road/Bright Oaks Water Line
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Staff is requesting that Contract W85-5B be awarded to R. R.
Snipes Construction Company, Incorporated, in the amount of
$430,590.00 based on using ductile iron pipe. We received nine
(9) bids on this project ranging from $430,590.00 to $519,012.87.
Staff is also requesting an additional appropriation in the
amount of $98,500.00 from Bond Surplus to 5H-5835-505N for
contingencies and materials to be furnished by the County. There
has been a prior appropriation in the amount of $400,000.00 in
the Capital Improvement Budget.
This water line will serve existing homes along River Road
and allow the County to abandon a well system furnishing forty
(40) homes in Bright Oaks Subdivision. The wells have lost
considerable capacity and cannot furnish adequate water for the
existing customers.
District: Matoaca
RecommendApproval
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO []
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
RIVER
*2'
.2
=i
!
!
I
I
I
Gill G(ove Chu(ch
2.90
RD
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
January 8, 1986
ITEM NUMBER; 18. I. 5. c.
Award of Contract for Water Lines on Myron Avenue and
Parkdale Road
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Staff is requesting award of Contract W85-62C (Myron Avenue)
and Contract W84-36B (Parkdale Road) for construction of water
lines to O. D. Duncanson and Sons, Incorporated, in the amounts
of $23,100.25 and $34,609.65 respectively, based on P.V.C. pipe
for a total contract of $57,109.90.. We received five (5) bids
ranging from $57,109.90 to $110,075.00.
Staff is also requesting that additional appropriations be
made as follows:
Contract W85-62C - Appropriate $6,800.00 from Water Surplus
to 5H-5835-562H for construction and contingencies. There was a
prior 'appropriations in the amount of $20,000.00 when this
project was approved.
Contract W84-36B - Appropriate $22,000.00 from Bond Surplus
to 5H-5835-436N for construction and contingencies due to the
requirement imposed by the Virginia Department of Highways.
Approximately $12,000.00 of this appropriation is additional cost
of boring the secondary road on this project. Previously,
$30,000.00 was included in the CIP for this project.
PREPARED BY;. ~~
ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO []
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMI NISTRATOR
January 8, 1986
Page 2
The Myron Water Line project is an extension approved as a
result of a petition previously approved by the Board of
Supervisors.
Parkdale Road is a project required to replace old 2 inch
water lines that are requiring constant repairs.
District: Bermuda
Recommend Approval
9NIJ._L30
'3^~'
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
January 8, 1986
ITEM NUMBER: 18. I. 5. d.
Request for Extension of Time on Refunds for Southridge
Subdivision
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Staff has received a request from Southridge Limited
Partnership for an extension of time of the refunds through
connections provision for Water Contract W81-7CD. This contract
expired December 11, 1985. The developer was originally due
$30,308.28. As of this date, $16,958.28 is due on the contract.
Staff recommends that Southridge Limited Partnership be
granted a one (1) year extension on this contract.
District:
Recommend Approval
ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO []
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADM I N I STRATOR
,0
~4UL
Ill I Illlll ]llll
CULVERT '
5TOtfM SEWER ~ DROP I/VL~T
Px~ V~ Z? O~ TO k'
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NDA
L.
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
January 8, 1986
ITEM NUMBER: 18. I. 5. e.
Permit for Ingress and Egress across County Property to
Shop Street
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION'
Staff is requesting the Board to approve a permit for
ingress and egress across County property to Shop Street and
authorize the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator
to execute the necessary permit.
We have received a request from Gloria and Howard Charity
for a permit of ingress and egress across County property to Shop
Street. This has been reviewed by staff and approval is
recommended.
Staff recommends that the Board grant permission for ingress
and egress across County property to Shop Street and authorize
the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator to execute
the necessary permit.
District: Bermuda
Recommend Approval
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO []
SIGNATURE:._
COUNTY ADM I N-"~TRATOR
\\
\
14
52
53
54
49O0
4O
~ 8
115-10
RE, VISED
/'/ '~23/'/~ C.LL.
/;/ ~V2O/74 CL.L.
// 8~3/76 C.L.L
II ~ ~
//
//
13
2 pti,
115-13
H:'RMUDA 'DISTRICT
SECTION 115- 9
DIS1: RD
/
/ eogr
CHESTER
41
CARVER
DR
(
I
~
j,! /
'%
I
I~ge 41
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE
January 8~ 1986
18. I. 5. f.
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT:
Vacation and Re-Dedication of a 16' Sewer Easement
across the Property of Horace E. Scott and Anne G.
Scott
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
Staff requests that the Board vacate t~e existing 16 sewer
easement and authorize the Chairman of the/Board and the County
Administrator to execute the necessary easlment agreement.
We have received 1 fr K .... ~ ~ ~ ~
· p ars om J'. . Ti~L,,~tO.~ an ....... i__cs,
Incorporated, showing revised location of a 16' sewer easement
across the property of Horace E. Scott and Anne G. Scott, as
shown on the attached plat. This has been reviewed by staff and
approval is recommended.
Staff recommends that the Board vacate the existing easement
and authorize the Chairman of the Board and County Administrator
to execute the necessary easement agreement.
District: Dale
Recommend Approval
PREPARED BY:.. . ,
ATTACHMENTS' YES I~ NO []
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMI NISTRATOR
LOT 61
HORACE ~. 61
LOT 5
L~.6 .571 p.~4I
S W,~ L E tP O,~D
1 6' ?EH/dA/VENT .SEt',/ER
Z O' TE~°OR~H y COA'~ THUC T/ON E~ SEA (~NT A UROSS
PROPErTY OF ~OR~CE E. SCOTT a~NNE ~. ~COTT
D~LE DISTRICT~ CHESTERFIELD COUA*TY~ gl~Gl~Zl~
CARROOTH ~NO ~SSOO~ATES, ~. REV. 10II710~
· o~r
N
- t - -- ~---'-'~ z-
JOINS 9
18
//~ R I C H M O N D
BELMONT
il
VD
Poge 18
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AG E NBA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
January 8r 1986
18. I. 5. g.
ITEM NUMBER;
Acceptance of a Quitclaim Deed for a 50' Right of Way
and Drainage/Utility Easements
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Staff requests the Board to authorize the County
Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed accepting on behalf of
the County a variable width right of way designated as Oak Lawn
Street, and a drainage/utility easement. This right of way was
never formerly dedicated to the County at the time of plat
recordation.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County
Administrator to execute this deed accepting it on behalf of the
County.
District: Bermuda
Recommend Approval
ATTACHMENTS: YES I~ NO []
SIGNATURE: ..
C OUNTY~T:RATOR
29
RD
AvE
)
~ELLWOOD
0 ?~
,<
!
~o
CENTRALIA ~ ~'-.~. / ,/
RD
CRESCENT
PARK
..gU BDI VISION
Data for pi.at taken frown
recorde! p]at of Cresce:~t
Pa~rk S~;. Plat Nek 4,
pages iIC~
Plat she.'ina prop0set 50' rioht of wav anti r, ro]'esed d,-=~
and utility eas~hc::nts across ~-:e pro?ert-,f of A!vis Mncc. n C~c¢'ent
:.'.arv, Rea,,~-s. _ ~,~,..P,.,o,,q, N~]cl- C~rden O,,'e'.-',s, (}h~shanS and wife), ant
I,ucy ~4cCa~-k lIa~cie. Record.z~ in v.d I 1 l~.-ok 91, ~A~¢~o 239,
Be]~nta Pis{ric~, Chesterfield Cr~:::~ty, Viroinia -
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
January 8, 1986
ITEM NUMBER:
18. I. 5. h.
Acceptance of Deed of Dedication from Joe S. Pope and
Marylene R. Pope
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Staff requests that the Board accept a 20' strip of land
along Church Road from Joe S. Pope and Marylene R. Pope and
authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed.
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 Plan 2000. The dedication of this right of
way conforms to that plan.
Staff recommends that the Board accept the conveyance of
this right of way and authorize the County Administrator to
execute the necessary deed.
District: Matoaca
Recommend Approval
ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO []
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADM I N I STRATOR
i I_~ DWELLING _,:,. ~,.~
/ h",;SET SC",L E: ~
W.B. 60, Pg.105
T.M. 180- I-(I)- I
O.~l ~0,~£ ,! I~ -~.
ROAD -- STAT ROUTE ~ 669
Plat showing (20') twenty foot strip of land
on the south right of way 1She of Church Rgad ........
to be dedicated to Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Note: Data taken from
plat made by Charles
C. Townes and Associ-
ates, P.C., dated
August 8, 1985.
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA
SCALE j REVISIONS
' : ?'~' DATE - REASONS
DATE
CHECK~ D J~
1'/'2 /1::,:. :,~..:~' 17:;3
185 186
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE'
SUBJECT:
January 8, 1986
ITEM NUMBER: 18. I. 5. j.
Acceptance of Deed of Dedication along River Road from
Frederick H. Ashton and Judy B. Ashton
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION'
Staff requests that the Board accept the conveyance of this
right of way and authorize the County Administrator to execute
the necessary deed.
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 Plan 2000. The dedication of this right of
way conforms to that plan.
Staff recommends that the Board accept the conveyance of
this right of way and authorize the County Administrator to
execute the necessary deed.
District: Matoaca
Recommend Approval
ATTACHMENTS: YES
NO []
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
_/-
i:
9
9
CHESTERFi ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
January 8, 1986 ITEM NUMBER; 18. I. 6.
Report of Water and Sewer Contracts by Developers
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The following Water and Sewer Contracts were executed by the
County Administrator.
1. W84-134D Charter Woods, Section III
Developer: Charter Woods Associates Midlothian
Contractor: Stamie E. Lyttle Company, Incorporated
Number of Connections: 30 $36,637.00
2. W85-108D V.R.D.C./1 Complex
Developer: Noland Company
'Contractor: John Marshall, Incorporated
Number of Connections: 1
Bermuda
$20,880.00
3. W85-173D Goodes Bridge Square, Phase II
Developer: Goodes Bridge Associates Dale
Contractor: Coastline Contractors, Incorporated
Number of Connections: 2 $5,908.00
PREPARED BY; ,~~
ATTACHMENTS
YES 1'3 NO I~
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
January 8, 1986
Page 2
W85-178D woodlake Village Parkway, Phase III
Developer: Investors Woodlake Development Corporation
Contractor: RMC Contractors, Incorporated Clover Hill
Number of Connections: 1 $19,160.00
W85-186D Falling Creek Associates, Phase II
Developer: Goolsby Associates
Contractor: Bookman Construction Company
Number of Connections: 1
Dale
$4,850.00
W85-187D Cross Creek, Section A
Developer: Cross Creek Development Corporation
Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Inc. Midlothian
Number of Connections: 20 $25,886.00
W86-23D Happy Hill Farms, Section 3
Developer: Carl R. Bogese
Contractor: Charles L. Lundie, Incorporated
Number of Connections: 20
Matoaca
$21,335.00
W86-25D Murray Oldsmobile
Developer: Murray Oldsmobile Company,
Contractor: Central Builders, Incorporated
Number of Connections: 1
Midlothian
$23,465.50
S85-134D/7(8)5D4D Acura of Richmond
Developer: Michael J. Leith
Contractor: Castle Equipment Corporation
Number of Connections: 1
Clover Hill
$4,445.00
10. S85-140D/7(8) 5EOD Happy Hill Farms, Section 3
Developer: Carl Bogese & Associates
Contractor: Charles L. Lundie, Excavating
Number of Connections: 20
Matoaca
$21,335.00
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUP[RVISORS
AGENDA
REPORTS
MEETIN~ DATE: January. 8, 1986
Status of General Fund Contingency Accounty, C~neral Fund Balance, Road Reserve
F~nds, and District Road and Street Light Funds.
ATTACHMENTS: YES ~ NO
SIGNATURE: ,
"COUNTY A~)MINI STRATOR
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
STATUS OF GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT
January 3, 1986
Date
07101/85
07/10/85
07/10/85
07/19/85
07/24/85
07/26/85
08/08/85
08/14/85
08/14/85
09/11/85
09/25/85
10/16/85
10/17/85
Department/Description Amount
Original FY86 Budget
Appropriation
Rescue Squads - $20,000 donation to
each of four. 80,000.00
Old Creek West - Completion of roads. 34,497.00
MH/MR - Travel expenses for trip to
Hannover, West Germany. 5,000.00
Sheriff - Cost of air conditioning
for new jail kitchen. 22,000.00
Budget and Accounting - Color
plotter to prepare information
for November 1985 Bond Issue. 10,000.00
Parks and Recreation - Extend
sewer line into Bird Athletic
Complex. 6,500.00
Economic Development - Additional
funding for part-time employee
and office expenses. 60,000.00
Airport - Purchase new aircraft
towing equipment. 11,700.00
Willis and Coach Road - necessary
right of way and easements. 14,235.00
Christmas Mother Committee -
Additional $500.00 for a total of
$3,000.00 for FY86. 500.00
Public Information - Float for two
parades. 3,800.00
Personnel - Additional tuition
assistance funds.
5,000.00
Balance
$500,000.00
420,000.00
385,503.00
380,503.00
358,503.00
348,503.00
342,003.00
282,003.00
270,303.00
256,068.00
255,568.00
251,768.00
246,768.00
Board of Supervisors
January 3, 1986
Page 2
11/04/85
11/13/85
11/13/85
11/13/85
12/11/85
Public Information - Funds for
new secretary position.
Airport - Runway landscape buffers
at Rt. 10 & Cogbill Road
YMCA Donation
Legislative Tour Expenses
Purchase of Trinity Church
10,000.00
75,000.00
2,000.00
15,000.00
50,000.00
236,768.00
161,768.00
159,768.00
144,768.00
9~,76.8.00
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
GENERAL FUND BALANCE
January 3, 1986
Board
Meeting
Date
06/30/85
07/01/85
07/01/85
07/01/85
12/11/85
Description Amount
Beginning Fund Balance
Used to Balance FY86 Budget 935,700
Reserve for Payment of Powhite Interest 2,227,300
Repayment of Courts Building Design +600,000
Purchase of Trinity Church 122,500
Balance
$8,790,863
7,855,163
5,627,863
6,227,863
6,105,363
Board
Meeting
Date
05/09/84
05/09/84
07/01/84
10/10/84
10/10/84
08/28/85
08/28/85
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
ROAD RESERVE FUNDS
January 3, 1986,
Description
Reserved from Fund Balance
Route 36 Ettrick - Appropriated
for design contract with VDH&T
Reserved Funds for Bermuda and
Matoaca Road projects
Route 10 - Design work for widening
through Chester
Route 36 Ettrick - Additional funds
for design contract with VDH&T
Route 36 Ettrick - Transferred General
Funds to Ruffin Mill Road project
Route 36 Ettrick - Use of Revenue
Sharing Funds
Amount
$ +150,000
150,000
350,000
165,000
133,000
+133,000
Balance
$ 150,000
0
4,500,000
4,150,000
3,985,000
3,852,000
3,985,000
o
0 0 0 0 0 CD
0 0 0 0 0
0 CD 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
'~ 0
0 0
'~ 0
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUP[ RVISORS
REPOR?S
MEt TIM~ DATE:
January 8, 1986
18. J. 3.
REPOR'[' ON~
Hazardous Waste Disposal Day
The Keep Chesterfieid County Clean Corporation has requested
approval and financial support for the County's first Haza.rdous
Waste Disposal Day. This is a day during which homeowners
can bring hazardous products to a designated site to be
disposed of by a qualified private contractor.
Studies have shown that the biggest hidden pollution problem
is hazardous materials in the home. Many homeowners do not
realize that such items as fertilizers, paint thinners, de-
greasers, battery fluids, weed killers, and oil-based paints
are hazardous wastes. There are no places open to the public
in this S~ate for disposal.
With the assistance of the Board of Supervisors, Keep Chester-
field County Clean proposes to organize a Hazardous Waste
Disposal Day to be held on May 17, 1986 from 9:00 to 3:00
p.m. at Manchester High School parking lot. Homeowners may
bring hazardous materials to the site to be handled by chemists
who will be on hand.
Disposal companies estimate the cost of packaging, removal
and disposal to be approximately $25,000. Drums for packing
the wastes have been donated by DuPont, printing costs for
informational brochures and volunteer help at the site have
been donated by Keep Chesterfield Clean, a County compactor
truck and driver will be on hand, and County and State Police
will provide traffic control and a bomb squad.
This concept appears to be the best means known for management
of household hazardous wastes while providing a high level
of service for citizens and minimizing the County's liability.
Fairfax County conducted a similar project at a cost of
$45,000. Approximately 250 of their citizens brought hazardous
wastes for disposal.
ATTACHMENTS: YES E)
NO E)
C OU N/~/Y ADMINISTRATOR
Hazardous Waste Disposal Day
January 8, 1986
Page 2
It is difficult to assess the cost effectiveness of such
programs. The Fairfax experience would not suggest a high
level of citizen responsiveness. On the other hand, in a
recent case where 14 drums of liquid were disposed of at
a County landfill it cost the County $10,000 for clean up.
Closing the landfill costs $3,000 per day in revenue. It
took two days to remove the hazard. Thus, the Corporation
feels there could be substantial costs incurred by not dealing
with the problem.
STAFF COMMENTS: We commend the Keep Chesterfield Clean
Corporation Board for their efforts to deal with this difficult
problem; however, we have substantial reservations concerning
the cost effectiveness of the proposal. For the program
to be truly successful, substantial public education must
precede the event. To be effective over time such events
would have to be conducted at least annually in several
locations which would probably increase costs to $50,000
yearly. A simple and relatively inexpensive educational
approach may reach more citizens with greater effect. While
you consider this report, we will continue to explore other
approaches with the Corporation.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: The Keep Chesterfield County Clean
Corporation is requesting an appropriation of $25,000 to
conduct the County's first Hazardous Waste Day on May 17,
1986. We will poll the Board next week to determine if we
should place this request on the agenda for formal Board
action at the January 22, 1986 meeting.
Dll/066
Capital Area Training Consortium
Mr. Applegate (unspecified term)
Data Processing CIP
Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes (unspecified term)
MPO Goals Committee
Mrs. Girone (unspecified term)
Social Services CIP
Mr. Mayes and Mrs. Girone (unspecified term)
Maymont
Mrs. Girone (unspecified term)
ABIDCO
Mr. Mayes (9/86)
RRPDC
Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel (12/31/87)
and Mrs. Girone
_ VACO Executive Board
Mrs. Girone ~ ~
Transportation Safety
Mrs. Girone (unspecified term)
Courts Committee
Mr. Applegate and Mr. Dodd (unspecified term)
Landfill Committee
Mr. Applegate and Mr. Mayes (March 13, 1986)
Richmond Regional Solid Waste
Mr. Mayes (unspecified term)
Tri-City MPO
Mr. Mayes (unspecified term)
Social Services
Mr. Mayes (6/30/88)
Richmond MPO
Mrs. Girone, Mr. Daniel (unspecified term)
and Mr. Applegate
Museum Committee
Mr. Mayes (unspecified term)
Crater Planninq Commission
Mr. Mayes ex-officio (12/30/88)
MEDC
Mr. Applegate (runs with Chairmanship)~__-------
Audit Committee
Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone (unspecified term)
Economic Development
Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone (unspecified term)
Committee on Planning Issues
Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone (unspecified term)
Study for Lake Genito
Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone (unspecified term)
MPO Air Quality Technical Committee
Mrs. Girone (unspecified term)
Richmond Regional Water Resources Task Force
Mrs. Girone (unspecified term)
PORT Committee
_~r. Dodd and Mr. Applegate
Capital Region Airport Committee
Mr. Dodd and Mr. Applegate (4/30/88)
Capital Area Trainin~ Consortium
Mr. Applegate (unspecified term)
~ata Processing CIP
Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes (unspecified term)
MPO Goals Committee
Mrs. Girone (unspecified term)
Social Services CIP
Mr. Mayes and Mrs. Girone (unspecified term)
Maymont
Mrs. Girone (unspecified term)
ABIDCO
Mr. Mayes (9/86)
RRPDC
Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel (12/31/87)
and Mrs. Girone
VACO Executive Board
Mrs. Girone
Transportation Safety
Mrs. Girone (unspecified term)
Courts Committee
Mr. Applegate and Mr. Dodd (unspecified term)
Landfill Committee
Mr. Applegate and Mr. Mayes (March 13, 1986)
Richmond Regional Solid Waste
Mr. Mayes (unspecified term)
Tri-Cit¥ MPO
Mr. Mayes (unspecified term)
Social Services
Mr. Mayes (6/30/88)
Richmond MPO
Mrs. Girone, Mr. Daniel (unspecified term)
and Mr. Applegate
Museum Committee
Mr. Mayes (unspecified term)
Crater Plannin~ Commission
Mr. Mayes ex-officio (12/30/88)
MEDC
Mr. Applegate (runs with Chairmanship)
Audit Committee
Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone (unspecified term)
Economic Development
Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone (unspecified term)
Committee on Planning Issues
Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone (unspecified term)
Study for Lake Genito
Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone (unspecified term)
MPO Air Quality Technical Committee
Mrs. Girone (unspecified term)
Richmond Regional Water Resources Task Force
Mrs. Girone (unspecified term)
PORT Committee
Mr. Dodd and Mr. Applegate
Capital Region Airport Committee
Mr. Dodd and Mr. Applegate (4/30/88)