Attachment D

 

 

 

COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

 

AGENDA TITLE:  Review of Six Year Secondary Road Plan.

 

SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:  Work session to review the proposed County Priority List of Road Improvements and the VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Plan summary.

STAFF CONTACT(S):

Messrs: Tucker, Foley, Graham, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade

 

LEGAL REVIEW:   No

 

AGENDA DATE:  December 1, 2004

 

ACTION:               INFORMATION X

 

CONSENT AGENDA:

  ACTION:             INFORMATION: 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:   Yes

 

REVIEWED BY:

 

 

 

BACKGROUND:

The Planning Commission held work sessions on the Six Year Secondary Road Plan on October 19th and 26th, 2004. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended the Draft Six Year Secondary Road Plan with two wording/informational modifications on the Priority List (which have been made) and one recommendation to establish a public notification process for major “construction permit” projects authorized by VDOT.  This recommendation is addressed in the “Discussion” section below. 

 

 

STRATEGIC PLAN:

3.1 Make the County a Safe and Healthy Community in which citizens feel secure to live, work and play.

 

DISCUSSION:

The Planning Commission recommended that staff develop a public notification process for circumstances where property owners work with VDOT directly to complete major improvements to roads, such as road realignments/relocations and paving of unpaved roads. These “construction permit” projects typically occur when a property owner owns land on both sides of the road (and, therefore, can donate the right of way necessary for the project) and the owner proposes to undertake the cost and responsibility for constructing the project.  Since it is not a public construction project requiring the acquisition of right of way, a public hearing process is not required.  The most recent example of this type of project was the paving of a long segment of Blenheim Road (Route 795).  The Commission believes that adjacent residents/property owners should be made aware of this type of project and should have an opportunity to comment on the project.  Staff would like direction from the Board as to whether staff should undertake this effort.  To date, this type of project has been treated as a VDOT matter, since the County has no direct role in this process, including any required review and approval of the projects. 

 

Staff wants to bring to the Board of Supervisors’ attention several recent changes to the Priority List. As directed by the Board, staff has requested that VDOT re-allocate funding from the Old Ivy Road project to the Georgetown Road project in order to expedite the construction of this project. Both the Priority List and the ultimate VDOT Six Year Plan will reflect this initiative.  However, VDOT has recently reviewed and updated the cost estimate for this project, which had not been done since 1995. The cost was increased from $3,200,000 to $7,096,300 with an estimated advertisement date of December 2011. The new cost estimate assumes a three lane urban cross section with bikelanes and sidewalks.  In addition, VDOT has informed staff of a railroad crossing that will require improvements in 2005 located on Red Hill Depot Road (Rt. 642).  The improvements include the installation of a new gate and an upgrade of the existing flashing lights. This project is on the County’s Priority List (Priority #50) and is the second highest priority railroad crossing improvement project and will be funded with available safety funds.

 

Finally, staff requests Board direction on the distribution of unpaved road funds between Rural Rustic Road projects and regular road paving projects. With last year’s approval of the County’s Priority List for Improvements, two separate lists of paving projects were created, one for roads that are eligible for rural rustic paving and the other are for roads that will be paved using VDOT’s traditional standards. Therefore, there is no longer a single list that prioritizes all of the projects.  VDOT has requested direction from the County on how to divide the paving allocation between rural rustic roads and traditional paving.   There are three (3) unpaved road projects in the current VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Plan which have prior allocations of funding and have been moving towards construction (Routes 606, 643, and 647).  The funding proposed by VDOT in Attachment D has a majority of the unpaved roads funds being allocated to complete the funding of these three projects, with the funding allocated to rural rustic road projects increasing from $100,000 (in FY05-06 (approximately 18% of the total allocation of unpaved road funds) to $190,000 in FY10-11 (approx. 56% of total projected unpaved road funds). Staff supports VDOT’s proposal because it will complete the funding of projects already programmed for construction in the Plan while transitioning to a greater proportion (approx. 55-60%) of the total unpaved road funds on rural rustic road projects over the full six years of the Plan.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

This is for Board review and comment; no action is required at this work session.  A public hearing on this item is scheduled for January 12, 2004.

 

 Return to executive summary