Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-03-18 adj41'2 March 18, 1986 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 18, 1986, at 4:00 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, said meeting being adjourned from March 17, 1986. PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. ABSENT: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; and County Planner, John T. P. Horne. Deputy County Executive, Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 4:06 P.M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. Discussion Route 29 North/Rio Road Intersection. The following letter from Mr. William L. Bower, District Engineer, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, dated March 13, 1986, had been received by the Board: "This is in response to your March 6, 1986, letter requesting confirmation of recent verbal reports relative to the Department's proposal for improving Route 29 north between Hydraulic Road and Rio Road. In March 1985, we prepared a Route 29 corridor analysis which was in turn presented to the Charlottesville-Albemarle M.P.O. That analysis offered nine alternatives as possible methods for improving traffic operating in the Route 29 corridor. Projected average daily traffic volumes for Route 29 for the year 2005 ranged from 67,000 to 42,000 for the portion between Hydraulic Road and Rio Road. In 1984, our average daily traffic volume for the same section was 38,755 v.p.d. On reflection, between 1971 and 1984 traffic volumes more than doubled on this section of highway. Based on this information and the fact that this proposed improvement is to be constructed while accommodating high volumes of traffic on a minimum of two lanes of roadway in each direction, we are designing for an eight-lane facility, providing dual left turns at major intersections. The eight-lane concept will result in a minimum amount of temporary pavement needed to maintain traffic, thus reducing the ultimate cost. Also, in order to provide either a six-lane or eight-lane facility, significant sections of the existing southbound lane must be regraded in order to provide a standard raised median which will accommodate crossovers that meet our design stan- dards. In addition, we are proposing to construct a tight diamond interchange for the Rio Road intersection, thus improving traffic flow along the Route 29 corridor. We appreciate your concerns and look forward to receiving the Board of Supervisors' full support in our efforts to improve the Route 29 corridor through Albemarle County." The letter of March 6, 1986, from the County Executive addressed to Mr. Bower, to which he referred in his letter, read: "Albemarle County's Director of Planning and Community Development has been told verbally by officials of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation (VDH&T) about changes proposed in the CATS report with regard to specific improvements to U. S. 29 North and the proposed phasing of some improvements. Specifically, he has informed the Board of Supervisors that VDH&T is designing that section of U. S. 29 between Hydraulic Road and Rio Road for eight travel lanes rather than six, and that the grade-separated, diamond interchange at U. S. 29 and Rio Road is being designed for con- struction along with the additional travel lanes between Hydraulic and Rio Roads, but ahead of the six lanes proposed to extend beyond Rio Road to the South Fork of the Rivanna River. The Board of Supervisors requests any response or confirmation you can give them regarding this information. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to meet with Commission (Ray) Pethtel and Mrs. (Constance) Kinchloe on March 20, and have scheduled a meeting on March 18 to discuss the matter and prepare for the meeting with Mr. Pethtel and Mr. Kinchloe. It would be appreciated if your reply-could be received by March 17. Should you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at 804/296-5841. Thank you for your early attention to this matter." Mr. Fisher had asked staff to prepare a draft resolution for the Board to consider at this meeting. The draft read: WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has requested the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation (VDH&T) Commission to place the improvements of U. S. 29 North as the number one priority in primary highway projects for this area; and March 18, 1986 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) 413 WHEREAS, Albemarle County has participated with the VDH&T staff in developing several studies which identified the need for improvements that included six lanes on U. S. 29 North from the Route 250 Bypass to the South Fork of the Rivanna River, grade-separated interchanges at Hydraulic and Rio Roads, and relocations and eliminations of cross-overs, which were incorpo- rated into the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) phased improvement plan; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has learned that the VDH&T staff has begun the design of an eight-lane facility between Hydraulic and Rio Roads including a diamond interchange at the Rio Road intersection on an acceler- ated schedule from that of the CATS plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors supports the accelerated schedule, which helps to minimize the uncertainties of future improvements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board intends to consider an amendment to the CATS plan to incorporate the eight-lane design proposal upon the review and recommendation of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, these improvements should negate the need for future discussions regarding a western bypass alternative which has been unanimously opposed, and continued to be strongly opposed by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Fisher said this meeting was set for the purpose of considering the position that the Board will take in regard to road improvements particularly aimed at this Thursday's meeting with representatives of the State Highway Commission. He said the principal concern that the Board has expressed in its desire to meet with the new Highway Commissioner was re-enforcing its concern about constructing bypasses in the watershed area. He has communi- cated with Ms. Constance Kinchloe, Culpeper District Commissioner, in which she indicated that at the time the planning was going forward with the six-lane improvement for Route 29 North, she, in talking with Highway Department planners, realized that traffic volumes were increasing faster on Route 29 than had been planned. Secondly, she realized that by the time the six-laning was finished, if the projected traffic volumes occur, the road conditions would be no better than they are today. She also realized that completion of the Meadow Creek Parkway was going to add additional traffic to Rio Road and its intersection with Route 29 North, and that intersection already handles a heavy volume of traffic. Ms. Kinchloe was concerned that doing the improvements in stages meant having to disrupt traffic and also grading that was done in the first phase. The Highway Department is considering now what can be done to meet the planned six-laning. However, if money is available to go forward with the interchange at an earlier stage, then it might be advantageous to see if it all could be done as a single project. Mr. Fisher stated that he explained to Ms. Kinchloe that reconsideration of this project has created some uncertainty for the property owners and for the planners in the community. He said that while he personally would support every effort to make any improvement that can be made on Route 29 North, he hopes that the time for planning and discussions can be com- pressed to reduce the uncertainty for property owners. He pointed out that he had just been to the groundbreaking ceremony for the new Firestone Building, which might have to be bought for the interchange improvements. He asked Ms. Kinchloe if the work the Governor is doing to get statewide support for a referendum for a road bond issue meant that there might be projects in various parts of the State that people could view in order to see what can be done with referendum approval, before it is time to vote. Ms. Kinchloe answered that it is possible to do this, and this was part of the Highway Department staff's thinking on the issue. Mr. Fisher said it occurred to him that the Board's best position might be to encour- age the study of Route 29 North as fast as possible to see what impacts those proposals would have and also to re-enforce the Board's concern about a western bypass. Mr. Fisher asked Board members if they had any questions concerning his communication with Ms. Kinchloe. There were no questions so Mr. Fisher next asked Mr. Tucker to speak to the Board. Mr. Tucker responded that Mr. Horne has been preparing a report for the Highway Com- mission, and feels that the Commission has not had an opportunity to review the impact that these improvements might have. Mr. Horne's meeting with the Commission will not be until next week, but Mr. Tucker thought it would be advantageous for the Board to hear Mr. Horne~s suggestions. Mr. Horne then told the Board that he was preparing for a discussion of the Primary Six-Year Highway Plan for the Commission's March 25th meeting, since the preallocation hearing for next year is to be held on April 11 for the Culpeper District. He has given the Commission, in his report, all of the information that the CATS Plan contains, and what the "Transportation Improvement Plan" involves. He pointed out that on Route 29 North, the adopted CATS Plan shows the interchange as a Phase 3 improvement and shows the six-laning all the way to the South Fork Rivanna River as a Phase 1 improvement. The CATS plan also shows three bridges for the Phase 1 improvement, and there are a number of things in Phase 2, but not until Phase 3 is the interchange even discussed. The interchange at Hydraulic Road is a Phase 4 improvement. He said this is the Highway Department's plan and before any project is changed, it should be endorsed by the County and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Mr. Horne added that it is opinion of the Resident Highway Engineer that the six lanes could be changed to eight lanes, and the interchanges called an addendum to that project. If the project is handled this way, the Highway Department does not consider it a new project, and it would not be brought back to the Board of Supervisors to get its views on 414 March 18, 1986 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) the project. Mr. Horne thinks that eight lanes and an interchange is an entirely different project than six-laning to the River. He recommends that the Board take a position at the preallocation hearing that none of the projects in the Six Year Plan be changed Until VDH&T has the Board's and the MPO's opinion. He said there are a lot of projects in the primary system that need to be done besides Route 29 North. He suggests that the six-laning be done first, before the project is dramatically expanded, and other important projects get pushed further back in the funding cycle. Mr. Horne said that the improvement to Free Bridge (Route 250 East) is an important project that might be considered for part of this increased fund- ing, and he recommends that funds for planning be included in the Six-Year Plan for this project. He said the Commission may want to weigh the merits of that project against addi- tional improvements on Route 29 North. He thinks there might be a more effective way to use primary funds to do something on Route 29 North and then look at other projects in the metropolitan area that could be done with this additional funding. He believes it would cost no more to rebuild Free Bridge than it would cost to put in the interchange. Mr. Fisher said that there is pressure from localities further south on Route 29 for improvements, and the Governor is trying to get funding for major road improvements. He said that much of the southern part of Route 29 is already six lanes, and filling in the gaps will be helpful, but it will not make any major improvements. He feels that the Highway Depart- ment should be encouraged to plan as much as possible for Route 29 North now if funds are available. He thinks that things are politically coming together in a way that advantage should be taken of them. Mr. Horne understands what Mr. Fisher is saying, but he is concerned that if the Board tells the Highway Department to go ahead with the planning of this project, the Highway Department will not consider the Board's opinion when it comes time to implement the plan. He reminded the Board members that they have not seen a set of plans, and do not know what the interchange or eight lanes will do. He would like to get the Highway Department to recognize that before it assumes that some project is going to get built, the Board should give direct authorization for that project. Mr. Fisher responded that the interchange has already been approved, but the time frame has been changed. Mr. Horne agreed with Mr. Fisher, but he said that a lot of thought had been put into those improvements. There may be some Phase 1 and Phase 2 improvements that are more important now to the overall metropolitan area than an interchange at Rio Road. Mr. Lindstrom thinks that Mr. Horne's statements are sensible from a planning stand- point. However, the problem is that other communities are putting a lot of political pres- sure on the Highway Department to do something. As that pressure mounts, and if the Governor gets the funding, he would be surprised if one of the top projects on the Governor's list is not a curative for the Route 29 corridor problem. If the County does not accept some solu- tion, then a solution may be imposed, and Mr. Lindstrom fears that it may not be as accept- able as what has already been proposed. When ideas were brought up for dealing with the Route 29 corridor problem, the Highway Department essentially said that the funds were available if the County wanted to use them for that project. He said that even though it may be worthwhile to study the issue some more, sometimes the money has to be used for a certain project while it is available. He gets the feeling from Highway Department officials that they believe the Board has been stubborn. He is concerned that the Department may just tell the County what it is going to do. He believes that from the State's standpoint, there will be a lot more support to build the interchange than to rebuild Free Bridge now. He is concerned that if the County requests the money for Free Bridge instead of for the inter- change, that no funds will be allotted for anything, or they will be given for something else. Mr. Horne is concerned that the~is putting $4,000,000 to $6,000,000 into an interchange where traffic will have to stop at several traffic lights and then proceed to a six-lane section in the City that has approximately 11 crossovers and 22 entrances, before the mechanism is reached that will take the traffic to Lynchburg. He said it is not an improvement argument, but it is a cost benefit argument. He considers it to be a costly project that will only give limited benefits on Route 29 North and potentially bad problems on Rio Road. He wonders if it is worth the money versus other projects. Mr. Fisher stated that the question is whether or not the money is available for other projects. Mr. Bowie commented that it is necessary to find out if this money can be used for Free Bridge because it is an important project. He said that as the eastern part of the County grows, something will have to be done, and he does not want the Free Bridge work delayed. He said he is not sure an interchange will solve the Route 29 problem, but it has been approved and it has been studied for a considerable length of time. He said, however, that the route for it does seem awkward. Mr. Agnor said he does not understand why Rio Road will be involved and not Hydraulic Road. He added that all traffic will be funneled directly into an inter- section that won't be grade-separated and then into a four-lane section that may become six lanes, and then into the bypass. Mr. Fisher still believes that if there are political pressures that result in funding, that the Board should take advantage of it and find out how the money can be used. Mrs. Cooke commented that Mr. Horne makes sense. She said that a plan was made that the Board agreed with, and it needs to be implemented. It is clear to her that the outside pressures are not concerned about the County's internal problems. She said the Board should stand behind its own solutions within this community. She would hate to see eight lanes on Route 29 North and an interchange that has problems on either side. She doesn't want the County to tie itself to something that would create more problems on Route 29 North in the future, and, in her opinion, the amount of business disruption with eight lanes of traffic, would be horrendous. She added that the interchange would probably wipe out at least eight businesses. Mr. Horne agreed that he feels the Board should see what this plan will accom- plish before it is endorsed. Mrs. Cooke added that she does not think the Board should even entertain the idea of endorsing the improvements without first seeing the plans. She does not see how the Highway Department could expect the Board to do this. March 18, 1986 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)~ ~- (Page 4) 415 Mr. Fisher said that he has asked the staff to generate a draft resolution which includes some of his basic ideas. He handed it out to Board members and told them that they need to take a position on the Route 29 road improvements. Mr. Way questioned whether or not eight-laning Route 29 North will satisfy political pressures from those who want the Piedmont Corridor. Mr. Lindstrom answered that studies indicate that improving the north/south facility, particularly with the interchange, will significantly improve the flow of north/south traffic on Route 29, and will give the traffic a reasonable level of service during the planning period. It will not, though, give a level of acceptable service for east/west traffic. It is hoped that this will be relieved by a cloverleaf intersection or service roads on the side, although this is not what the Highway Department is currently proposing. Mr. Lindstrom said that as far as the corridor concept is concerned, he believes this is a step in the right direction. He thinks the Highway Department will be committed to continue improvements in the corridor rather than spending a tremendous amount of money now and then building a bypass a few years from now. His concern is that until the Highway Department adopts a plan, the threat of a bypass will continue to exist. He pointed out that this is a plan that has already been approved locally, except for the additional lanes. Mr. Fisher mentioned that the money spent on the Piedmont Corridor will not serve a large portion of the County citi- zens. He feels that if a lot of money is going to be spent, he would prefer helping the County population. Mr. Lindstrom said that if this project is done in the near future, it will be less expensive and less disruptive than doing it ten or fifteen years in the future. This alter- native, he believes, is a commitment by the Highway Department that will negate the necessity for a bypass. Even though these improvements may be significant and devastating to some people, most of the consequences will be compensated. If the development through the water- shed becomes the alternative there will be consequences that cannot be compensated, and he believes the impact will be greater than the impact of these improvements. Mr. Bowie stated that before he supports this plan, he wants to know what is going to happen to the other projects. He does not think everything should be disrupted for this one project. Mr. Fisher commented that Mr. Bowie would really like to include a paragraph in the resolution that states that the Board also supports improvements to Free Bridge. Mr. Bowie replied that he thinks the Board needs to know what is going to happen to the other projects. He also is concerned about how many businesses will be affected if eight-laning on Route 29 does occur. Mr. Fisher answered that there is no way the Board can get this information until planning is done and a map is drawn, and that is what the Highway Department is proposing to do. Mr. Horne is convinced that there are preliminary drawings somewhere, but he has not seen them. He is concerned that if the Board supports the project without preliminary plans, the Highway Department may complete the planning phase without giving the Board an oppor- tunity to change anything. Mr. Fisher agreed with Mr. Horne and suggested that the Board address these concerns in its resolution. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the Board has an opportunity on Thursday that it will not likely have again for awhile. He would like the Board's resolution to reiterate ~hat there is an established plan with priorities that reflect the Board's concerns including not just Route 29, but also the problem with Free Bridge. He said it should be pointed out that while the Board will welcome additional funding for any of the projects, it is concerned that the Highway Department not lose sight of the fact that there are some serious problems that are of significant local consequence. He said the Highway Department should be informed that while the Board supports the acceleration of any of the projects, it wants to be sure that the Highway Department respects the Board's plan and its concern to have other major projects accomplished within the period that they are planned. Mr. Bowie said he will probably support the plan if the Board wants to use Free Bridge as an example of an important project that it would like to have accomplished in a reasonable length of time. Mr. Lindstrom said the Highway Department should be informed that the Board wants to be involved in the planning and and would like to view the preliminary plans as they are devel- oped, so the Board can properly plan to accommodate the proposed improvements through its own planning process. Mrs. Cooke stated that she will not support any kind of a project until she can see the plans. She said she does support conveying to the Highway Department that the Board wants a preliminary look at the Department's ideas. She said she will never support eight-laning Route 29 North, with a diamond interchange at Rio Road, until she has an idea as to how existing businesses will be affected. Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, pointed out that the Highway Department is talking about accelerating only this one portion of the overall project. He said an analysis should be done to compare the consequences of this plan to the consequences if none of the other projects are undertaken in the near future. He said the City controls three sections of the Hydraulic Road quadrant. He commented that Mr. Horne had mentioned his concern that the Highway Department appears to have unilaterally changed the phasing improvements in the CATS Study. He said there is a commitment on everyone's part to not only get this part of the project undertaken, but to accelerate the entire project including improvements in the City and from Rio Road to the River. He went on to explain that the City improvements, with this phase, would go to six lanes, with no crossovers closed and signalization at Angus Road and a signal on the northbound ramp off of the bypass. There would be an eight-lane facility that would funnel into a six-lane facility which would be basically the same in terms of cross- overs, but there would also be traffic signals. He said he cannot see what can be gained by this plan. March 18, 1986 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) Mr. Tucker suggested adding to the fifth paragraph the following language: "with the understanding that future improvements proposed in the CATS Report will be implemented on a reasonable timetable to ultimately effectuate the transportation needs of our community." He said the next paragraph will indicate that the Board will want some recommendation from the M.P.0. concerning these improvements. He thinks this will address the concerns of Mr. Bowie and Mr. Lindstrom and will give the Board a chance to see what impact these improvements will have on businesses and on the other improvements that need to be completed. Mr. Bowie wondered why the plan has been developed to put eight lanes on that section of Route 29 and not make some of the other improvements. Mr. Fisher answered that other improve- ments could also be involved, but the Board has not been informed of them at this time. Mr. Tucker said the intersection at Rio Road was phased ahead of the interchange at Hydraulic Road. He wonders, however, if the Highway Department is reluctant to do Hydraulic Road because of the improvement that was just completed there. He thinks the only alter- native that the Department has, besides the bypass, is the eight-laning. He said the six lanes and the grade-separated interchanges at Rio Road and Hydraulic Road still leave a deficient facility to carry the traffic. Mr. Lindstrom said that the second paragraph of the resolution describes the entire plan for Route 29 North. He thinks that with some language similar to what Mr. Tucker has sug- gested, the Board would be encouraging what the Department is considering, with the under- standing that the total project must be considered as the solution. He said that a statement could be added to the next to the last paragraph in the resolution that says that the Board would consider an amendment and the Board also needs to be apprised of the preliminary plans as they are developed. He believes that this language will show that the Board's support is conditioned upon the recognition that the entire package has to be completed for the improve- ment to be effective. Secondly, he thinks the language should include a statement that the Board is conditioning its support on the review of plans by the M.P.0.. and by the Board, itself. He thinks there is a value in the Board responding in a positive way, with proper conditions to the current proposal. Mr. Fisher believes that if there is going to be any accelerated improvements on Route 29 North, that this County will have to actively support those improvements. If there is any way that the Board can move forward in a positive manner, he believes it will serve the citizens better by trying to secure funding for these improvements. Mr. Lindstrom commented that this is the one proposal that complies with the resolution that the Board adopted and has reiterated on several occasions in writing to the Highway Commission. That resolution was that the Board would support alternatives that would not require the construction of bypasses through County watersheds or existing or established neighborhoods. He said this is the only alternative that does not do this. He also stated that some people will be upset no matter what is done, and there is no way to handle this problem that will not be costly and disadvantageous to some people. He said that part of the Board's job is to weigh the numbers of people who will be affected and the chances of their being compensated or left with nothing for another ten years. Mr. Horne suggested that in the fourth paragraph the language state that the County Board of Supervisors supports the accelerated planning schedule. He said this would help minimize the uncertainties of future improvements, instead of endorsing a specific project before project plans are reviewed. Mr. Fisher suggested that a simpler word be used in place of "effectuate" in Mr. Tucker's statement. Mr. Bowie suggested that the following language be used relative to Mr. Horne's addi- tions to the resolution: "supports the concept of the acceleration" as opposed to "supports the accelerated schedule." He continued the sentence as follows: "with the understanding that the other CATS Report improvements, presently approved, will also proceed as scheduled." Also, Mr. Bowie would like to add the words, "into the existing Six-Year Plan," after the words "design proposal" in the first paragraph beginning with the words, "Be It Further Resolved." Mr. Bowie said he does not want to give up what is already in the plan, and he thinks this language gives the Board some flexibility. Mr. Bowie also believes that in the last paragraph of the resolution, the language should read that "these improvements will negate the necessity for a bypass," instead of the word "should." Mr. Lindstrom stated that he can support Mr. Bowie's language for the resolution, and believes that it covers most of the concerns that have been brought out at this meeting. He said it is a positive response that can be made which gives the Board flexibility. Mr. Way wondered if the resolution has to be given to the Highway Department representa- tives at Thursday's meeting. Mr. Fisher responded that this resolution was drafted at his request to get something in writing to take to Thursday's meeting. He felt that the Board needed to take a position on the Route 29 North proposals. Mr. Bowie asked if an official resolution needed to be adopted before the Highway Department answers the Board's concerns. Mr. Fisher believes that if the Board goes to the meeting without a resolution, it will not be a combined Board recommendation, and he thinks it is important to have something in writing. Mrs. Cooke said she is not ready to sign her name to any resolution at this point, but she would like to see the resolution in writing with the recommendations included that were discussed at this meeting. Mr. Horne recommended to the Board that some language be included in the resolution to encourage the Highway Department to share plans with the Board even when the plans are in very preliminary stages. Board members were in agreement with Mr. Horne, and Mr. Lindstrom suggested that this language be included in the next to the last paragraph of the resolution. Mr. Agnor suggested the words: "and needs to be apprised of the preliminary plans as they are developed." March 18, 1986 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) Mr. Horne believes that a stronger statement needs to be made, because his concern is that there are drawings of the project now that the Board has not seen. Mrs. Cooke thinks that the Highway Department should be asked if there is anything on paper at all in the way of plans or drawings. Mr. Horne answered that the staff has inquired several times, but it never gets any results. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the last map that the Department sent to the Board was deliberate. He believes that the Department is concerned that if it gives the Board a very preliminary plan, and the Board makes a recommendation on the basis of that plan, it is very difficult to make changes in it. Mr. Horne agreed with Mr. Lindstrom, but he said that both sides need to understand that changes are going to take place, but he is concerned that the Board will not see any plans until it is too late to change them. Mr. Lindstrom added that it needs to be emphasized to the Highway Department that the Board is responsible for the land plan on Route 29, and applications are coming in every day. In order to deal with that, and to advise the people what to expect, the Board has got to get preliminary information. Otherwise, it will be more costly for the Department. Mr. Bowie asked where, in the Six Year Plan, is the Free Bridge project. Mr. Horne responded that Free Bridge is not in the Six Year Plan, but instead it is in the Three Year Transportation Improvement Plan. He said there has been no funding placed on it at all. In the CATS Plan, however, it is a Phase 1 project. Mr. Bowie then asked that the resolution be worded so that improvements for Free Bridge will be covered, even though it will not be specifically mentioned. Mr. Lindstrom said that nothing that the Highway Department is talking about will be accomplished under the present circumstances, unless there is a radical change. However, the Department is assuming that there will be more money available through some mechanism, and when this happens, there will be projects that will be in line for this money. Mr. Bowie said the Department should be asked where the plans for these improvements are, and Mr. Fisher questioned what is going to happen in the City on Hydraulic Road and the existing Route 29/250 Bypass. Mr. Keeler commented that the Highway Department often has preliminary engineering plans that involve such things as the size of drainage pipes. The Board is not concerned with this, but instead would like to see an intermediate plan that shows what the road will look like and what it will do to adjoining properties. He said that the Department may not have any intermediate plans, because his experience with the Depart- ment is that it goes right into preliminary engineering. It would take a long time for this type of planning, and he agreed with Mr. Horne that by the time this type of planning is completed, it may be too late for the Board to have any input. Mr. Bowie mentioned that it would be helpful if the Department would take a map and show how wide rights-of-way will be. The Board could then see what is going to happen to the fronts of the existing buildings. He said that is what the Board wants to see. Mr. Keeler stated that the Board also needs to be concerned with the extent of the ramps on the inter- change, how many entrances will be closed and how many properties will be affected. He said it is hard to assess the project without this type of information. Mr. Fisher said that the property owners need some fast answers on this situation. Mr. Horne added that his office has been receiving calls, and he is asking people to call him back after March 20th. Mr. Fisher allowed time for Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, to speak to the Board. Mr. Brent said that a major water line comes down the median strip on Route 29. He said that since the Highway Department is talking about 1988 construction, utilities will have to be relocated before that time. He said that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority will have to look for alternate ways of getting water from the South Rivanna Treatment Plant into the City. He said this cannot be accomplished between now and 1988. He said that there are no other intersections in the County that affect every major utility as this one does. He added that if the 1988 date is correct, his office will need some information quickly, so it can begin planning. Mr. Way said Mr. Brent's concerns should be put in the list of questions for the Highway Commission. Mr. Fisher asked the staff for another draft of the resolution and the suggested ques- tions so that the Board can consider them at the end of tomorrow afternoon's agenda. There were no more comments on the Highway Department's proposals. Agenda Item No. 3. Other Items Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Agnor had some other matters to take up with the Board. He said that Mr. Cowart, from Lynchburg, has been appointed to the Governor's Study Commission on the Highway Program. Mr. Cowart recently contacted Mr. Agnor's office and said he represents this area and would like to speak to this Board and with City Council. He wants to get some idea from the governing bodies as to what they think his participation should be in the deliberations of this Commission. Mr. Fisher clarified Mr. Agnor's comments by saying that this is the Special Commission that will look into the question of whether or not to have a bond referendum and also what the needs are. Mr. Agnor suggested asking the Commission what territory Mr. Cowart repre- sents. He said this could be included in the list of questions that is being prepared for the Commission. Mr. Fisher responded that the Commission may not determine that because Mr. Cowart could have been appointed by the Governor. Mr. Fisher then suggested Wednesday, March 26, at 3:00 P.M. for the Board to meet with Mr. Cowart. Mr. Agnor next mentioned that Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, is working on a study of roads that have not been taken into the State Highway System. Mr. Agnor gave a summary of those roads, and the problems they represent, to the Board. He said that the staff would 418 March 18, 1986 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting) (Page 7) like to discuss these highway matters at the April 9 Board Meeting. Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that some people have informed him that they want to be present when these roads are dis- cussed, so he needs to know in advance when this meeting will take place. Agenda Item No. 4. Executive Session. At 5:10 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters pertaining to a contract with the City of Charlottesville and personnel matters. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. At 5:32 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session. Agenda Item No. 5. Adjournment. With no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Lindstrom offered motiOn to adjourn to March 19, 1986, at 1:00 P.M. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley.