1990-02-21 adjFebruary 21, 1990 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
185
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on February 21, 1990, at 3:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The meeting
was adjourned from February 14, 1990.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (arrived at 3:32
P.M.), David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Charlotte Humphris, Mr. Walter F.
Perkins (arrived at 3:35 P.M.) and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive,and Mr. V.
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development. Also present
were Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation, and Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
3:32 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Six Year Secondary Road Plan.
The Chairman explained that this work session was scheduled so that the
Board could have adequate time to consider the Six Year Secondary Road Plan.
He said staff has revised the proposed list of roads submitted at the
February 14 meeting to include all projects on the priority list.
(Mr. Perkins arrived at 3:35 P.M.)
Mr. Cilimberg explained that this is the same type of listing the Board
has received in prior years. Pages 1 through 3 summarize the projects, giving
a description of the road section, the priority, and total project cost should
the project be undertaken within the next year. There are 65 projects shown
on Pages 1 and 2. Page 3 is a separate listing of priorities for unpaved
roads as requested by the Board.
Mr. Way asked how many of the unpaved roads listed on Page 3 are funded
in this Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said Pages 4 through 7 are detailed listings of
the funding schedules for all projects. Specifically, Page 7 lists the
funding for unpaved roads. Mr. Cilimberg noted that a "+" sign indicates
right of way has been obtained. As shown on the listing on Page 7, nine of
the 15 unpaved road projects would be partially or totally funded within the
next six years.
Mr. Cilimberg said funding from either the Capital Improvements Program,
VDoT Secondary Road funds, or State revenue sharing funds would be available
through 1995-96 for the first 37 projects beginning on Page 4. He noted that
on Page 5, the second number "37" (unpaved) should be "37A", which is a
summary line for the unpaved road projects.
Mr. Cilimberg said in the past the Board has adopted the priority listing
(Pages 1 through 3), which reflects the order of completion of road projects
over the next six years and beyond. The action needed by the Board today is
to set a public hearing on the first three pages or make changes and then set
a hearing date.
Mr. Way asked if his understanding is correct that none of the unpaved
road projects before No. 9, Route 679, were submitted prior to November, 1988.
Mr. Cilimberg said three projects were submitted prior to November, 1988.
They are No. 10, Route 605; No.ll, Route 667; and No. 12, Route 737. Mr. Way
then asked why these three are not shown for funding. Mr. Cilimberg said that
sufficient funds are not available to get the projects started. They would be
the next three scheduled, however.
Mr. Cilimberg then explained how the unpaved road projects were priori-
tized by staff. The initial priority was based on dedication of right of way.
After that, a weighted scale system based on four factors was used. The roads
were prioritized based on whether or not it lies in a growth area, the average
daily traffic count, the functional classification of the road, and the width
of the road. Mr. Cilimberg said primary emphasis was placed on growth area
21, 1990 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 2)
186
and traffic count factors, based on the Board's previous directions to staff.
Lesser weight was placed on factors of classification and width of road. The
result was the priority list presented to the Board last week and which the
Board changed by moving some projects without right of way commitment to the
bottom of the list.
Mr. Way said he understands the method of prioritization. However, his
understanding was that prioritization would not begin until after November,
i988, and any road on the list prior to that time would be given top priority.
Mr. Cilimberg said that is exactly what staff did. Every project already in
the program with funding committed, which meant right of way was donated,
stayed at the top of the list. After that, new submittals received by Novem-
ber, 1988, were prioritized based on the factors jUst described.
Mr. Benish noted on Page 3, Item 1, Route 682; Item 2, Route 610; Item 3,
Route 712; and Item 4, Route 760 are in the current plan and are receiving
funds.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that there are three projects not eligible for
revenue sharing funds in the priority list. They are Project No. 20, Peyton
Drive to Commonwealth/Greenbrier; Project No. 23, Berkmar north of Rio Road;
and Project No. 34, the Avon Street/Route 20 connector.
Mr. Roosevelt said he has no problem with the priority list as presented
to the Board. He said he prefers to place the emphasis on traffic count when
prioritizing gravel roads, but he has no problem supporting the list now that
the roads with right of way available are at the top of the list.
At the last work session, Mr. Roosevelt said the Board had requested a
list of roads scheduled for plant mix. He distributed to Board members a copy
of his letter dated February 20, 1990, (on file in the Clerk's Office) to Mr.
Cilimberg giving the locations as requested. He said he would answer any
questions in that regard.
Mr. Roosevelt said the estimates for funding are not as finely tuned as
he would prefer. He knows that at least two projects will have increases in
cost. The Route 656/654 (Georgetown/Barracks) estimate will be about $110,000
more than is shown. He anticipates that the spot improvement at Route 708
from Route 20 to Route 29 will also be higher than estimated. He said he
would not recommend that the priority for completion be changed even though
the costs may be higher than estimated.
Mr. Bowie said he visited the site of Project No. 31, Route 649, Proffit
Road, at the railroad bridge, and feels there will have to be alignment
changes. He wants to be sure that the property owners have input as early in
the process as possible to avoid a situation similar to that concerning the
Moorman's River Bridge project. Mr. Roosevelt said he and the Planning
Department staff have discussed and agreed to obtain an aerial photograph with
alignments that meet VDoT standards and then solicit public input. He said
they hope to do a good bit of study on the project over the next two years.
Mr. Bain asked what the latest information is regarding matching revenue
sharing funds from the State. Mr. Roosevelt said the funding for the State's
contributions to revenue sharing is covered by State law which requires that a
certain amount of money be set aside first from construction funds each year
to match revenue sharing. He said that method would not change unless the law
were changed. Again this year, the total amount requested state-wide will
likely exceed the amount set aside causing requests to be reduced. Mr.
Roosevelt said there is an attempt being made to increase the amount set aside
for revenue sharing so that this reduction will not have to happen. Mr.
Roosevelt said if there were no revenue sharing funds, projects between No.
30, Airport Road, and No. 37, Jarmans Gap Road, on Page 5 would not be funded.
Revenue sharing funds amount to approximately $6 million Statewide.
Mr. Perkins asked the status of Project No. 26, Park Road, in Crozet.
Mr. Roosevelt said work is deferred on that road until the proposal for the
Route 240-250 connector is reviewed. He said a decision has to be made as to
whether to proceed with the Park Road connection or try to connect through one
of the other two alternatives that the Board had VDoT study last year.
187
February 21, 1990 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Cilimberg said hopefully in March staff will have comments ready
regarding the possibility of a Route 240-250 connector. Mr. Roosevelt said
the next step then would be to have a location and design public hearing.
Mr. Way said he is concerned about the roads in the Woolen Mills area.
Last winter the Board approved paying for snow removal from a section of road
because of the emergency needs of the residents there. Apparently, there is
no way in all the world to ever get any of these roads included in the State
Secondary system because they were built so long ago and to no standard. Mr.
Way said this will constantly be a problem in bad weather. He feels this
group of houses is unique because the roads were not taken into the system in
the 1930's. He said something must be done to allow emergency vehicles to get
into that area.
Mr. Bowie suggested that staff determine what can be done to solve the
problem in that area. He said he does not want a report on why nothing can be
done. He wants to know how to solve the problem.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that Project No. 21, Route 743 (Hydraulic Road)
from Lambs Road to Route 631; Project No. 22, Route 631 (Rio Road) from Route
743 to 29 North; and Project No. 23, Berkmar north of Rio Road, are scheduled
for completion over a five-year period of funding. He said it is critical
that these projects be completed in such a way that when the Berkmar extension
is completed, traffic can go east and west off the new Berkmar Extended. That
road will be serving the new Rio Hills Shopping Center and all the commercial
land off of Route 29 up to Woodbrook Drive. He pointed out that the current
condition of Rio Road and Route 29, especially at the Berkmar access points is
extremely poor. He said traffic in this area will be exacerbated by the
completion of Berkmar Extended. He is raising the point because additional
problems with traffic can be created depending on how this project is phased
for construction. He hopes that serious consideration can be given to funding
those projects as close together as possible to avoid more traffic congestion.
Mr. Bain said at some point a determination will be needed as to whether
the Meadow Creek project can receive primary road funding or not. If it can,
there would be money available from Project No. 13, Route 631, Meadow Creek
Parkway, which could be reassigned to these projects.
Regarding Project No. 36, Route 656, Georgetown Road, Mrs. Humphris said
it is not just the matter of four lanes in the urban area through a neighbor-
hood, and degrading and destroying the quality of life in the neighborhood
that concerns her. She does not want the Board to overlook the necessity to
begin traffic reduction strategies. She said it is impossible to continue
widening roads and straightening roadS which in turn increases traffic and
moves automobiles to the detriment of lives. When talking about putting a
million dollars into making four lanes and widening and making quicker and
faster the passage through one of the urban neighborhoods, it is important for
the Board to consider how to convince people to use some other form of trans-
portation. She said roads that are wide enough and fast enough cannot be
built. Traffic reduction and transportation alternatives must be considered
by the Board.
Mr. Bain said he totally concurs and has brought this subject up before.
Mrs. Humphris said people will never use another transportation system as long
as roads continue to be widened and allow faster traffic movement. Mr. Bain
said Montgomery County, Maryland instituted public transit with buses running
every eight minutes. He said public transit will not work unless it truly
serves the people. Mrs. Humphris said the Georgetown Road project is a
wonderful place to begin implementing that type of thinking because of the
density of population and the number of vehicles.
Mr. Bowie said while he feels the entire Board agrees with the idea, the
problem is how to implement it. It will require buses or other forms of
transportation, parking areas, and enforced parking.
There being no further discussion of the Six Year Secondary Road Plan,
motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to set a public
hearing for March 7, 1990, at 7:30 P.M. to consider the 1990-96 Six Year
Secondary Road Plan priority listing of Items 1 through 65 and unpaved road
February 21, 1990 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) ~_88
(Page 4)
Projects 1 through 15 which are scheduled to be funded within the six year
period.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and
Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 3. Other Matters not listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Bowie noted that employees in the County Office Building have begun a
paper recycling program. He asked Board members to place discarded papers in
the proper container.
Mr. Bowie said there was a need for an executive session to discuss
applicants for boards and commissions.
At 4:24 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mrs.
Humphris to adjourn into executive session in accordance with Virginia Code
Section 2.1-344.A.1. to discuss specific, identifiable personnel.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and
Mr. Way.
None.
At 5:10 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immedi-
ately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman certifying the Execu-
tive Session as set out below.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and
Mr. Way.
None.
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded
vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of
Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and
(ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the
motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or
considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn.
At 5:12 P.M., with no further business to come before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned.
CHAIRMAN