056-09RESOLUTION
BY THE
FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
VDOT SERVICE REDUCTIONS
The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, in regular meeting on the 8th day of April 2009,
adopted the following:
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has asked for comment on a
number of proposed changes to their service levels; and
WHEREAS, the proposed changes include reductions of road maintenance, consolidation of
residencies, and removal of land development functions to the district offices; and
WHEREAS, the reductions in road maintenance will lead to increased citizen safety concerns; and
WHEREAS, the removal of the land development function of the Edinburg Residency to the
Staunton District Office will result in a decrease in ability to effectively coordinate land development
functions between VDOT and Frederick County; and
WHEREAS, that decreased ability to effectively coordinate will result in lost opportunities to work
better with local development, decreased ability to innovatively address unique situations as they
Y arise, decreased efficiency, and potentially decreased quality of proffer packages at rezonings; and
WHEREAS, in recent years those efforts and coordination have resulted in millions of dollars in
savings on needed road improvements to State and County taxpayers; and
WHEREAS, new road construction funds are not forthcoming to replace the opportunities that will
be lost; and
WHEREAS, removal of the land development function to Staunton would reduce the quality of
reviews and make reviews of development take longer while being reviewed by individuals
overburdened by meeting the needs of the entire Staunton District, as opposed to the current situation
where reviews are done by individuals intimately familiar with Frederick County; and
WHEREAS, those issues will reduce the quality of development while slowing it down at a time
that the local, State, and National economies should not be working to slow development.
PDRes.# 11 -09
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County,
Virginia, requests that the VDOT and Commonwealth Transportation Board re- examines the
proposed service reductions and focus on cutbacks that will not ultimately have a higher cost than
savings, as is the case with the current proposal.
Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye
Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye
Gene E. Fisher Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye
Philip A. Lemieux
Aye
A COPY ATTEST
John R. Rile `, 1 Jr.
Frederick County Administrator
PDRes.# 11 -09
BOS Resolution #056 -09
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation "T
RE: Transportation Committee Report for Meeting of March 23, 2009
DATE: March 31, 2009
The Transportation Committee met on March 23, 2009 at 8:30 a.m.
Members Present
Chuck DeHaven (voting)
Phil Lemieux (voting)
James Racey (voting)
Dave Burleson (voting)
George Kriz (liaison PC)
Gary Oates (liaison PC)
Lewis Boyer (liaison Stephens City)
Members Absent
Mark Davis (liaison Middletown)
** *Items Requiring Action * **
1. MPO Transit Study — Continued Discussion
This was the third time the Committee has discussed this item. After a significant amount of
discussion regarding different aspects of the transit priorities, the Committee voted to
recommend the following priority order for the Board to consider forwarding to the MPO.
Motion made by Phil Lemieux and seconded by James Racey passed unanimously. Staff has
attached the list of service alternatives provided by the consultant.
1. Coordination with the Shenandoah Area Agency on Aging, or similar agency, to pursue
additional federal funding for enhanced elderly and disabled services using the existing
agency infrastructure.
2. Enhanced focus on commuter services and parking to include working with the regional
commuter bus service to enhance service to Frederick County residents. Additionally, to
find locations in Frederick County that could be used as commuter parking for the bus
service as well as for park and ride users. There was significant discussion on this item
regarding potential opportunities to work with private industry to incentivize the provision
of commuter parking.
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000
3. Corridor service to Middletown/LFCC in cooperation with the City and potentially -the local
school systems as opposed to a totally County - supported service.
4. Route 7/Berryville Avenue
5. Valley Avenue to Cross Creek Village
6. Amherst Route to WalMart
7. Apple Blossom Mall to 522 Corridor (the Committee wonders if the portion of this route
serving 522 north will be more timely upon the completion of the Tevis Street Bridge)
8. Northside to Rutherford Crossing (the Committee felt that this route would be best applied
by coordination with development in that area)
Finally, it has been an ongoing discussion point that it should be very clear in the report that
these are not promises or an actual implementation schedule, but an order of priorities to be
pursued when funding is available.
6. Other
Staff reviewed for the Committee the issues that were discussed at the VDOT public meeting on
March 12, 2009. After discussion, Mr. Lemieux motioned and Mr. Racey seconded that the
Committee recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution for submission that
highlights the concerns of Frederick County. The motion passed unanimously and staff was
directed to draft a resolution and email it to the Committee for feedback before including it in
the report to the Board. That resolution is attached.
** *Items Not Requiring Action * **
2. TIA Standard Update
Staff updated the Committee on the discussion of this item at the Planning Commission retreat.
Staff also noted the continuing concerns of the local development industry and the desire to
work with them to the maximum amount possible. The Committee directed staff to provide an
electronic copy of the most recent draft to representatives from the Top of Virginia Builders
Association for review and redlining of suggested changes.
3. Transportation Module Update
Staff updated the Committee on the discussion at the Development Impact Model Oversight
Committee and the Planning Commission Retreat, and highlighted the concerns that were
brought up at those meeting, particularly regarding how the information could be misinterpreted
by the public and developers. The Committee felt that the module is a valuable body of work
and provided good information, but was not coming forward at a good time.
The motion was made by Mr. Racey and seconded by Mr. Lemieux that the Committee review
the module on an annual basis unless otherwise directed by the Board of Supervisors.
2
4. December Meeting Date
The Committee voted to reschedule their December meeting date to December 21, 2009 with
the understanding that the meeting would be canceled unless it would delay any projects.
3
9
tv
V �
u u
V 1�
V
'i C�
V
o;
u
Q)
V)
V)
cz
cz
CC-
r r
Q)
O
u
Q
Q
v
O
05
Q)
v
.
O
O
X
Q)
O
v
X
w
u
U
^�
)
o
z
bb.o
v
r
v
CIO
U? j
a�
a
v
u? �)
v? U
O
bD
U
Q,
o
U)
v
w
:°:
raw
vU
�'�
°w
co
U)
Lo
w
U)
tLo
Ui
�.
co
cz
6.
°'
t�.
~ v
w w
Q)
w ccs w
O
w
U
O
O
.�
cli
,-•
0)
cu
�1.
c�
•"
O �
'
O
aJ
9
O'�
.rr 'r
O
LO
u
z
Q)
,�
Q)
0
bD
o
° o
o
C)
o
°°
ed
n
co
++
�
�
�
�
r
U
0
0
o
v
0
0 v
0 v
v
v
cd
C)
ca .0
(z a
P.
(z ' D
r a.
cd ,.O
'0 Q,
Lti
p,
`.�#
cz
o
Q)
>,
C15 >�
as >,
ct >,
O
O
O
O
O
'
41
4.1
u
u
u
u
'C
LO
U)
U)
U)
O
'lam
bD
y
�
O
b-0
v
>
cn
>
Q
°:
a
U)
O
V
4
ra
..
•~
z
Q)
U
Cb
Y+
F
O
CA
C14
�y
v
is
>
co
O
Lr)
w
y
+-
U
O
G
p
Q)
PC)
o
o
c
v
>
O
L
a
k
�
r
o;
u
Q)
V)
V)
cz
cz
CC-
r r
Q)
O
u
Q
Q
v
O
05
Q)
v
.
O
O
X
Q)
O
v
X
w
u
U
^�
)
o
z
y
o.�
i
)
a)
e,
ao
a;
r
ca
Q
O
O
O
O
w
o
co U
cr) U
Co U
o 0
o
CL) ca
v CZ
CU c
U
c
;-" Fr
as °3
1- ' s�
w a)
;'q :a
w v
v�
v
O
O
O
w
¢,
v
W
0
v
cu
v
O
O
0
0
� ,
z
z
z
CD
CD
C)
o
0
0
-.
o
O
O
O
LO
U�
1
0
Cd
o °'��
o
°o
b .
v
v
U
LS L"
C
N
tZ
(Z
ca O
CES O
a )
v
N
N
0 U]
Ii
n
O
O
'CS
1
¢+
a+
ca
P4
3
U
O O
.�
y
1�
5,
O
s v
�,
o
v
c o
••
-�
O
0
0
0
o
as
LO
C13
cz
)
;
co
0
v
cl
O
0
)
�
�
�
�
O
CD
ct$
sl
O
C R
O
N
�+
0
U
r-i
9
I
o
c
w
o
�!
Ul
v
I
O
as
.-�
.'�
�.
w
bo
°41
� U)
u,,
o
u
�
u
� —
Q
O O
w
r-.
° U
u?
v
U
a:
o ,
;g
Qj
o
v
Ui 0
u,
L
R-+
U a;
w
H
y
U
;.4
O
;°,
cz
w
Q
>
w
v
v
-
v
�.
cs
Cd
ca
v
cd
bO
CD
0
0
0
0
tv
cd
co
-N
M
1 '4
O
u
W
^y
O
cz
l
4
cis
y
U O
cz
a
r,�
G1
m
O N
C) c�
> U
'
cz m
>
a.
u
DJ
o
Q)
U
_f z
o Q~
U .�'
o
o
P"4
"
c0
CJ
as
Un
f�
la, 75
as
CZ
G
v
0
Q)
U)
O
U
U)
R-4
p
O
O
y
0
U')
"
cn
O
O
�
N
X(�/
�
W
o
O
�
v
y
0I
is
V
O1
1�
ca
/
U
bo
by
2
:
(�
.�y
y
ft
frr ^JJ
V
ti
V
t�
o0
u7
�D
I
U
ti
L
t
i
� E
q
�l
M
fn �
93
CC
w
o
0
�
�
®C
�o
° x
.T-1
�
w
v
�
� w
.,
U
u s
cu
o
R,
as
w
V3
a) co
(U
r
v
Q)
v
tv
U
Z
>
cu
>
0)
> >
bD
CD
CD
° 0
0 0
ed
.G
a�
oo
n o
U)
00
�
° �
V
f
ff3
4F3 ffl
Q Q
O
0
0
� o
o
y
0
�
I
>
�.
0
0
o~
w
w
w w
ai
vi
°:
v� vi
a;
v
.
>
> >
O
w }+
d
�
q
cn
0
U
t
i
� E
q
�l
M
fn �
CJ)
►mod
9
o
..� o
�
O
U
bD
Q
ca
v°
°'
z
U
a
o V
ti
•'�,
M
y
r �
V a ;-4
Cc$
cis
--
>" p�j
�.
o
�sq
fi r.
�'J �?a�
Qw
��U
. 41
ou
° a,
a°
u
o we
v
®
CJ
.r, O f'
N
;
v 4-
C15�
zoo
°v
US
U
w
cis
o
4-
CU
1:14
0
rn
,, A
�,
� 0U
U
U `n v
O
(�
O ter•
c4
4-
-�
O r , - i
v c
a�
cd
° o
O
Z
r.
U
Q
S r +
c
�
O
> 2 U
w
o '"�
cn
.�
bb
� w u
�, U
w
o
O
a) sa
O
i,
�.
U
Q)
�D
v
ca
��
0
��
9
v
r4
v
n�
0
�>
v �
0 0�.
w P,
H
v
M
41
C
y
m A
CU Q)
o
z
LO
U)
�
O
z
o
z
o
Uv
U
0
N
a!
1 v
O
;
O
O
O
U
v
�
�
�. O QJ
.O
�
N a
•�
O
z
O
z
O
z
O
z
O
z
�,
.� ��
�
M
I
o
v
° •�
-c�
•--
w
.�
Qj
aj
41
rd
lk
v
r4
v
n�
0
�>
v �
0 0�.
w P,
H
o
4�
G
o
a
Q"
a
G
41
C-Z
+
a
'a
v
a
O
ttf rn
O
(3)
(2) RS G ''
.�
G i
cis
41
(Z
'.•S
v Q1 b0
O
�„
�
U,
41
m
++
v U
'Zj
G
O
0
i-a
aJ
�
u p
v
"d
'o
�
G
o
cd
�
G
�_
a�
ca
=,
'o ° o
'bo
G
a
'�
m
a;
U3 cr 1
�
"o
(D
o
o
cj
as
G
cis
p 'r
G
o
W
G +
G
am,
G
4-1
41
�]
'Cj �
cn
u
O G,
p
..
M
0•
U
N
O
v.
O
N
a G
a
cn
cz
co
.r,
w `~�+ Or
Q
:
Q)
Or
'tom
U
(n
G 'b0
41
m
G
O
n
r.
'
O
p 'Cf
cn
-' ',
>
bA 6'
u
cti
G
° v
r~
i
+
m
�
O
.
a
U O.
N,
G m
-
; - q
Er)
G
N
O
vi
c
'bp
N
Q)°
4
4
N
G
(Z
O
G
r
G
G
0
n a
C
U)
m
•�
O
' w U) v7
a�
�
G
r+ ,�
o
G
CZ
=.
a)
aJ
o
-W
..0
1,..
LO
N +
co
a)
co
CZ
m
CZ
°
N
t-�
0, U
0 0
+,
0
0
+'
O-
..
u
O
+
w
0
U
0
o
b.0
x
U
Jj
C
w °;
a)
te
w
G
°
r
O .,
b
a
VU
a�
by
cz
41
r
,-s
'C3
N
},
o
4~ - o
p
Q)
~
rs
-~
cn
x
>,
41
'r
�s
zj
�
14
.,
o
4 1
In
cd
o
�,
o
ca
r.
Q) —
W
"
O O
(z
in
N
>
U
+
41
cti C
r
ate++
s
v
s,
�
cz
> ,
r
bD
Lo
O
N
cG
v
¢,
tti0 bD
O
4
p
O
O
,r
ate+
>
m
I
cz
+
>� +! �
r
m
v
�
bD
4 �
N
{
v
V
C!
�
r
V r.
to
�,
4- '
v
o
u
U
M
u O
^rp,
ca
.Q
O
S
U
+,
CZ
F-4
:-.
�'
i],
H
a
M
O c
r
N
4-
.r
' , �,
cii as
+ ,
ca
(�
cif
U
%-a
41
C
cti
oO
O
a ,
> O
r
4-
r+
' ,
Q
p
4-
(3.)
ctt
m
b ��
V
'CS
`
f
O
4: p�j
�?
O
O>
p
us
O
Q)
Q om •" V
V)
�
�
bo �
v
U
O
CO
�,
r
cz
Qj
U
r.
w
cti
: a
¢+
r
V
H Q
(C
Q)
y 7S
cti
�+
W
V
p
ccz
Z
s,
U
ir+
V)
O
U
o
$
w
U
s o
(z
c
N
H
ca
H
N
(1)
�+
o
r-
a
Q)
.
.M
U
(z
"�
c`n
C o
�,
?
'�
4-
U
Q'
r
cd Q)
O
a U
O
Rt
O
4,
v
p
.LN �
u
o
o
Q)
>
U)
o
c
.fl
u
�
�, a�
a
�"
a)
a
a,
� y
'
O
F-C
rl
cn
O
v°
C,5
>,
v
m
v
O
U
C
F
ct
�'
4
Cd
o
ttf
'Ls
>
.�
�,
(3)
�.
Q
41
.
ai
bD
as
Q
N
RESOLUTION
BY THE
FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
VDOT SERVICE REDUCTIONS
The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, in regular meeting on the 8th day of Apri12009,
adopted the following:
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has asked for comment on a
number of proposed changes to their service levels; and
WHEREAS, the proposed changes include reductions of road maintenance, consolidation of
residencies, and removal of land development functions to the district offices; and
WHEREAS, the reductions in road maintenance will lead to increased citizen safety concerns; and
WHEREAS, the removal of the land development fimction of the Edinburg Residency to the
Staunton District Office will result in a decrease in ability to effectively coordinate land development
functions between VDOT and Frederick County; and
WHEREAS, that decreased ability to effectively coordinate will result in lost opportunities to work
better with local development, decreased ability to innovatively address unique situations as they
arise, decreased efficiency, and potentially decreased quality of proffer packages at rezonings; and
WHEREAS, in recent years those efforts and coordination have resulted in millions of dollars in
savings on needed road improvements to State and County taxpayers; and
WHEREAS, new road construction funds are not forthcoming to replace the opportunities that will
be lost; and
WHEREAS, removal of the land development function to Staunton would reduce the quality of
reviews and make reviews of development take longer while being reviewed by individuals
overburdened by meeting the needs of the entire Staunton District, as opposed to the current situation
where reviews are done by individuals intimately familiar with Frederick County; and
WHEREAS, those issues will reduce the quality of development while slowing it down at a time
that the local, State, and National economies should not be working to slow development.
PDResl11 -09
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County,
Virginia, requests that the VDOT and Commonwealth Transportation Board re- examines the
proposed service reductions and focus on cutbacks that will not ultimately have a higher cost than
savings, as is the case with the current proposal.
Richard C. Shickle, Chairman
Gary W. Dove
Gene E. Fisher
Philip A. Lemieux
Gary A. Lofton
Bill M. Ewing
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.
A COPY ATTEST
John R. Riley, Jr.
Frederick County Administrator
PDRes. #1 1-09