The URL can be used to link to this page

TC 01-29-07 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK t� Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Transportation Committee FROM: John A. Bishop, Transportation Planner .. RE: January 29, 2007 Transportation Committee Meeting DATE: January 19, 2007 The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, January 29, 2007 in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The agenda for this meeting is as follows: AGENDA 1. Rural Roadways Ranking System 2. Public Private Transportation Act (PPTA) Policy 3. Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO) Activity Update 4. Article distribution 5. Other Business Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting. Attachments JAB/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 ITEM #1 Rus u: Roadways Ranking System Staff has been working for some time to address the Board of Supervisor's request to review the rural roadway ranking system. Staff will be presenting the results and status of that effort to day at the meeting. ITEM #2 PPTA Guidelines At the request of the County Administrator, staff has modified the existing county adopted Public Private Education Act guidelines to include the Public Private Transportation Act of 1995. That policy, as modified, is attached. Including PPTA into this policy gives the county additional flexibility when dealing with transportation plan implementation issues. Staff is seeking a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on this proposed policy change. County of Frederick, Virginia Procedures Regarding Requests Made Pursuant to The Public -Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 And The Public -Private Transportation Act of 1995 Table of Contents I. Applicability II. Overview III. General Provisions A. Proposal Submissions B. Affected Jurisdictions C. Proposal Review Fees D. Virginia Freedom of Information Act E. Use of Public Funds F. Applicability of Other Laws IV. Solicited Bids/Proposals V. Unsolicited Proposals A. Decision to Accept and Consider Unsolicited Proposal; Notice B. Initial Review at the Conceptual Stage VI. Proposal Preparation and Submission A. Proposal Content and Format for Submission at the Conceptual Stage B. Proposal Content and Format for Submission at the Detailed Stage VII. Proposal Evaluation and Selection Criteria VIII. Comprehensive Agreement and Interim Agreement A. Interim Agreement Terms B. Comprehensive Agreement Terms IX. Governing Provisions X. Terms and Conditions on Proposal Submission I. Applicability of Guidelines 1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, VA ("County of Frederick", "the County", "Board of Supervisors", or "the Board") has adopted these guidelines to implement the Public -Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002, Va. Code § 56-575.1, et seq. ("PPEA"), and the Public -Private Transportation ACT of 1995, Va. Code § 56-556, et seq. ("PPTA") (individually an "Act"; together, the "Acts"). These guidelines apply to all procurements under the PPEA and PPTA where the County of Frederick is the "responsible public entity" within the meaning of Virginia Code § 56-575.1 and Va. Code § 56-556. 2. The County Administrator and all officers and employees of the Board of Supervisors shall follow the PPEA, PPTA, and these guidelines in any PPEA or PPTA procurement in which they are involved. 3. The County Administrator may delegate his or her duties under these guidelines to members of staff. II. Overview 1. The Acts grant "responsible public entities" the authority to enter into public- private partnerships with private entities for the development or operation of certain "qualifying projects" if the public entity determines, under criteria established by the Acts, that such a project serves the public purpose. Proposals under the Acts are also subject to review by any "affected local jurisdiction" in which the "qualifying project" will be located. 2. The Board of Supervisors will be the "responsible public entity" under the Acts for any project involving the County Government. 3. Proposals for qualifying projects may either be solicited or unsolicited. Procurement typically will be conducted as a two-phase process, first involving submission and evaluation of conceptual -phase proposals resulting in selection of certain proposers to submit detail -phase, and then submission and evaluation of detailed -phase proposals. If the purpose and requirements of the Acts are met and the Board of Supervisors so elects, in its discretion, it will then have the County Administrator or his or her designees negotiate with two or more proposers (unless the Board of Supervisors determines, in writing, that only one proposer is fully qualified or that one proposer is more highly qualified than the others) and select a detailed -phase proposal or proposals and enter into a "comprehensive agreement" for the project. 4. Individually -negotiated comprehensive agreements between private entities and -3- the Board of Supervisors, along with the PPEA, PPTA and this policy, ultimately will define the respective rights and obligations of the parties for PPEA or PPTA projects involving the County of Frederick. 5. The version of the Acts that is in effect (up to the time of execution of a comprehensive agreement under a procurement as to that procurement) is controlling in the event of any conflict. III. General Provisions Procurement under the Acts may only be for a "qualifying project". The PPEA contains a broad definition of "qualifying project" that includes, for example: 1. An education facility, including, but not limited to, a school building (including any stadium or other facility primarily used for school events), any functionally - related and subordinate facility and land to a school building, and any depreciable property provided for use in a school facility that is operated as part of the public school system or as an institution of higher education; 2. A building or facility that meets a public purpose and is developed or operated by or for any public entity; 3. Improvements, together with equipment, necessary to enhance public safety and security of buildings to be principally used by a public entity; 4. Utility and telecommunications and other communications infrastructure; A recreational facility; or 6. Technology infrastructure, including, but not limited to, telecommunications, automated data processing, word processing and management information systems, and related information, equipment, goods and services. PPTA "qualifying transportation facilities" are one or more transportation faciliites adeveloped and\or operated by a private entity persuant to the PPTA. These examples are merely provided here for convenience. The definition of "qualifying project" or "qualifying transportation facilities" in effect in the Acts as of the time of the procurement is concluded by a comprehensive agreement is controlling, and the version of the Acts then in effect should be consulted to determine what is a "qualifying project" or "qualifying transportation facilities". In A. Proposal Submissions A proposal for a PPEA "qualifying project" or PPTA "qualifying transportation facilities" may be either solicited by the Board of Supervisors or submitted by a private entity on an unsolicited basis. In either case, the proposal shall be clearly identified as a "PPEA Proposal"or "PPTA Proposal". To be considered, one original and 10 copies of any unsolicited proposal must be submitted along with the applicable fee to Frederick County Finance Department. Solicited proposals shall be submitted in accordance with the instructions in the applicable solicitation. 2. Proposers will be required to follow a two-part proposal submission process consisting of a conceptual phase and a detailed phase, as described herein. For unsolicited proposals, the conceptual phase of the proposal shall contain the information specified by Section VII (A) of these guidelines, and the detailed phase of the proposal shall contain the information specified in Section VII (B) of these guidelines. For solicited proposals, the solicitation and subsequent instructions by the County Administrator will prescribe the information that proposals shall contain. 3. Proposals should be prepared simply and economically. Solicited proposals should contain all information requested by the solicitation or subsequent instructions by the County Administrator. Unsolicited proposals should contain information specified by these guidelines and also should include a comprehensive scope of work and, if applicable, a financial plan for the project, containing enough detail to allow an analysis by the Board of Supervisors of the feasibility of the proposed project. Any facility, building, infrastructure, or improvement included in a proposal shall be identified specifically or conceptually. The County Administrator may request, in writing, clarification of any submission. 4. Representations, information and data supplied in, or in connection with, proposals play a critical role in the competitive evaluation process and in the ultimate selection of a proposal by the Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, as part of any proposal, the proposer shall certify that all material representations, information and data provided in support of, or in connection with, its proposal are true and correct. Such certification shall be made by authorized individuals who are principals of the proposer and who have knowledge of the information provided in the proposal. In the event that material changes occur with respect to any representations, information or data provided for a proposal, the proposer shall immediately notify the Board of Supervisors of the same. -5- 5. The Acts allow private entities to include innovative financing methods, including the imposition of user fees or service payments, in a proposal. However, the County reserves the right to utilize its own finance team as a less costly alternative. B. Affected Jurisdictions Under the Acts, an "affected jurisdiction" is any county, city, or town in which all or a portion of a qualifying project is located. Any private entity submitting a conceptual or detailed proposal to the County must provide any affected jurisdiction with a copy of the private entity's proposal by certified mail, express delivery, or hand delivery. In the case of solicited proposals, such copy should be submitted to any affected jurisdiction to ensure its receipt at the time proposals are due to be submitted to the County. In the case of unsolicited proposals, such copy should be submitted to any affected jurisdiction to ensure its receipt within five (5) business days after receiving notice from the County that the County has decided to accept the proposal pursuant to Section VI (A) hereof. Any affected jurisdiction shall have 60 days from the receipt of the proposal to submit written comments to the Board of Supervisors to indicate whether the proposed qualifying project is compatible with the jurisdiction's (i) comprehensive plan; (ii) infrastructure development plans; and (iii) capital improvements budget or other governmental spending plan. Under the PPTA, such written comments shall indicate whether the proposed transportation facility will address the needs identified in the appropriate state, regional, or local transportation plan by improving safety, reducing congestion, increasing capacity, and/or enhancing economic efficiency. The Board of Supervisors shall give consideration to comments received in writing within the 60 -day period, and no negative inference shall be drawn from the absence of comment by an affected jurisdiction. The Board of Supervisors may begin or continue its evaluation of any such proposal during the 60 -day period for affected jurisdictions to submit comments. C. Proposal Review Fees The County Administrator will require payment of a review fee by a private entity submitting an unsolicited proposal to the County and by any private entities submitting competing proposals in response to the unsolicited proposal. Review fees are to cover the direct costs of processing, reviewing, and evaluating proposals, including the cost to compare a proposal to any competing proposal. "Direct costs" include but are not limited to, County staff time, cost of any material and supplies expended, and the cost of any outside advisors or consultants, including but not limited to attorneys, consultants, and financial advisors, used by the Board of Supervisors in their sole discretion, to assist in processing, reviewing, or evaluating the proposal. Such fees generally will be in the amount necessary to completely cover all of the County's costs. All fees and additional fees shall be submitted in the form of a cashier's check payable to the M County of Frederick. 2. Such fees shall be imposed as follows: a. Initial fee. Payment of an initial fee must accompany the submission of the Unsolicited Proposal to the County in order for the County to proceed with its review. The initial fee shall be two and one-half percent (2.5%) of the reasonably anticipated total cost of the proposed qualifying project, but shall be no less than $2,500 nor more than $50,000, regardless of the anticipated total cost. b. Additional fees. Additional fees shall be paid by proposers throughout the processing, review, and evaluation of the proposals, if and as the County Administrator or his or her designee requires, based upon costs in excess of initial review fees assessed. The County Administrator or his or her designee may impose additional fees on proposers selected for detailed - phase consideration as a condition of consideration of their detailed -phase proposal. The County Administrator or his or her designee will notify the proposers concerned of the amount of such additional fees. Proposers must promptly pay such additional fees before the Board of Supervisors will continue to process, review, and evaluate the proposer's proposal. C. Reimbursement of excess fees paid. If the total fees paid by proposers for a phase of procurement exceed the total costs incurred in processing, reviewing, and evaluating proposals for that phase, then the Board of Supervisors shall reimburse the proposers the difference on a reasonable, pro rata basis. D. Virginia Freedom of Information Act 4. Generally, proposal document submitted by private entities are subject to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act ("VFOIA"). In accordance with VA Code § 2.2-3705.6 (11), such documents are releasable if requested, except to the extent that they relate to (a) confidential proprietary information submitted to the Board of Supervisors under a promise of confidentiality or (b) memoranda, working papers or other records related to proposals if making public such records would adversely affect the financial interest of the County or the private entity or the bargaining position of either party. Once a comprehensive agreement has been entered into and the process of bargaining of all phases or aspects of the comprehensive agreement is complete, the Board shall make the procurement records available upon request, in accordance with Virginia Code §§ 2.2-4342 and 56-575.16 (5). However, proprietary, commercial, or trade secrets provided by a private entity as evidence of its qualifications and properly designated under this Section D (4) as "Confidential - Not Releasable under VFOIA" are not considered -7- procurement records. 2. If requesting that the Board of Supervisors not disclose information, the proposer must (i) invoke an exclusion when the data or materials are submitted to the County or before such submission; (ii) identify the data and materials for which protection from disclosure is sought; and (iii) state why the exclusion from disclosure is necessary. In addition, the proposer must clearly mark each page of its proposal that it contends not to be discloseable under the VFOIA with the legend "Confidential - Not Releasable under FOIA". The Board of Supervisors may only protect confidential proprietary information and will not protect any portion of a proposal from disclosure if the entire proposal has been designated confidential by the proposer without reasonably differentiating between the proprietary and non-proprietary information contained therein. 3. Except as reasonably necessary for the Board of Supervisors, staff, and consultants to review proposals, the Board promises to maintain the confidentiality of confidential proprietary information that is provided to it by a private entity pursuant to a proposal for a procurement under these procedures if the private entity follows all the steps required by paragraph 4 of this policy to designate the information as confidential proprietary information excluded from disclosure under VFOIA, and if the information is, in fact, information that is properly exempt from release under VFOIA. The County Administrator shall take reasonable precautions to protect the confidentiality of such information from any disclosure beyond whatever disclosure is reasonably necessary for the Board of Supervisors, staff, and consultants having a need to know the information to carry out the procurement. Despite the Board's sincere intent to honor this promise of confidentiality, nothing contained herein shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, a consent to suit, or a contractual undertaking, and it is a condition of submitting proposals that no cause of action in contract or otherwise, shall arise against the Board of Supervisors or County of Frederick for failure to maintain confidentiality of information. 4. Any information in a proposal that becomes incorporated into a Comprehensive Agreement or Interim Agreement with the proposer submitting it, such as by becoming an exhibit, shall become a public record releasable under VFOIA upon execution of the agreement and its approvals by the Board of Supervisors. E. Use of Public Funds. Virginia constitutional and statutory requirements as they apply to appropriation and expenditure of public funds apply to any comprehensive agreement entered into under the PPEA or the PPTA. Accordingly, the processes and procedural requirements associated with the expenditure or obligation of public funds should be incorporated into planning for any PPEA or in PPTA project(s), and any PPEA or PPTA procurement should comply with County of Frederick fiscal policies. Virginia constitutional and statutory restrictions that apply to the County regarding expenditure of public funds shall be deemed to be incorporated into any "comprehensive agreement" into which the Board of Supervisors enters pursuant to the Acts and to condition the County's obligations thereunder. F. Applicability of Other Laws. Nothing in the PPEA or PPTA shall affect the duty of the Board of Supervisors or any of its officers, employees, or agents to comply with any other applicable law including the Virginia Public Procurement Act (the "VPPA"). VI. Solicited Bids/Proposals The County Administrator may invite bids or proposals from private entities to develop or operate qualifying projects. The County Administrator may use a two- part process consisting of an initial conceptual phase and a detailed phase. The County Administrator will set forth in the solicitation the format and supporting information that is required to be submitted, consistent with the provisions of the Acts and this policy. 2. Prior to inviting any bids or proposals, the Board of Supervisors shall determine whether to use procedures consistent with competitive sealed bidding or competitive negotiation, indicate the justification, consistent with the PPEA and the VPPA of this policy, for proceeding in that manner, and the evaluation criteria to be used to evaluate proposals. The solicitation will specify, but not necessarily be limited to, information and documents that must accompany each proposal and the factors that will be used in evaluating the submitted proposals. The solicitation will be posted in such public areas as are normally used for posting of the County's notices, including the County's or, in the case of PPTA solicitations, VDOT's website. The solicitation will also contain or incorporate by reference other applicable terms and conditions, including any unique capabilities or qualifications that will be required of the private entities submitting proposals. Pre -proposal conferences may be held as deemed appropriate by the County Administrator. V. Unsolicited Proposals The Acts permit the County to receive and evaluate unsolicited proposals from private entities to develop or operate a qualifying project. The County may publicize its needs and may encourage or notify interested parties to u submit proposals subject to the terms and conditions of the Acts. When such proposals are received without issuance of a solicitation, the proposal shall be treated as an unsolicited proposal. Proposals received as a result of the County receiving an unsolicited proposal and the publishing a Notice of Receipt of Unsolicited Proposal will also be treated as unsolicited proposals. To ensure the County receives the best value for any qualifying project, the Board of Supervisors will seek and encourage competing unsolicited proposals when it receives an unsolicited proposal. A. Decision to Accept and Consider Unsolicited Proposal; Notice 1. Upon receipt of any unsolicited proposal and payment of any required fee by the proposer, or proposers, the Board of Supervisors will determine whether to accept the unsolicited proposal for publication of notice and conceptual -phase consideration. If the Board of Supervisors determines not to accept the proposal and not to proceed to publication of notice and conceptual -phase consideration the County will return the proposal, together with all fees and accompanying documentation, to the proposer. 2. If the Board of Supervisors chooses to accept an unsolicited proposal for conceptual -phase consideration, the Board shall: a. Determine whether to use procedures consistent with competitive sealed bidding or competitive negotiation of other than professional services, and if using competitive negotiation, indicate the justification for proceeding in that manner, and the evaluation criteria to be used to evaluate the unsolicited proposal and competing unsolicited proposals; b. Determine what if any conditions the Board of Supervisors will authorize the County Administrator to place upon the proposer and any competing proposers beyond those contained in these guidelines for going forward with the unsolicited proposal and for receiving competing unsolicited proposals; C. The County Administrator shall post the Notice of Receipt of Unsolicited Proposal in a public area regularly used by the County for posting of public notices and on the County's website for a period of not less than 45 days. The County Administrator shall also publish the same notice at least once in one or more newspapers or periodicals of general circulation in Frederick County, Virginia, to notify any persons that may be interested in -10- submitting competing unsolicited proposals, with the first such publication to occur at least 45 days before competing proposals are due. In addition, the notice shall be advertised in Virginia Business Opportunities and posted on the Commonwealth's electronic procurement website at least 45 days before competing proposals are due. Competing proposals may be submitted to the Frederick County Department of Finance during the period specified in the notice following the publication required above. 3. The Receipt of Unsolicited PPEA or PPTA Proposal and Solicitation of Competing Proposals shall contain the following information and shall be provided to prospective competing offers and members of the public on request: a. The instructions, terms and conditions applicable to the procurement; b. A summary of the project proposed in the unsolicited proposal; C. The evaluation criteria to be used for procurement; d. Instructions for obtaining any portions of the unsolicited proposal that are releasable; and e. Such other instructions and information as the County Administrator deems reasonable and desirable. 4. Copies of Unsolicited proposals are available to the public, upon request, pursuant to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act ("VFOIA'), except as exempted from release under the PPEA, PPTA, and VFOIA. B. Initial Review at the Conceptual Stage Only proposals complying with the requirements of the Acts that contain sufficient information for a meaningful evaluation and that are provided in an appropriate format will be considered by the Board of Supervisors for further review at the conceptual stage. Content and format requirements for proposals at the conceptual stage are found at Section VII (A). After reviewing the original proposal and any competing unsolicited proposals submitted during the notice period, the Board of Supervisors may determine: -11- a. Not to proceed further with any proposal, b. To proceed to the detailed phase of review with original proposal, C. To proceed to the detailed phase with a competing proposal, or d. To proceed to the detailed phase with multiple proposals. However, the County may not proceed to the detailed phase with only one proposal unless it has determined in writing that only one proposer is qualified or that the only proposer to be considered is clearly more highly qualified than any other proposer. V1. Proposal Preparation and Submission G. Proposal Content and Format for Submission at the Conceptual Stage The County Administrator may generally require that proposals at the conceptual stage contain information in the following areas: (1) qualifications and experience; (2) project characteristics; (3) project financing; (4) project benefit and compatibility; and (5) any additional information as the County Administrator may reasonably request. Conceptual -phase proposals should include an executive summary of the proposal at the beginning of the proposal. An unsolicited proposal shall include an executive summary not designated as "Confidential -Not Releasable under VFOIA" that describes the proposed qualifying project sufficiently so that potential competitors can reasonably formulate meaningful competing proposals from a review of the summary and publicly -available information. Unless otherwise indicated in the solicitation or Receipt of Unsolicited PPEA or PPTA Proposal and Solicitation of Competing Proposals, as applicable, conceptual -phase proposals should contain the information indicated below in the format below: 1. Qualifications and Experience a. Identify the legal structure of the firm or consortium of firms making the proposal. Identify the organizational structure for the project, the management approach and how each partner and major subcontractor in the structure fits into the overall team. b. Describe the experience of the firm or consortium of firms making the proposal and the key principals involved in the proposed project including experience with projects of comparable size and complexity. Describe the length of time in business, business experience, public sector experience, and other engagements of the firm or consortium of firms. Include the identity of any firms that will provide design, construction and completion guarantees and -12- warranties and description of such guarantees and warranties. Provide the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of persons within the firm or consortium of firms who may be contacted for further information. d. Provide a current or most recently audited financial statement of the firm or firms and each partner with an equity interest of twenty percent or greater. Identify any persons known to the proposer who would be obligated to disqualify themselves from participation in any transaction arising from or in connection to the project pursuant to The Virginia State and Local Government Conflict of Interest Act, Chapter 31 (§ 2.2-3100 et. seq.) of Title 2.2. 2. Project Characteristics a. Provide a description of the project, including the conceptual design. Describe the proposed project in sufficient detail so that type and intent of the project, the location, and the communities that may be affected are clearly identified. b. Identify and fully describe any work to be performed by the public entity. Include a list of all federal, state, and local permits and approvals required for the project and a schedule for obtaining such permits and approvals. d. Identify any anticipated adverse social, economic, and environmental impacts of the project. Specify the strategies or actions to mitigate known impacts of the project. e. Identify the projected positive social, economic, and environmental impacts of the project. f. Identify the proposed schedule for the work on the project, including the estimated time for completion. g. Propose allocation risk and liability for work completed beyond the agreement's completion date and assurances for timely completion of the project. -13- h. State assumptions related to ownership, legal liability, law enforcement and operation of the project and the existence of any restrictions on the public entity's use of the project. i. Provide information relative to phased or partial openings of the proposed project prior to completion of the entire work. j. List any other assumptions relied on for the project to be successful. k. List any contingencies that must occur for the project to be successful. 3. Project Financing a. Provide preliminary estimate and estimating methodology of the cost of the work by phase, segment, or both. b. Submit a plan for the development, financing and operation of the project showing the anticipated schedule on which funds will be required. Describe the anticipated costs of and proposed sources and uses for such funds including any anticipated debt service costs. The operational plan should include appropriate staffing levels and associated costs. Include supporting due diligence studies, analyses, or reports. C. Include a list and discussion of assumptions underlying all major elements of the plan. Assumptions should include all significant fees associated with financing given the recommended financing approach. In addition complete disclosure of interest rate assumptions should be included. Any ongoing operational fees, if applicable, should also be disclosed as well as any assumptions with regard to increase such fees. d. Identify the proposed risk factors and methods for dealing with these factors. e. Identify any local, state, or federal resources that the proposer contemplates requesting for the project. Describe the total commitment, if any, expected from governmental sources and the timing of any anticipated commitment. Such disclosure should include any direct or indirect guarantees or pledges of the public -14- entity's credit or revenue. f. Identify the amounts and the terms and conditions for any revenue sources. g. Identify any aspect of the project that could disqualify the project from obtaining tax-exempt financing. 4. Project Benefit and Compatibility a. Identify who will benefit from the project, how they will benefit and how the project will benefit the overall community or region. b. Identify any anticipated public support or opposition, as well as any anticipated government support or opposition, for the project. C. Explain the strategy and plans that will be carried out to involve and inform the general public, business community, and governmental agencies in areas affected by the project. d. Describe the anticipated significant benefits to the community or region, including anticipated benefits to the economic condition of the public entity and whether the project is critical to attracting or maintaining competitive industries and businesses to the public entity or the surrounding region. e. Describe compatibility with the local comprehensive plan, local infrastructure development plans, the capital improvements budget or other governmental spending plan. f. Provide a statement setting forth participation efforts that are intended to be undertaken in connection with this project with regard to the following types of businesses: (i) minority-owned businesses; (ii) woman -owned businesses; and (iii) small businesses. g. For PPTA projects, explain whether the proposed improvements are compatible with present and planned transportation systems and whether the project will provide continuity with existing local and state facilities. B. Proposal Content and Format for Submission at the Detailed Stage -15- If the Board of Supervisors decides to proceed to the detailed phase of review with one or more proposals, the following information should be provided by the proposer unless waived by the County: 1. A topographical map (1:2,000 or other appropriate scale) depicting the location of the proposed project. 2. A list of public utility facilities, if any, that will be crossed by the qualifying project and a statement of the plans of the proposer to accommodate such crossings; 3. A statement and strategy setting out the plans for securing all necessary property; 4. A detailed listing of all firms that will provide specific design, construction and completion guarantees and warranties, and a brief description of such guarantees and warranties; 5. A total life -cycle cost specifying methodology and assumptions of the project or projects and the proposed project start date. Include anticipated commitment of all parties; equity, debt, and other financing mechanisms; and a schedule of project revenues and project costs. The life -cycle cost analysis should include, but not be limited to, a detailed analysis of the projected return, rate of return, or both, expected useful life of facility and estimated annual operating expenses. 6. A detailed discussion of assumptions about user fees or rates, and usage of the projects. 7. Identification of any known government support or opposition, or general public support or opposition for the project. Government or public support should be demonstrated through resolution of official bodies, minutes of meetings, letters, or other official communications. 8. Demonstration of consistency with appropriate local comprehensive or infrastructure development plans or indication of the steps required for acceptance into such plans. 9. Explanation of how the proposed project would impact local development plans of each affected local jurisdiction. 10. Identification of the executive management and the officers and directors of the firm or firms submitting the proposal. In addition, identification of -16- any known conflicts of interest or other disabilities that may impact the public entity's consideration of the proposal, including the identification of any persons known to the proposer who would be obligated to disqualify themselves from participation in any transaction arising from or in connection to the project pursuant to the Virginia State and Local Government Conflict of Interest Act, Chapter 31 (§ 2.2-3100 et seq.) of Title 2.2. 11. Additional material and information as the County may request. VII. Proposal Evaluation and Selection Criteria The following items shall be considered in the evaluation and selection of PPEA proposals. A. Qualifications and Experience Factors to be considered in either phase of the County's review to determine whether the proposer possesses the requisite qualifications and experience include: 1. Experience with similar projects; 2. Demonstration of ability to perform work; 3. Leadership structure; 4. Project manager's experience; 5. Management approach; 6. Financial condition; and 7. Project ownership. B. Project Characteristics Factors to be considered in determining the project characteristics include: 1. Project definition; 2. Proposed project schedule; 3. Operation of the project; -17- 4. Technology, technical feasibility; 5. Conformity to laws, regulations, and standards; 6. Environmental impacts; 7. Condemnation impacts; State and local permits; and 9. Maintenance of the project. C. Project Financing Factors to be considered in determining whether the proposed project financing allows adequate access to the necessary capital to finance the project include: 1. Cost and cost benefit to the County; 2. Financing and the impact on the debt or debt burden of the County; 3. Financial plan, including the degree to which the proposer has conducted due diligence investigation and analysis of the proposed financial plan and the results of any such inquiries or studies; 4. Estimated cost; 5. Life -cycle cost analysis; 6. The identity, credit history, past performance of any third parry that will provide financing for the project and the nature and timing of their commitment, as applicable; and 7. Such other items at the County deems appropriate. The County reserves the right to select its own finance team, source and financing vehicle in the event that any project is financed through the issuance of obligations that are deemed to be tax -supported debt of the public entity, or if financing such a project may impact the public entity's debt rating or financial position, the public entity may select its own finance team, source, and financing vehicle. The decision to use the financing plan contained in any proposal (whether solicited or unsolicited) is at the Board of Supervisors discretion. -18- D. Project Benefits and Compatibility Factors to be considered in determining the proposed project's compatibility with the appropriate local or regional comprehensive or development plans include: 1. Community benefits; 2. Community support or opposition, or both; 3. Public involvement strategy; 4. Compatibility with existing and planned facilities; and 5. Compatibility with local, regional, and state economic development efforts. E. Other Factors Other factors that may be considered by the County in the evaluation and selection of PPEA and PPTA proposals include: 1. The proposed cost of the qualifying project or qualifying transportation facility; 2. The general reputation, industry experience, and financial capacity of the proposer; 3. The proposed design of the qualifying project or qualifying transportation facility; 4. The eligibility of the project for accelerated documentation, review, and selection; 5. Local citizens and government comments; 6. Benefits to the public; 7. The proposer's compliance with a minority business enterprise participation plan or good faith effort to comply with the goals of such plan; 8. The proposer's plans to employ local contractors and residents; and 9. Other criteria that the County deems appropriate. VIII. Interim and Comprehensive Agreements -19- Prior to developing or operating the qualifying project or qualifying transportation facility, the selected proposer shall enter into a comprehensive agreement with the County. Prior to entering into a comprehensive agreement an interim agreement may be entered into that permits a proposer to perform compensable activities related to the project. The County may designate a working group to be responsible for negotiating any interim or comprehensive agreement. Any interim or comprehensive agreement shall define the rights and obligations of the County and the selected proposer with regard to the project. A. Interim Agreement Terms The scope of an interim agreement may include but is not limited to: 1. Project planning and development; 2. Design and engineering; 3. Environmental analysis and mitigation; 4. Survey; 5. Ascertaining the availability of financing for the proposed facility through financial and revenue analysis; 6. Establish a process and timing of the negotiation of the comprehensive agreement; and 7. Any other provisions related to any aspect of the development or operation of a qualifying project or qualifying transportation facility that the parties may deem appropriate prior to the execution of a comprehensive agreement. B. Comprehensive Agreement Terms The scope of the comprehensive agreement shall include but not be limited to: 1. The delivery of maintenance, performance and payment of bonds or letters of credit in connection with any acquisition, design, construction, improvement, renovation, expansion, equipping, maintenance, or operation of the qualifying project or qualifying transportation facility; 2. The review of plans and specifications for the qualifying project by the responsible public entity; -20- 3. The rights of the responsible public entity to inspect the qualifying project to ensure compliance with the comprehensive agreement; 4. The maintenance of a policy or policies of liability insurance or self- insurance reasonably sufficient to insure coverage of the project and the tort liability to the public and employees and to enable the continued operation of the qualifying project or qualifying transportation facility; 5. The monitoring of the practices of the proposer by the County to ensure proper maintenance; 6. The terms under which the proposer will reimburse the County to ensure proper maintenance; 7. The policy and procedures that will govern the rights and responsibilities of the County and the proposer in the event that the comprehensive agreement is terminated or there is a material default by the proposer including the conditions governing assumption of the duties and responsibilities of the proposer by the County and the transfer or purchase of property or other interests of the proposer by the County; 8. The terms under which the proposer will file appropriate financial statements on a periodic basis; 9. The mechanism by which user fees, lease payments, or service payments, if any, may be established from time to time upon agreement of the parties. Any payments or fees shall be set at a level that is the same for persons using the facility under like conditions and that will not materially discourage use of the qualifying project or qualifying transportation facility; a. A copy of any service contract shall be filed with the County. b. A schedule of current user fees or lease payments shall be made available by the proposer to any member of the public upon request. Classifications according to reasonable categories for assessment of user fees may be made. 10. The terms and conditions under which the County may contribute financial resources, if any, for the qualifying project or qualifying transportation facility; -21- 11. The terms and conditions under which existing site conditions will be assessed and addressed, including identification of the responsible party for conducting the assessment and taking necessary remedial action; 12. The terms and conditions under which the public entity will be required to pay money to the private entity and the amount of any such payments for the project. 13. Other requirements of the PPEA, the PPTA, and other applicable law; and 14. Such other terms and conditions as the public entity may deem appropriate. Any changes in the terms of the interim or comprehensive agreement as may be agreed upon by the parties from time to time shall be added to the interim or comprehensive agreement by written amendment. The comprehensive agreement may provide for the development or operation of phases or segments of a qualifying project. Any material violation of Section III (A) (4) of these guidelines by a proposer shall give the Board of Supervisors the right to terminate the comprehensive agreement with that proposer, withhold payment or other consideration due, and seek any other remedy available at law or in equity. IX. Governing Provisions In the event of any conflict between these provisions and the PPEA or PPTA, the terms of the PPEA or PPTA shall control. X. Terms and Conditions on Proposal Submission The following terms and conditions apply to submission of any proposals to the County pursuant to the PPEA or PPTA, whether unsolicited, competing unsolicited, or solicited, and by submitting any proposal to the County, the private entity submitting the proposal agrees to them. 10. Neither these guidelines, nor any request or solicitation, nor the Board of Supervisors' receipt or consideration of any proposal shall create any contract, express or implied, any contractual obligation by Frederick County to any proposer, or any other obligation by the Frederick County to a proposer. The Board of Supervisors makes no promise, express or implied, regarding whether it will enter into a comprehensive agreement with any proposer or regarding the -22- manner in which it will consider proposals. The Board of Supervisors will only be bound by the terms of any comprehensive agreement(s) or interim agreements into which it enters should it choose to enter into any such agreements. 11. The Board of Supervisors will not be responsible for any expenses incurred by a proposer in preparing and submitting a proposal or in engaging in oral presentations, discussions, or negotiations. 12. Proposers may be required to make an oral presentation or oral presentations of their proposal in Frederick County at their own expense. The County Administrator may request the presence of proposers' representatives from their development, financial, architectural, engineering, and constructional teams at these presentations. The County Administrator or his/her designee will schedule the time and location for these presentations. By submitting its proposal, the proposer agrees to make these representatives reasonably available in Frederick County. 13. The Board of Supervisors reserves the right of the County Administrator to waive any informalities with respect to any proposal submitted. 14. The Board of Supervisors reserves the right to accept or reject any and all proposals received, in whole or in part, and to negotiate separately in any manner necessary to serve the best interests of the County. Any procurement under these guidelines may result in multiple awards to multiple offerors. 15. The Board of Supervisors reserves the right to reject any and all proposals without explanation. 16. The provisions of Section X of these guidelines shall apply automatically to all PPEA or PPTA procurements by the Board of Supervisors. 17. The Board of Supervisors will not discriminate against an offeror because of race, religion, color, sex, origin, age, disability, or any other basis prohibited by state law relating to discrimination in employment. -23- ITEM #3 Metropolitan i'lanning Organization (MPO) Activity Update There are a number of initiatives underway at the MPO about which the Committee should know. Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility Plan No additional meetings have taken place or been scheduled. 2. Local Assistance Projects The Subcommittee in charge of these projects, which includes Supervisors and Transportation Committee Chairman Chuck DeHaven and Transportation Planner John Bishop, has adopted the scopes of work for the Route 37 interchange study and the Route 11 access management study. A kickoff meeting is in the process of being scheduled for this work. 3. Multimodal Corridor Studies The MPO Technical advisory committee is currently evaluating four corridor studies to submit for a new VDOT grant program and will be reporting back to the MPO Policy Committee on those applications in February. They include: 1. 522 in the north end of Winchester to Burnt Church Road in Frederick County 2. 522 from Route 50 to Double Church Rd 3. Route 11 from Downtown Winchester to the WV line 4. Route 7 from Piccadilly to the Clarke County Line This item is for information and discussion. No action is required. ITEM #4 Article Distribution Staff has included a number of articles from statewide news outlets for your consideration. Leggett Repeats Call For Gas Tax Increase - washingtonpost.com Page 1 of 2 Leggett Repeats Call For Gas Tax Increase New Leader Lays Out More of Agenda By Ann E. Marimow Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, December 12, 2006; B02 Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett yesterday called for an increase in Maryland's gas tax to help fund road and mass transit projects he said would not be possible without a sustained way to pay for them. The suggestion by the new leader of the state's largest jurisdiction to raise the 23.5 -cent tax got a tepid response from Gov. -elect Martin O'Malley (D), sized it up as an "interesting proposal," and state Senate President Thomas V. "Mike" Miller (D - Calvert), who said it could be a tough sell in the General Assembly. who Leggett's comments came during a speech at the annual legislative breakfast of the Committee for Montgomery, a group of community leaders. He also publicly supported County Council President Marilyn Praisner's initiative, announced last week, to put dozens of large new developments on hold until the county revisits its approach to managing growth. In a wide-ranging interview afterward, Leggett (D) talked for the first time about how he would convert campaign rhetoric into specific policies. He pledged to provide more scrutiny of the school system's budget, consider reorganizing the county's top finance and public safety jobs, and adopt O'Malley's nationally recognized CitiStat program from Baltimore to improve local government services. Leggett acknowledged the political risk of advocating an unpopular increase in the gas tax, which has not been raised since 1992 and is already higher than rates in the District and Virginia. During the Democratic primary to fill the position that was held by Douglas M. Duncan (D), Steven A. Silverman tried to use Leggett's support for a double-digit gas tax increase against him in television commercials. Leggett backed off the size of the increase but not the concept. "I believed it then, and I believe it now," Leggett said yesterday. "We need to increase the gasoline tax." His pronouncement was met by the sound of clinking teacups in a banquet hall filled with about 600 elected officials and nonprofit and business leaders. But he has the backing of several members of the County Council. Concern over traffic and growth ranked higher in Montgomery than anywhere else in the state in a Washington Post poll conducted this summer. Today, Roger Berliner (D -Potomac -Bethesda) is expected to urge the council to support an unspecified increase, which he called smart "energy, environmental and transportation policy." Council member Nancy Floreen (D -At Large) said she, too, would support an increase to avoid putting the governor "in the situation of having to raid the transportation trust fund." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/1 I/AR2006121101296 ... 12/12/2006 Leggett Repeats Call For Gas Tax Increase - washingtonpost.com Page 2 of 2 For every penny increase in the gas tax, $30 million to $35 million in revenue would go into the fund that pays for transportation projects throughout Maryland. During the recession of the early 1990s, the General Assembly increased the tax rate by 5 cents to the current rate. Leggett said that the size of a potential increase "is open to debate" but that it could be coupled with a bump in the vehicle registration fee, which outgoing Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) nearly doubled in 2004. Miller, the Senate president, said an increase in the gas tax has "been needed for some time, but I'm not certain the political will is there." "It would have to be a sales job by the governor in terms of explaining what the needs of the state are," he said, including assurances that rural Maryland -- not just Montgomery and the Washington suburbs -- would benefit. O'Malley arrived at the Bethesda North Conference Center more than 45 minutes late yesterday after getting stuck in rush-hour traffic. He expressed support for completing the $2.4 billion intercounty connector "on time" and for the proposed Purple Line that would link Metro's Bethesda and New Carrollton stations. On Leggett's gas tax proposal, O'Malley was noncommittal. "It's certainly an interesting proposal, and we'll be looking at every reasonable proposal in the months ahead," he said afterward. "More importantly, I think we need to bring people together around a statewide vision for transportation." Beyond the gas tax, Leggett emphasized his commitment to slow the pace of development in the county. He said he would work with the council to develop new standards for determining whether a community has the road and school capacity to handle additional growth. He said he supports the temporary moratorium that Praisner (D -Eastern County) proposed last week. It would last through August. In discussions with candidates to complete his administration, Leggett's team has stressed his interest in improving customer service. Leggett said he will join the county's inspector general later this week to create a hotline for employees and residents to report government fraud and waste. Also, Leggett will soon announce a task force that will try to adapt a version of the CitiStat program, which uses statistics to measure government performance, for Montgomery. School Superintendent Jerry D. Weast will present his budget blueprint tomorrow, and Leggett said he intends to "look at it much more carefully" than he said Duncan and the council have in recent years. With school funding accounting for about half the county's overall budget, Leggett said, "it should withstand that kind of analysis, and if they can't, then something is wrong." © 2006 The Washington Post Company Ads by Google Palm Treo 680 Good Mobile Messaging for Your Enterprise Email Solution www.palm.com http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/1 I/AR2006121101296 ... 12/12/2006 Airports Authority Will Take Over Dulles Toll Road To Speed Rail Line - washingtonpos... Pagel of 2 Vyashin tonpOStCom Airports Authority Will Take Over Dulles Toll Road To Speed Rail Line By Eric M. Weiss Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, December 21, 2006; B01 The region's airports authority agreed yesterday to take over the Dulles Toll Road, boosting efforts to build a rail line to Dulles International Airport and raising the likelihood of higher tolls on the highway. Exactly one year after they first proposed taking over the road from Virginia, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority officials agreed unanimously to a 50 -year deal to operate the roadway and manage the ambitious rail project, which would extend the Orange Line 23 miles from West Falls Church to Tysons Corner, the airport and Loudoun County. A final agreement with state officials is scheduled to be signed Dec. 29. Adye'fA!`'se *era Airports authority officials sought to take over the project out of concern that the second phase of the $4 billion Metro extension, which includes the link to the airport, would be delayed for years or not built at all. Authority members say a rail link to Dulles is vital for a world-class airport. The region's other two airports, Reagan National and Baltimore -Washington Thurgood Marshall airports, are both accessible by transit. Aside from a limited number of buses, the only way to get to Dulles is on increasingly congested Northern Virginia roadways. "This was always about rail to Dulles," said Mame Reiley, chairman of the authority, which also runs National Airport. "This is why we chose to take the risk, while keeping in mind what is best for the region." Authority officials said the first phase is expected to be done by 2012 and the full line by 2015. The agreement negotiated over the past year would formally transfer the toll road over to the airports authority in the spring, although the Virginia Department of Transportation would probably continue to operate it through next fall, when the authority would take over daily operations. Authority officials have said they will raise fees on the Dulles Toll Road, which range from 50 cents to 75 cents, to pay for about half of the rail extension. They said yesterday that decisions about toll increases would be made after new cost estimates on the rail project are completed next year. "For the driver, nothing is going to change well into the fall of 2007, or even after that," said Tara Hamilton, spokeswoman for the airports authority. Authority officials also said that they may switch to "congestion pricing" on the highway, which would mean charging different tolls at different times according to traffic volume. Congestion pricing is designed to reduce backups and is the proposed setup for a series of high -occupancy toll, or HOT, lanes planned for the region. http://www. washingtonpo st. com/wp-dynlcontent/article/2006/ l 2l20/AR200612200118 5 ... 12/21/2006 Airports Authority Will Take Over Dulles Toll Road To Speed Rail Line - washingtonpos... Page 2 of 2 If those are built, the Duties Toll Road would adopt a similar toiling structure to maintain continuity, said James E. Bennett, president and chief executive of the airports authority. Otherwise, he said, tolls for the approximately 200,000 commuters who take the 14 -mile road each day would be raised periodically. Gerald E. Connolly (D), chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, said he was concerned that toll road commuters would pay too much of the cost of the rail project. "I think there has to be some understanding here about caps on toll rates for our consumers," said Connolly, a member of an advisory committee that will examine proposed toll increases and policy. "That was one of my big concerns when this was first proposed." The financing plan for the rail line calls for 50 percent to be paid by the federal government, 25 percent by the state and 25 percent by landowners along its corridor who have agreed to a special tax. The state planned to use revenue from the Dulles Toll Road to pay its share. The authority plans to use that same revenue to take out bonds to pay for the state share and the federal share of the second phase. Also as part of the agreement, the airports authority agreed to build about $300 million in interchange upgrades and other roadwork on the highway. "This agreement shows conclusively that every penny of toll revenue will stay in the Dulles corridor," said Pierce R. Homer, Virginia transportation secretary. © 2006 The Washington Post Company Ads by Google OTC Stock Special Report Major Turnaround Situation: RHWC. Hidden Value... Discovered! UndervaluedPennyStock.com http://www.washingtonpost. com/wp-dynlcontentlarticle/2006/ l 2l2OlAR200612200118 5 ... 12/21/2006 WILLIAM J. HOWELL SPEAKER TWENTY-EIGHTH DISTRICT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 27, 2006 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES RICHMOND COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS: RULES (CHAIRMAN) C ontact: G. Paul Nardo (804) 698-1228 gpnardoghouse. state.va.us Speaker Howell Unveils House Republican Transportation -Land Use Reform Package -- Speaker Announces House GOP Plan to Reduce Congestion by Managing Growth, Limiting Sprawl -- -- Republican Delegates See Controlling Over -Development as Key to Transportation Solution -- -- Localities to Receive Incentives to Increase Local Control, Responsibility over Growth and Roads -- -- Landmark Reform Package Characterized as "Most Significant Advance Since Zoning" -- RICHMOND, 27 December 2006 — At a Capitol Square news conference today, House of Delegates Speaker William J. Howell (R -Stafford) announced that House Republicans would make fundamental land use reforms — giving localities new powers to manage growth and limit sprawl — a central component of their transportation improvement package for the 2007 Session, which begins January 10, 2007. According to Howell, the initiatives amount to the most significant change to the Commonwealth's approach to land use since the advent of zoning. "For Virginians living in fast-growing communities, the effects of sprawl on transportation are readily apparent," noted Speaker Howell. "I represent one of these communities, Stafford County, on the outskirts of Northern Virginia. In talking with lawmakers of both parties as well as business and community leaders, I know that residents from many Virginia communities witness first-hand the strains placed on Virginia's transportation network by the Commonwealth's antiquated approach to land use and planning. As was noted by the successful candidate for Governor in 2005, `Virginia cannot tax and pave its way out of congestion.' We must adopt a bold new approach to better manage growth and to control sprawl. Today, we're announcing a plan to do just that." Speaker Howell noted that the plan has much in common with one introduced by House Republicans during the 2006 Special Session. At that time, Howell announced the formation of a special subcommittee to review and examine the proposals — using the three-month period between the 2006 Special Session in September and the 2007 Regular Session in January to refine and strengthen the legislation as well as broaden and consolidate support for its passage. During today's news conference, Howell also made clear that Delegates Clifford L. "Clay" Athey, Jr. (R -Warren), Jeffrey M. Frederick (R -Prince William), and Robert G. "Bob" Marshall (R -Prince William) would continue to lead the legislative effort to win General Assembly passage for these landmark reforms. Athey, Frederick, and Marshall sponsored different components of the proposal during the 2006 Special Session on Transportation. The package has three main components, all of which are intended to grant more control over development to localities experiencing rapid residential growth. -MORE- Speaker's Room • State Capitol • Post Office Box 406 • Richmond, Virginia 23218 House Republicans Unveil Land Use Law Overhaul Page 2 The first component would allow localities to gain more efficient and effective use of existing infrastructure and roads by providing for the adoption of land use policies that focus growth in pre -designated "urban development areas." This change would curtail growth in less -densely populated areas of localities, while targeting growth to the areas with the corresponding infrastructure to support it. Delegate Clay Athey will patron this reform bill. To reinforce the effectiveness of this transportation and land -use plan, the second component would initiate a pilot program permitting participating localities to assess impact fees on development in areas that are currently more rural and less densely populated, often characterized as "open spaces." It would be the first time that impact fees would be permitted on what it commonly known as "by -right" development in Virginia. In addition to impact -fee revenues, participating counties would receive funding from the state — and potentially the ownership of current equipment from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) — to maintain secondary roads within new "urban transportation service districts." Delegate Jeff Frederick will patron this reform bill. The third component would place a moratorium on the acceptance of new roads created by development into the VDOT-maintained system. The policy change would end the current increase in road miles that are automatically accepted by the state's transportation agency and place responsibility with either the local government that approved the new subdivision and is participating in the urban development district program or a local neighborhood association. Delegate Bob Marshall will patron this reform bill. Delegate Athey noted, "Speaker Howell and Delegates Marshall, Frederick, and I all live in communities where growth and its effects on transportation are felt everyday. Of course, the challenges in Prince William are more immediate than they are Warrenton, but there are communities in every region of the Commonwealth that will benefit from this new approach to managing growth and reducing the stress placed on our transportation system. Our existing laws in this area were adopted during the Great Depression. They aren't just woefully outdated, they're truly obsolete. For localities dealing with rapid residential growth and sprawl, this comprehensive and forward-looking plan is the most significant advance since zoning became commonplace over 40 years ago." "Of all the ideas proposed, floated, or introduced to improve transportation in Virginia, the public has expressed the most enthusiasm over initiatives that address the challenges of over -heated development," said Speaker Howell. "When I charged the Virginia Reform Initiative with crafting ideas to address our 21St Century transportation challenge, it was my hope that an innovative, cutting-edge plan would be the result. I am pleased today to announce that these initiatives meet that standard, and that House Republicans, once again, are taking the lead in addressing the root cause of congestion and gridlock — namely growth and sprawl. "These proposals are just one part of the comprehensive transportation plan House Republicans will be introducing for the 2007 Session. We've already made clear our commitment to requiring that no less than 50% of the surplus be dedicated to transportation. In the weeks ahead, we'll be announcing our proposals to increase the accountability and responsiveness of VDOT. And of course, we'll have a very specific, far-reaching proposal to provide a substantial injection of funding to jump-start and advance a number of critical transportation projects. "For House Republicans, transportation is neither a wedge issue nor an occasional focus. We made improving transportation the single, most prominent component of our agenda for the 2005 and 2006 legislative sessions, and we were the first to call for the 2006 Special Session on Transportation. For 2007, combating sprawl to improve transportation will be the centerpiece of our agenda for Virginia. We are offering new ideas, initiating discussions, building consensus and working toward real progress — now, not later. It is my great hope for the new year that the Governor and legislators representing both chambers and both parties will join our efforts, seeking solutions over political advantage, and, in the process, improving the travel, commutes and overall quality of life for all Virginians." LIEM NOTE: See separate handout for more information about the 3 bills that directly tie transportation and land use. 2007 General Assembly Session House Republican Transportation Initiative: Combating Sprawl to Improve Transportation Transportation cannot be addressed and its challenges cannot be solved if we continue to adhere to the outdated approach ofjust three elements: Tax. Spend. Build. Sprawl has had an increasingly burdensome impact on the quality of life for all Virginians, especially those in urban and suburban areas. Ensuring that state government and localities work together, properly plan to handle growth, and employ the latest and most constructive tools in development design will go a long way toward better serving families, businesses and commuters throughout Virginia. Any legislative plan to improve transportation that ignores one of the root causes of clogged roads and highways — Virginia's 70 -plus -year-old government land use policies — is inherently inadequate, shortsighted and flawed. House Republicans are proposing a farsighted, innovative and comprehensive approach to addressing the challenge of sprawl and its effects on transportation —for the first time directly tying land use and transportation. These three bills are a major change in direction for Virginia. URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREAS (UDA) Patron -Del. Athey ➢ To curtail sprawl, limit traffic congestion and plan better, counties would be required — and towns and cities would be permitted — to create "Urban Development Areas" in their Comprehensive Plans. Urban Development Areas would have minimum residential densities of four units per acre or three times the density of the adjacent land outside of the UDA. Any development within the area would be on public or community water and sewer and incorporate new urbanism design including open space, mass transit, walking trails, denser development and a commercially zoned component — reducing the need to use the transportation system. Each locality would have to provide for a development area large enough to accommodate 20 years of population growth, according to data from the Virginia Employment Commission. • Advances responsible growth by focusing development around urban centers with higher density and around existing utility services — water, sewer and transportation facilities. • Promotes open space and rural land conservation while reducing stress on the transportation system by limiting large lot development in the rural areas of counties. Maximizes effective use of existing public facilities infrastructure to better enable localities to deal with the challenges of development and growth. Currently, many localities do not rationally plan if, where, and how growth should occur in local communities. Source: Speaker's Office December 27, 2006 House Republican Transportation Initiative: Combating Sprawl to Improve Transportation Page 2 URBAN TRANSPORTATION SERVICE DISTRICTS (UTSD) Patron -Del. Frederick ➢ To improve the relationship between state and local governments which will pay dividends over time, counties (ideally, fast-growing ones) would be given the opportunity to accept responsibility for the maintenance of all or a portion of their existing secondary (subdivision) road system, create new "Urban Transportation Service Districts," and allow an impact fee to be charged for road maintenance. Any County which voluntarily chooses to enter into the pilot UTSD program would receive incentives for assuming this responsibility, including an amount equal to VDOT's urban allocation formula for cities and towns (which is much more than VDOT normally spends on county roads), along with existing VDOT facilities and equipment used to maintain those roads. In addition, a participating County would receive any additional monies that Virginia is currently spending to maintain the roads that the locality creating the UTSD would now be assuming. The final monetary incentive would be the ability to collect full impact fees on new by -right development outside of the established Urban Transportation Service District. • Modernizes and strengthens the state and local government partnership by fixing one of the largest disconnects in the current relationship - enabling the efficient and effective coordination of local land use decisions and taking into account their impact on the state's transportation system. • Repeals the Byrd Road Act of 1932, by which most Virginia counties (except Arlington and Henrico) have no responsibility for the maintenance of their local - or secondary - roads. With Virginia's increasing population, historically rural counties have rapidly turned into bustling urban areas. • Responds to skyrocketing road maintenance costs, which are the result of the ill-considered addition of secondary - largely subdivision - roads approved by localities, but which are then are automatically required to be accepted by the Commonwealth into the state road system after one year. • Allows for the collection of impact fees on new, by -right development located outside o the UTSDs established by fast-growing counties, resulting in development appropriately centered in and around existing urban areas and, thereby, combating sprawl and reducing traffic congestion. LIMITS AND FLEXIBILITY ON SUBDIVISION ROADS Patron -Del. Bob Marshall ➢ To address skyrocketing maintenance costs (which are consuming dollars that otherwise would be spent on new construction), VDOT would be required to define a "neighborhood road" and a "local collector road," and would be prohibited from accepting for maintenance purposes any new "neighborhood roads" into the Commonwealth's statewide system. Counties have approved subdivision streets totaling 3,200 line -miles, all of which have been added to the state transportation system since 1997 according to VDOT. That compares to about 60,000 center lane -miles in the total system. If county governments approved subdivisions, they would have to maintain the roads themselves (through an UTSD) or require local homeowners associations to do so. • Aligns more accurately land -use decision-making authority with the consequences of those actions and provides for necessary funding going forward. Removes the stringent standard criteria currently imposed on neighborhood roads by VDOT because they no longer would be accepted into the state system. • Strengthens further the partnerships between local land use decisions and state transportation system impacts by giving localities another opportunity to better plan for residential development. Va. House Puts Onus on Counties for Road Crisis - washingtonpost.com washingtonpostcom Va. House Puts Onus on Counties for Road Crisis By Michael D. Shear and Lisa Rein Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, December 28, 2006; A01 RICHMOND, Dec. 27 -- Virginia House Republicans on Wednesday blamed county supervisors, particularly those in Northern Virginia, for the state's transportation crisis as they proposed laws to shift responsibility for neighborhood roads to the local officials who approve subdivisions. The House GOP offered the proposals and the tough rhetoric as lawmakers prepared to do battle again next month over how to fix the state's transportation crisis. In the process, they laid out the main debate for elections next November, when all 140 lawmakers and most of the state's local officials will face voters: Who's to blame for the traffic? Speaking in blunt terms, House leaders said an eagerness by local officials to approve development was "an abdication of responsibility" to plan for the impact on traffic, and that supervisors in growing counties "have done a less -than -stellar job" in planning for the future. "The easiest job in the world is to be a supervisor approving subdivisions," said Del. C.L. "Clay" Athey Jr. (R -Warren), who leads the House GOP effort to design land -use legislation. "You can approve it, and as soon as it's over and done with, you can say any impacts to the roads you don't have to consider at all and you can just start blaming the state." House Speaker William J. Howell (R -Stafford) said the current debate about traffic congestion and road construction boils down to this: "What it's really about is accountability. What this bill ... does is ensure that accountability." Pagel of 3 County supervisors, Democrats and Republicans alike, reacted angrily to the r�9-1r..Ps FUa.: accusation that their planning decisions are why the state's roads are such a mess. "It just shows how desperate they are to find somebody to blame rather than themselves," said Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerald E. Connolly (D), who was singled out by name during the news conference. "This is all yet another attempt to sidetrack the public discussion from their unwillingness to put any new money on the table for transportation infrastructure." The GOP legislation unveiled at the Capitol largely takes aim at future development by requiring local governments or homeowners associations to maintain new subdivision roads. It does not give local governments greater authority to deny subdivision developments because of traffic impact, a power supervisors have requested for years. Loudoun Supervisor Stephen J. Snow (R -Dulles), a vocal backer of developers rights, said his county is building homes as a response to the region's roaring economy while the state is failing to do its part by http://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dynlcontent/articlel2006ll2l271AR2006122701124_p... 1/19/2007 Va. House Puts Onus on Counties for Road Crisis - washingtonpost.com Page 2 of 3 constructing a road network to match. "Why the Republican family wants to fight about this is a wonderment to me," Snow said. "We've done our part. We use the tools they've given us. But we don't need consternation and bony fingers pointing at us. We need solutions." Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) and the Republican -controlled legislature spent most of 2006 arguing over how to add money for road construction and maintenance. The drawn-out debate nearly forced a shutdown of state government and prompted a week-long special session that ended in failure. All sides have said they will use the 2007 General Assembly session to try again, although there is little indication that anything has changed. Kaine spokesman Kevin Hall said Wednesday that the governor and House Republicans are "generally rowing in the same direction" in regard to the newly proposed legislation. But Hall cautioned that the governor had not seen any specifics. "I would observe that it does little to nothing to address sprawl that has already occurred," Hall said. "And we need to be mindful that we are not simply shifting the state's responsibility to local governments." The proposal also would require local governments to encourage development in urban areas and would give them the option to take over road maintenance in exchange for the right to impose fees on developers building projects in more rural areas. The Republican lawmakers said the bills could have a profound effect on traffic by making localities responsible for their development decisions. Shifting some road responsibilities would also free state money that could be used to widen interstates, repair bridges and build interchanges, they said. Under the proposal, counties would be given some state money and equipment to maintain new subdivisions. Howell called the proposed changes "nothing short of a complete revamping of the relationship between state and local government when it comes to land use and transportation." Slow -growth advocates did not endorse the legislation, but praised Howell and Republicans for recognizing the need for changes to the way the state plans. "What is most important is the fact that there's bipartisan support for smarter growth in Virginia," said lobbyist Stewart Schwartz, president of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. Howell said the proposed legislation is part of a broader attempt by House Republicans to change the way the state plans, builds and pays for its roads. He said the House GOP will continue to push for new money without raising taxes to pay for "critical projects" that could ease congestion. The House GOP attacked supervisors even as local officials in Northern Virginia have been aggressively pursuing novel ways to limit growth, control sprawl and reduce traffic. Several Northern Virginia supervisors noted Prince William's recent plan to put new housing on hold until the state provides more transportation money. "Apparently, some things we do touch a nerve down there," said Loudoun Supervisor James G. Burton (I -Blue Ridge), who plans to introduce a similar resolution before the board this week. http://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dynlcontentlarticlel2006ll 2l271AR2006122701124_p... 1/19/2007 Va. House Puts Onus on Counties for Road Crisis - washingtonpost.com Page 3 of 3 Loudoun approved a plan this month to curb development in the county's rural west, replacing a more restrictive one that was thrown out in court. The ruling by the state Supreme Court last year underscored local governments' limited powers to restrict growth. Corey Stewart (R-Occoquan), the newly elected Board of County Supervisors chairman in Prince William, said his predecessors "approved too much residential development," but he blamed Richmond lawmakers for failing to build an adequate road network. "The state needs to give us more authority to slow down residential development and more assistance in terms of road construction," he said. 2006 The Washington Post Company Ads by Google Ronald Robinson. MBA, JD $300/Hr. Manassas Family Lawyer. Ex -Navy Pilot. Three N.Va. Offices www.robinsonlawof,ice.com Virginia Beach House Free Photo Listings for VA Beach. Search by Bed, Bath & Price Range. www.justlisted.com Caroline County Homes View featured real estate listings, condos, land, and homes for sale bacongroupinc.com http://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dynlcontent/articlel2006l l2l271AR2006122701124_p... 1/19/2007 HAMPTON ROADS News (Printable Version) Pagel of 2 Failure to spend transportation money cost Va. $25 million By TOM HOLDEN, The Virginian -Pilot © December 28, 2006 Last updated: 1:40 PM When lawmakers failed last fall to agree on a long-range plan for Virginia's Previous: Welch backs 10 -cent hike in worsening transportation troubles, they left behind an intriguing sum: $339 gas tax for roads million in unspent funds. The money had been promised for road and rail projects on the condition that legislators reach an agreement. When they return to the issue in January, they could be in for a rude surprise. The buying power of that $339 million has slipped to $314 million - a $25 million decline that the Virginia Department of Transportation attributes to inflation, higher materials costs and the price of land. More than any other element of the transportation debate, the dwindling buying power of state funds is helping frame the debate over money. "We are caught in a perfect storm of diminishing revenues and rising costs," said state Transportation Secretary Pierce Homer. "More projects will be delayed or canceled, absent fairly significant action - and soon." VDOT already has halted work on the planned third crossing between Norfolk and the Peninsula because of lack of money and escalating costs, while the planners of the proposed Southeastern Parkway and Greenbelt in Virginia Beach and Chesapeake are bracing for the January release of the latest cost estimates. Virginia Beach officials have been warned to expect the current cost estimate of $1.1 billion to top $2 billion. The buying power of the money devoted to construction and maintenance has slipped 44 percent since 1986, the last time significant, long-term revenue was devoted to transportation, according to VDOT officials. "Money is time, and the clock is ticking," Homer said. "The larger projects will be more significantly affected than the smaller ones." Both Democratic Gov. Timothy M. Kaine and Republican House Speaker William J. Howell, R -Stafford, have promised more money for highways, but each offers different amounts and none would be enough to build the region's most sought-after projects. Kaine has proposed $500 million in one-time increases from existing revenue, with earmarked sums for key rail and road projects in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia. Republicans say they want to spend more as well, calling for directing at least half of the state's projected surplus of $550 million to transportation, plus the $339 million left over from last fall. Kaine has hinted that he may revisit his failed attempt at raising new money for transportation through a series of fees, while Republicans will try to resurrect their efforts to use a massive bond package to build new roads. Although Northern Virginia lawmakers plan to take a second shot at passing a regional transportation plan for their districts next year, no Hampton Roads lawmakers have committed to introducing a similar measure for this region. Last year, two plans for Hampton Roads were defeated in the House of Delegates. One relied solely on tolls to build road projects, the other called for a variety of user fees. http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/Print.cfm?story=l 16727&ran--186848 1/19/2007 HAMPTON ROADS News (Printable Version) Page 2 of 2 The debate simmers as projects get more expensive and congestion worsens. Virginia's population has risen by 30 percent since 1986, and the amount of use that highways and roads endure is up 74 percent, said VDOT chief financial officer Barbara Reese. VDOT's current budget calls for spending $3.7 billion, with $1.3 billion devoted to maintenance and $712.9 million to construction. Concern about the diminishing construction program and a frustrated electorate prompted one defection from the anti -tax ranks last week. Del. John Welch III, R -Virginia Beach, said he would support a 10 -cent-per-gallon gasoline tax increase and may introduce legislation to support the effort, which is widely expected to stall in committee. Del. Leo Wardrup Jr., R -Virginia Beach and chairman of the House Transportation Committee, said he backs further reform at VDOT instead. He wants to change the manner in which local land -use policies relate to transportation, saying previous efforts "were not ready for prime time." One early effort will come from Del. Mark L. Cole, R -Fredericksburg, who wants in HB1724 to tie the issuing of building occupancy permits to transportation with impact fees. The bill calls for two-thirds of such fees to end up in the transportation trust fund and a third to remain locally. The fee amount varies with building value, but is generally capped at $20,000 per structure. Wardup also said he wants to change the process of making appointments to the Commonwealth Transportation Board, which he has criticized as "a rubber stamp" that does not critically assess projects it regularly approves. Both he and Sen. Martin E. Williams, R -Newport News and chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, back legislation (SB753) that would change the way the board is appointed by allowing the General Assembly to pick the members. The lawmakers also want, through SB752, to transfer the selection of the commissioner to the Assembly, stripping that duty from the governor. Previous efforts to achieve this have failed. "We'll have some of these bills cleaned up," he said, "and they'll be ready to present soon." Staff writer Christina Nuckols contributed to this report. • Reach Tom Holden at(757) 446-2331 or tom.holden@pilotonline.com. © 2007 HamptonRoads.com/PilotOnline.com http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/print.cfm?story=116727&ran=186848 1/19/2007 Steven Pearlstein - The Latest Captive Market: Commuters - washingtonpost.com Pagel of 3 washingtonpost:com The Latest Captive Market: Commuters By Steven Pearlstein Friday, December 29, 2006; DO 1 It's time to tackle the hot topic on everyone's mind this New Year's weekend -- congestion pricing. Maryland and Virginia are moving ahead with a form of congestion pricing on the Beltway and Interstate 95. In exchange for building additional lanes, contractors will be allowed to collect tolls that will vary by the minute. When traffic is heavy, the price will rise to whatever level is needed to keep the express lanes flowing. When demand is low -- presumably at times when traffic is flowing smoothly in the normal lanes -- the price will fall to near zero. Under most scenarios, buses and carpool vehicles will travel free. Recently, the staff at Metro used congestion pricing to design a fare increase meant to raise an additional $64 million a year for the bus and subway system. On average, that would work out to a 14 percent fare increase. The plan would impose the biggest increases on peak -hour subway commuters who use the 19 busiest stops in the downtown core. Economists love these schemes because they use "market mechanisms" to allocate "scarce resources." But a lot of non -economists, who don't spend much time worrying about allocative efficiency, think them unfair and unnecessarily complicated. In the case of the highway schemes, many people are uncomfortable with the idea that basic public services, once available to everyone regardless of income, will now be allocated on the basis of ability to pay. If more capacity is needed, why not add lanes the old-fashioned way, by having government pay for them and letting everyone use them? Several problems there. First, history is pretty clear that adding lanes doesn't relieve congestion for long. More capacity simply invites more cars, either by stimulating additional housing development or luring transit and carpool riders back into their cars. Second, pigheaded voters in Maryland and Virginia have been unwilling to raise gasoline or other taxes to pay for the highways they claim to want. So the next -best alternative is to get private contractors to finance highway expansion in exchange for a stream of future toll revenue. At the least, these "Lexus lanes" will provide some temporary relief while speeding the commutes of bus riders and carpoolers at no cost to them. And given the alternative, isn't it better to impose tolls on those who can best afford to pay them -- along with ordinary folk who occasionally have the urgent need to get home in time to drive Tammy to soccer practice? In fact, congestion pricing has proven successful not only for managing highway congestion but also for http://www. washingtonpo st. comlwp-dynlcontent/article/2006/ 12/2 81AR20061228 01242_p... 1/19/2007 Steven Pearlstein - The Latest Captive Market: Commuters - washingtonpost.com Page 2 of 3 relieving crowded downtown areas like those of London and Stockholm. Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York has flirted with this idea for Manhattan. And it's something this region needs to consider for downtown and even Tysons Corner, once the Metro extension is completed. The criticism of Metro's fare plan is that it would penalize people who can't readily change when and where they work. Skeptics ridicule the notion that people are going to commute before dawn or get off the subway at Rosslyn and hoof it downtown. In fact, Metro planners have no illusions about subway fares as an instrument of behavior modification. They realize that most people won't change their commuting patterns in the short run. Instead, Metro approached the problem as any business would, looking for the best way to raise money to cover higher operating costs while causing the fewest customers to defect to the competition -- that is, to drive. One calculation showed that even if parking fees and fares go up, the cost of parking at a Metro lot and commuting in would still be about 70 percent of what it would cost to drive downtown and park. Experience further shows that the passengers who are least willing or able to defect to other forms of transportation are those who commute downtown from the suburbs at peak times. Based on those analyses, Metro planners concluded that the best strategy would be to skew the fare increases to their captive suburban peak -hour commuters. Fare hikes would be lower for the more price - sensitive, off-peak passengers. They'd also go easy on "reverse" commuters who work in the suburbs, where lower parking fees make commuting to work by car a more attractive alternative. Bus fares would go up only modestly on average, in the hope that some passengers who now ride the subway for short distances might switch to buses during peak hours. The idea of charging a premium for peak -hour commuters to crowded stations also makes economic sense if you consider the capital costs associated with adding capacity. The subway system is approaching its limits during peak commuting hours on certain lines (Red and Orange) as they pass through the downtown core. What that means is that adding capacity soon won't be a simple matter of buying a few more cars and hiring a few more train operators. Rather, it will involve the enormous costs of making stations bigger to accommodate longer trains, or digging tunnels for express trains. This raises a different fairness issue. Is it fair to ask all passengers to pay for expensive new capacity that is required only to handle downtown commuters for a few peak hours? Or is it fairer to put the bulk of that burden on those who will benefit from the new capacity? There is no right answer to these questions -- it depends on whether your goal is to maintain market share for public transit, align fares with costs, or try to use fares over the long run to alter people's behavior. The best approach is probably a mix of all three. As I see it, Metro planners are on the right track, though perhaps they ought to use a narrower window for peak hours. In the future, perhaps they should set fares according to the actual cost of service, rather than distance traveled. And it may be worth considering different fare levels for each line, with lower fares to boost ridership on underused lines and higher fares to dampen peak -hour demand on lines nearing capacity. http://www.washingtonpost.comlwp-dynlcontentlarticle/2006/ l 2l281AR2006122801242_p... 1/19/2007 Steven Pearlstein - The Latest Captive Market: Commuters - washingtonpost.com Page 3 of 3 Then again, we could just follow the New York City model and charge a flat rate, say $2.25, for any ride at any time. But what fun would that be? Steven Pearlstein can be reached atpearlsteinsna washPost.com. 2006 The Washington Post Company Ads by Google Free Credit Score The average US credit score is 675 The cost to see yours: $0 vAvw. F reeCreditReport.com http://www. washingtonpost. comlwp-dynlcontent/article/2006/ l 2l281AR2006122801242_p... 1/19/2007 HAMPTON ROADS News (Printable Version) Page 1 of 1 VDOT aims to make roan sighs easier to read By TOM HOLDEN, The Virginian -Pilot © January 18, 2007 Last updated: 1:37 PM It's the small things that matter. With a nod to the failing eyesight of aging drivers, state officials hope new typefaces on signs and broader highway markings will help make driving a little easier. The Virginia Department of Transportation announced Wednesday that it has begun phasing in typographical changes on signs and using 6 -inch -wide pavement markings on interstates to replace the older, 4 -inch versions. The idea is that with improved signs and wider pavement markings, the traveling experience will be safer, especially for drivers whose eyesight is not as keen as it once was. They note that 13 percent of Virginia's licensed drivers are 65 or older. "These changes will help everyone," said Sande Snead of VDOT's Richmond office. "They're one of the things we can do to make life a little easier, and that might help reduce crashes." Along some sections of interstates where confusion could arise, VDOT and the Federal Highway Administration are painting interstate shields directly onto the pavement so that drivers are clear about what road they're on. New overhead signs will be made from more highly reflective material, while highly visible yellow -green florescent signs are now standard for pedestrian, school and bicycle crossings. The new signs and markings will be added as older ones wear out, she said. Reach Tom Holden at (757) 446-2339 ortom.holden@pilotonline.com. © 2007 HamptonRoads.com/PilotOnline.com http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/print.cfm?story=117784&ran=3 8183 1/18/2007 Steven Pearlstein - Funding Sends Northern Virginia Down the Right Road - washingtonp... Pagel of 2 washingtonpostcar Funding Sends Northern Virginia Down the Right Road By Steven Pearlstein Friday, January 19, 2007; DO1 Northern Virginians can look several different ways at the transportation funding package offered up yesterday in Richmond by Republican legislative leaders. You can contrast it with their position of a year ago ("What transportation problem?") and two months ago ("It's all your fault for approving all those subdivisions") and even two weeks ago ("It's nothing that can't be fixed with a $2 billion bond issue"). Given those earlier positions, the Republicans' proffer involves serious money and a near-total political capitulation. On the other hand, you can compare their $383 million -a -year offer for Northern Virginia highway and transit projects with the $665 million a year on the region's wish list. By that criterion, this looks like a sucker's deal that falls short of what is needed and sets a dangerous precedent, funding transportation from the same pot of money needed for education, public safety and social services. Or you can look at the offer as the best chance in a generation for the Washington suburbs to liberate themselves from downstate Republicans who have been picking their pockets, forcing them to spend too much time stuck in traffic and imposing their 19th -century political ideology on a 21 st-century economy. Some Democrats will be tempted to characterize the compromise plan as too little, too late, in the hope voters will blame the region's traffic woes on Republicans -- and get fed up enough to put the entire state government under control of Democrats who will give the region everything it needs. This strategy is too clever by half. If there's any lesson from the recent elections, it's that voters have little patience with partisan posturing and game -playing, and place a high premium on problem -solving and truth -telling. At the same time, a few Republicans who have drunk too deeply from the anti -tax Kool-Aid will predict economic ruin from modest increases in taxes and fees for diesel fuel, rental cars, hotel rooms, real estate transfers and drivers' licenses. In fact, the big economic risk won't come from imposing new taxes but from failing to invest in a transportation network that is necessary for further economic growth. Without it, growth will go elsewhere. Nor should anyone worry too much about "robbing" general government coffers to pay for badly needed roads and road repair. The sum involved -- $250 million a year -- represents about 1.3 percent of annual spending from a general fund that has been growing, on average, at 6 percent a year. This is merely a rounding error. Real estate developers and commercial property owners are already grumbling about the prospect of a transportation surtax that Northern Virginia cities and counties could impose on their property tax bills. http://www.washingtonpost.corn4p-dynlcontentlarticle/2007/01 l l 8lAR200701180183 9_p... 1/19/2007 Steven Pearlstein - Funding Sends Northern Virginia Down the Right Road - washingtonp... Page 2 of 2 But it's hard to work up too many tears for this crowd. Up to now, Virginia has been one of the few states that requires a single, uniform tax rate for both commercial and residential property, even though those are really separate real estate markets. In recent years, home values in Northern Virginia have been rising twice as fast as prices for office buildings and shopping centers, allowing localities to dramatically cut their tax rates. As a result; commercial property owners have enjoyed the benefit of lower rates without the full added burden of higher assessments. The proposed increase would simply require them to give back some of their recent windfall. For years, local officials in Northern Virginia have complained that, under the state's quaint constitutional arrangement, they have no control over local roads and streets and are limited in their ability to pay for growth by imposing "impact fees" on big new developments. But now that the legislature's Republican leaders are offering to give them the authority and responsibility they demanded, the whining has begun about how all this could strain local budgets. To which one is inclined to reply: Suck it up, fellas. That's how it works just about everywhere else. No doubt there are a few more concessions Gov. Timothy M. Kaine and the Northern Virginia delegation may be able to wring from the Republican leadership before their plan is put to a final vote. But even without them, this looks like a big step in the right direction, not only in alleviating congestion and laying the groundwork for ature growth, but also in giving the region the autonomy it needs and deserves. Take the deal. Steven Pearlstein can be reached atpearlsteins(a�washPost.com. © 2007 The Washington Post Company Ads by Google Whafs your Credit Score? 677? 720? 598? The cost to see yours: $0 www. FreeCreditReport. com hnp://www.washingtonpost. comlwp-dynlcontent/article/2007/01l l 8lAR200701180183 9_p... 1/19/2007 GOP Drafts Broad Plan For Va. Transportation - washingtonpost.com washingtonpos# coo GOP Drafts Broad Plan For Va. Transportation Lawmakers Seek Huge Infusion of Cash By Michael D. Shear Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, January 19, 2007; A01 RICHMOND, Jan. 18 -- Senate and House Republicans proposed a multibillion -dollar transportation plan Thursday that would raise taxes and fees in Northern Virginia, impose stiff fines on bad drivers and launch a round of borrowing to build the state's most -needed road projects. Pagel of 3 =a S1ES�EMENIT11,11 vjni 7 1 Kk Fj 4[1 K, i I New Year speC—xals Just updated t SAVE YOU THOUSAN QS! Atter weeks of negotiations, long -feuding GOP leaders, who control both chambers of the General Assembly, said they will also push for localities' authority to control sprawl and for changes aimed at making the state's transportation department more efficient. The lawmakers' plan, if approved, would be the first time in 21 years that the state has poured substantial amounts of money into new road and transit projects that could one day improve the region's commutes. But it is far from a done deal, drawing cautious praise from Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) and concern from Democrats and conservative, anti -tax Republicans. "This really has been a remarkable occurrence," said House Speaker William J. Howell (R -Stafford), who is leading the GOP effort despite past objections to tax increases. If adopted by the General Assembly before it adjourns Feb. 24, the proposal for more than $1 billion of new transportation money every year could ease traffic congestion across the state and in the Washington area by widening freeways, expanding Metro, adding local routes and clamping down on the sprawl that contributes to maddening morning and afternoon traffic jams. "They haven't abandoned Northern Virginia," Del. David B. Albo (R -Fairfax) said of his fellow lawmakers who crafted the proposal for a historic investment in the road and transit network. "In fact, what they've done is come and save us, basically, and get us out of this gridlock." The plan alters the state's political landscape in an election year by ending a stalemate within the Republican Party that nearly caused a government shutdown last year. The long-standing anger about traffic from weary commuters and anxious business executives now shifts to Kaine and his fellow Democrats. The governor, who made transportation the heart of his campaign and proposed a $1 billion tax increase last year, did not immediately embrace the proposal. He expressed concern about some details of the plan, echoing Democrats' fears that funding for schools, colleges and other state programs would suffer. "We must use reliable, long-term funding to build and maintain a 21st -century transportation system http://www.washingtonpost. comlwp-dynlcontent/article/2007/01 ll 8lAR2007011801082_p... 1/19/2007 GOP Drafts Broad Plan For Va. Transportation - washingtonpost.com Page 2 of 3 while keeping the commitments we already have made in the areas of public education, public safety and public health," Kaine said in a statement. Some Republicans accused Democrats of already opposing the proposal so they can campaign against a "do-nothing" Republican legislature in November. "Frankly, I think the Democrats want us to fail," said House Appropriations Chairman Vincent F. Callahan Jr. (R -Fairfax). But some GOP lawmakers, including the Senate's most powerful member and some key House conservatives, were not present at the announcement of the deal, signaling that approval of the landmark proposal is not guaranteed even by their own party. Sen. John H. Chichester (R -Northumberland), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said borrowing billions of dollars and using money that ought to be going toward public schools, colleges and health care is a terrible idea. "To come up with something that's born out of panic is not really good government," he said. Advocates for managed growth were wary of the proposal but congratulated the party for proposing sharper tools for local governments to control development. "The underlying cause of our transportation problems are poorly planned land use and poor community designs that add to our traffic," said Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. The eagerly anticipated news conference ended a month-long negotiation between three lawmakers from each chamber that was organized by Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell (R). "The failure to find solutions to our transportation problems imperils our future prosperity," McDonnell said in a statement. Under the plan, taxes on diesel fuel would rise, and fees to register heavy trucks would increase. Rental car taxes would go up, and drivers with bad records would pay higher fines. Taxes on commercial real estate and the sale of a house would go up. And new drivers would pay an extra $100 the first time they get a license. The plan also envisions dedicating half of future surpluses to transportation projects and diverting $250 million from other state programs starting in 2008. And the state would borrow $1.3 billion in 2008 and an additional $700 million in 2012, repaying the debt with money raised through the plan. Some of the fees and taxes would require the approval of city councils and boards of supervisors. Republican lawmakers said that would ensure that the millions raised from Northern Virginia residents would be used for projects in the region. But those requirements inject another element of uncertainty into the proposal. "I applaud the fact that the Republican leadership, after dithering for a year, has come to the conclusion that the transportation crisis is real," said Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerald E. Connolly (D). "As long as they are willing to stay flexible, I'm sure local government officials will work with them to make it even better." The plan does not spell out how the money would be spent. Northern Virginia's 2030 plan calls for widening Interstate 66 and Routes 7, 28 and 29. The dream list of projects includes larger, more efficient http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dynlcontent/article/2007/01 / l 8lAR2007011801082_p... 1/19/2007 GOP Drafts Broad Plan For Va. Transportation - washingtonpost.com Page 3 of 3 interchanges across the region; Metro service to Centreville, Potomac Mills and Dulles International Airport; a wider Capital Beltway with high -occupancy toll lanes; and numerous improvements to smaller roads and bridges. The total cost: $21 billion. The Republican transportation package would not pay for all of those projects, officials said. But by leveraging the money to borrow more, they said Northern Virginia would finally have a realistic hope of making many of the projects a reality in the next decade. Just a few months ago, House GOP leaders celebrated their victory over Senate counterparts after refusing to give in to Senate demands for higher taxes during a special session in September. Kaine had called the special session after lawmakers failed to reach a compromise in the regular session, nearly shutting down state government. But the election six weeks later changed everything, some lawmakers and other political observers said. Republican George Allen's defeat for a second term in the U.S. Senate shocked the party's leaders and sparked a series of urgent conversations about how the parry can win elections. "Think about where we were in 2006," said an exuberant Sen. Thomas K. Norment Jr. (R -James City). Now, he said, "there has been compromise. Boy, that's almost a new term to put into our legislative encyclopedia." But the celebratory mood at the Capitol was tempered by a harsh reality: The plan still must be voted on by the legislature and then signed by the governor by the time the General Assembly leaves town at the end of next month. "Now we start the legislative process," said Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle (R -Virginia Beach). Staff writers Tim Craig and Amy Gardner contributed to this report. 2007 The Washington Post Company Ads by Google Free Credit Score The average US credit score is 675 The cost to see yours: $0 www. FreeCreditReport.com hup: //www.washingtonpo st. com/wp-dynlcontent/article/2007/01 / l 8lAR2007011801082_p... 1/19/2007 HAMPTON ROADS News (Printable Version) Pagel of 4 Republican legislators agree on transportation plan By HARRY MINIUM, The Virginian -Pilot © January 19, 2007 Last updated: 1:51 AM RICHMOND — House and Senate More General Assembly news Republican leaders announced an agreement to help solve the state's transportation woes Thursday that would raise billions of dollars by increasing several taxes and fees, establishing new tolls and borrowing $2 billion. For Hampton Roads, the most significant part of the proposal would be the creation of a regional transportation authority that would allocate hundreds of millions of dollars generated by new local taxes. A similar authority would also be created in Northern Virginia. The new plan comes four months after the Republican -controlled General Assembly adjourned a special session deadlocked over the transportation problem. The agreement marks a significant concession by House Republicans, who had vowed not to accept any tax increases. They did so with elections looming in November and Democrats threatening to use transportation as a campaign -issue sledgehammer. A regional transportation authority would be created to place tolls on new, large road projects. The tolls are expected to generate anywhere from $100 million to nearly $200 million. Mike Heffner/THE VIRGINIAN -PILOT file photo "In a compromise, there's got to be some give-and-take," said House Speaker William Howell, R -Stafford. "There's probably not one member in my caucus who agrees with everything in the package. But I think a strong majority can agree with a majority of it." That includes Del. Leo Wardrup Jr., R -Virginia Beach, the powerful and conservative chairman of the transportation committee, who endorsed it Thursday. Absent from Thursday's news conference was Senate Finance Committee Chairman John Chichester, R - Northumberland, who criticized the plan after being briefed on it Wednesday. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, whose signature is required to enact a transportation proposal, reacted cautiously, commending Republicans for taking a "significant step in the legislative process." He urged all lawmakers, Republican and Democrat, to contribute to the debate "in a civil and constructive way." The Hampton Roads authority would be authorized to place tolls on new, large road projects. Whether or not the authority could place tolls on existing roads is still being negotiated. Tolls would be expected to generate anywhere from $100 million to nearly $200 million. New local taxes to be imposed by the cities and counties would produce $209 million per year, all of it to be spent in Hampton Roads. That is short of the $275 million regional planners say is needed to complete major projects the third crossing of Hampton Roads, an expanded Midtown Tunnel, a new U.S. Route 460, the widening of Interstate 64 on the Peninsula and the south side, the proposed Southeastern Parkway and Greenbelt in Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, and the Dominion Boulevard improvements in Chesapeake. http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/Print.cfm?story=117856&ran=189331 1/19/2007 HAMPTON ROADS News (Printable Version) Page 2 of 4 Sen. Kenneth Stolle, R -Virginia Beach, said the projects would have to be phased in "a little slower than planned," but said the compromise would save them all. Regional planners feared that most of the projects would never be built. Stolle and others acknowledge that the plan could face difficulty in gaining approval from local governments. Stolle said the governing bodies of at least six of the 11 cities and counties in Hampton Roads must approve the plan. If that occurs, then the taxes and fees would take effect across all of Hampton Roads, including any jurisdictions that vote no, Stolle said. The jurisdictions include the cities of Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Hampton, Newport News and Williamsburg and the counties of Isle of Wight, James City and York. The most controversial portion of the local plan is likely to be a real estate tax increase on businesses of 30 cents per $100 of assessed value. For example, the annual tax bill of a business with a building assessed at $500,000 would increase $1,500. The tax would produce $60.9 million per year for transportation, Stolle said. Stolle said that proposal had yet to generate significant opposition and noted, "it's been in the paper in Hampton Roads, so people know about it." Other local tax and fee increases will fall largely on drivers and homeowners. Here are the fees and the money they would generate in 2008: $10 automobile inspection fee increase — $14.6 million. • 5 percent tax on automobile repairs — $21.6 million. Tax increase on deeds for home sales of 10 cents per $100 of assessed value — $33.2 million. . 2 percent car rental fee — $3.3 million. • A one-time 1 percent vehicle registration fee — $41 million. Motor vehicle registration fee increase of $10 — $13 million. $20 fee on operating licenses — $21.2 million. Norfolk Mayor Paul Fraim said that while he doesn't know specifics of the plan, "we all know we have to raise significant dollars locally. It appears to be a very positive step forward, a real breakthrough. We just need to know more about it." Reaction from city council members in other cities ranged from cautiously optimistic to skeptical. "Businesses are part of the beneficiaries of transportation, and they should share in the cost," Suffolk Vice Mayor Curtis Milteer Sr. said. Virginia Beach City Councilwoman Rosemary Wilson said she wasn't sure the business community was the best source to solve transportation problems. http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/print.cfm?story117856&ran=189331 1/19/2007 HAMPTON ROADS News (Printable Version) "It'll be interesting to see what the public has to say," she said. Page 3 of 4 Chesapeake City Councilwoman Ella Ward noted that the business community won't be happy over the tax increase, but added that the region's traffic woes call for drastic measures. Portsmouth City Councilman Bill Moody said, "I don't think it's fair" to raise taxes on businesses. The plan was cobbled together over four months by a negotiating team of nine members : Stolle and Sens. Frederick Quayle, R -Suffolk; Thomas Norment, R -James City; Walter Stosch, R -Henrico; and Marty Williams, R - Newport News; and Dels. David Albo, R -Fairfax; Kirk Cox, R -Colonial Heights; Morgan Griffith, R -Salem; and Terry Kilgore, R -Scott. The two groups were brought together in part by Attorney General Bob McDonnell, the Virginia Beach Republican who has gubernatorial ambitions. "This is a conservative plan that will work for Virginia," McDonnell said Thursday. Cox acknowledged that the deal is "far from done. It has a long way to go." "But the people in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia have been asking us for years to 'let us help ourselves.' This plan does that." Stolle said the Hampton Roads delegation "is nearly unanimous in its support of the plan." Support for the statewide part of the plan looks less certain. It calls for $250 million to be diverted from the operating budget — from schools, health care and law enforcement — a proposal Del. Brian Moran, D -Alexandria, said Democrats may oppose. It also calls for higher fees on abusive drivers and overweight trucks, an increase in the vehicle registration fee of $10, a tax on heavy trucks, 1 cent per gallon increase in the diesel tax, and for 50 percent of the budget surplus in future years to be dedicated for transportation. All told, that would generate about $500 million per year in new revenues, but that is dependant on good financial times, GOP leaders acknowledged. The plan also calls for reforms of the Virginia Department of Transportation and for land -use planning reforms that would largely not apply to South Hampton Roads. Dana Dickens, president and CEO of the Hampton Roads Partnership, a group that represents business, government and other interests in the region, said the plan will be difficult for some to swallow. "Not everyone is going to be happy with the way this is paid for, but this is the plan we have," he said. "Many business leaders, including members of our board, believe this is something necessary to our long-term prosperity." Stolle acknowledged he had a hard time accepting the deal "This is not the package I would have drafted," he said. "But I am absolutely convinced that we have to do something this year. We heard in testimony from Jeff Keever of the Virginia Port Authority that other ports across the nation are already using our inaction last year to lure companies and ships away from the port of Hampton Roads. "Inaction this year would be completely unacceptable." http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/Print.cfm?story=l17856&ran=189331 1/19/2007 HAMPTON ROADS News (Printable Version) Page 4 of 4 Staff writers Christina Nuckols, Janette Rodriques, Richard Quinn, Janie Bryant and Aaron Applegate contributed to this report. e Reach Harry Minium at (757) 446-2371 orharry.minium@pilotonline.com. © 2007 Hampton Roads.com/PilotOnline.com http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/print.cfm?story=117856&ran=1893 31 1/19/2007 The Winchester Star Page 1 of 4 I I Welcome to The Winchester Star 110th Year - Today's Weather - You are currently logged in as bishaj Winchester, VA 45-F/ 7-C Overcast at 12:20 PM Click for Forecast Friday, January 19, 2007 Back To Home Pace TODAY'S FRONT PAGE Legislators satisfied, (PDF File) SITE FEATURES 'comes Guide Aue guide Auctions Help Wanteds Lap By Lnp KarAR Place C lassit eds Stocks Dear A=v t-dovie Listings iV Listings a -dire Games Other Newspa:Ders The Star Story ---------------------- ------ BYRD NEWSPAPERS The Wirchester Star Daily News-Reccrci The 'o'darren Sentinel Shen Va ley-Heralc Page News & C-ourieT The Valley Banner *TRE I ALLEY .IcCOPE .„ -------------------------- Virginia's Travel Information Service surprised By Drew Houff The Winchester Star Winchester Just as it did a year ago, transportation stands alone as the key issue facing legislators and state officials during the 2007 Virginia General Assembly. Unlike a year ago, however, those involved at least seem to understand the need for some solution, as House and Senate Republicans reached an agreement on a proposal to address the state's transportation needs. Del. Clifford L. "Clay" Athey Jr., R -Front Royal, said he was gratified that the legislative Republicans could at least agree on some proposal to handle transportation. As chairman of the policy committee of the House Republican Caucus, Athey participated in much of the discussion and was able to make suggestions about the contents of the bill. "I'm most satisfied with the Republican Caucus in the Virginia Senate and House of Delegates working hard and crafting a compromise," he said. "We have shown we can come together and provide innovative solutions to a problem." Click Here to Lo ApVide http://www.winchesterstar.com/TheWinchesterStar/070119/Area_ legislators.asp 1/19/2007 The Winchester Star Page 2 of 4 Athey said the proposed bill also meets four crucial criteria, including not imposing a statewide tax. i The other key aspects are the use of some of the Virginia General Fund; reform of the Virginia Department of Transportation; and significant land -use' reform to allow governing bodies some latitude in fl / making decisions about projects that will affect roads. �1 The bill also would inject more than $2 billion into Virginia's network of roads, railways, and public transitsystems. 6ii L'Iv� Athey said he was most pleased that the proposed bill would allow regions to implement taxes to provide for transportation needs. 11 u , "s. 6A "I have to give credit to the Virginia Senate for working with us," he said. "It was too obvious that we needed to work toward a compromise." The compromise between Senate and House leaders does come as a bit of a shock, at least to Sen. H. Russell Potts Jr., R -Winchester, who spoke with a delegation of 21 people from the Top of Virginia Regional Chamber on Wednesday. Potts's main concern, as expressed to the group, was the cost of not implementing a statewide tax as a continuous revenue stream for transportation. "I know that health care, public safety, higher education, and public education are areas in which you can't take money for transportation," he said. "If you don't take money from higher education, public education, health care, and public safety, the money has to come from someplace, and there are not a lot of other places. "I think we need to look at a possible tax and lock up that fund just for transportation." Potts also complained on Wednesday that Virginia's pressing needs for transportation were not something new. "We have gone 21 years without doing anything," he said. "[President] Dwight David Eisenhower created the interstate system and raised taxes to do it. Ronald Reagan raised taxes three times as governor of http://www.winchesterstar.com/TheWinchesterStar/070119/Area legislators.asp 1/19/2007 The Winchester Star Page 3 of 4 California and twice as president. With that money, he Ads by Google broke the back of the Soviets in the Cold War." Potts said Virginia's standing as the sixth -wealthiest state in the country, coupled with being the 112th in population, shows that it can afford to upgrade its transportation system. His opposition to the lack of a statewide tax for transportation could signal possible problems with approval of the bill. USA's #1 Of course, it was that call for a statewide funding Checking source, such as a statewide tax, that almost derailed Account efforts to get a transportation bill filed by today, which is the deadline. 4.50% APY + Fr( Even Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling told the Top of Virginia Bill -Payer No fee Regional Chamber group on Wednesday that a statewide tax wouldn't help. No Check Limit Open Now! "I agree there is a need for more money, but I think it is a spending problem," he said. "The debate [over transportation] is legitimate, and we must try to get a www. Presidential Bank( statewide plan." He said one of his main concerns regarding the regional plans is the normally large impact fees imposed by localities to pay for them. The lieutenant governor seemed much happier about the proposal on Thursday. Advertise on this si "I am very pleased that the proposal put forth by Republicans in the Senate and House of Delegates rejects the massive statewide tax increases that had been proposed by Gov. [Timothy M.] Kaine," Bolling said in a statement released by his office. "Now the legislative process will begin, during which this proposal will be analyzed and debated. "I look forward to a continuing dialogue with the members of the General Assembly about this important issue." — Contact Drew Houff at dhouff*winchesterstar corn Back to Home Pacie http://www.winchesterstar.com/TheWinchesterStar/070119/Area legislators.asp 1/19/2007 The Winchester Star Page 4 of 4 dads.. Email this article to a friend Homes Winchester Va View thousands of homes for sale in Winchester, VA. Fast & free! homegain.com Winchester Va Real Estate_ Searchable Home Listings Database for Winchester, Frederick Co. Va www.drLwvanlaeken.com Winchester Va Photos, Customer Ratings & Reviews. Save on Trips to Winchester, VA www.Expedia.com Winchester VA real estate Let the cline team help you with your next realestate transaction www.theclineteam.com k.dve..t'se or, t^is site Click here to review past issues of www.winchesterstar.com Today I Jan. 18 1 Jan. 17 1 Jan. 16 1 Jan. 15 1 Jan._ 13 1 Jan. 12 � ARCHIVES Copyright © 2002-2006 by The Winchester Star - All Rights Reserved. PRIVACY POLICY This site was designed b�yIvveka `� http://www.winchesterstar.com/TheWinchesterStar/070119/Area legislators. asp 1/19/2007 ITEM #5 Other Business Attached please find communication from Mr. Jack Lillis, a County citizen of the Back Creek District who has asked that this communication be forwarded to the committee. January 29, 2007 Memorandum to the members of the Frederick Couinty Transportation Committee Gentlemen, This is a followup to my letter to you and the attached petition concerning the completion of the blacktopping of McDonald Road. It is my understanding that VDOT took over responsibility for the road in 1932 and at that time the county guaranteed a 30 ft. easementto VDOT. I also understand that blacktopping of the road began in the 1970-71 timeframe. The road is about 2.5 miles long and all of it but the southern end of about 0.4 miles was completed. Reason given for not completing the whole project was that VDOT ran into a right -of-way problem. At that time a 40 ft. right-of-way was required by VDOT and only 30 ft. was available. This all took place about 35-36 years ago. I recently acquired a copy of the 2007-2008 Secondary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County. I was interested in learning what road improvements are planned in the county for the current year and outyears. I did an analysis and was shocked over how little priority is being given to hardsurdface road improvement projects (those projects which I have been referring to as blacktopping). According to the plan, there are two projects identified as major road improvement projects(i.e. reconstruction of hardsurfaced roads to enhance public safety). These include 1.36 miles of Greenwood Road and 0.78 miles of Sulphur Springs Road. Feasibility studies were listed for the two but I have been informed that that has been upgraded to design phase. Cost for the two projects was estimated to be $10,963,800, which averages out to be about $5,123, 271 per mile. The plan also talks about hardsurface road improvement projects. There are 28 projects identified as being funded with state funds. Seven of these projects are to be done over the next seven years at a rate on one per year. The other 21 have been prioratized but not scheduled. Average cost per mile is about $157, 848. The seven scheduled would cover 9.62 miles and the other 21 about 23.96 miles. Total for all projects is about 33.58 miles. The cost for doing all 28 would be about $5,302,114 or less than half of the cost of the two major road improvement projects. Funds for doing the two different types of projects come out of two different accounts. I am greatly concerned about how little funding is being provided to get rid of potholes as compared to funding of major projects. I have sent an email to delegates Sherwood, May, Athey, and Wardrup and Senators Potts and Williams expressing this concern and asking that they take such action as is appropriate to remedy the situation. Attached hereto is a copy of that email. I ask that members of this committee join me in this effort and that they encourage all members of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors do the same. And now back to McDonald road. I am a strong proponent of finishing what you start before starting something new and that is what I and the other people who live along McDonald road are asking the county and VDOT to do. The entire project was obviously approved back in 1970-71 by both the county and VDOT and that approval should still be valid since the the right-of-way problem that existed back then has now gone away In reviewing criteria for scheduling road improvements, I hope that you will put completion of past projects at the top of your list. I also ask that you recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they add McDonald Road to their list of road improvement projects and that it be put at the top of the list. Waiting 35-36 years is long eno4gh. JA N 1 9 2007 Open letter to selected members of the Va. Senate and House of Delegates I have been watching with interest the debate now being held in the State Legislature over new highway construction within the Commonwealth. What I have not seen is much concern over maintenance and improvement of county secondary roads. Potholes do not seem to be a matter of concern except to those of us who have to drive across them. Let me give you an example taken from the 2007-2008 Secondary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County. The plan now provides for the design phase of two major road improvement projects within the county involving 2.14 miles of two county secondary roads at an estimated cost of $10,963,800. The plan also identifies one hardsurface road improvement project of two miles or less per year for the next seven years at an average cost per mile of $$157,848 and twenty one more such projects that aren't even scheduled. When I questioned our local VDOT representative about the matter I was advised that funds for the two different projects come out of two different accounts, which did not surprise me. I am fully aware of the need for major new road projects and for major improvements of currently existing roads, but I am also fully aware of the need for blacktopping currently existing dirt roads, and that more funds are needed to do so. At a rate of one such project per year within Frederick County, it will take 28 years just to complete that which is currently on the list. I do not believe that Frederick County is unique in needing more funding to improve -dirt road; and get rid of potholes. I ask that you keep this in mind as you deliberate and vote on funding. of - roads within the Commonwealth and provide more funding for hardsurfacing projects.