Loading...
TC 06-18-07 Meeting AgendaMEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Transportation Committee FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Transportation Planner RE: June 18, 2007 Transportation Committee Meeting DATE: June 11, 2007 The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, June 18, 2007 in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. AGENDA 1. Final Updates to Hard Surface Improvement Project Rating System Policy 2. 2008-2009 Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Improvement Plans 3. Transportation Impact Fees 4. Article Review 5. Other Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting. Attachments JAB/bad FILE COPY Item 1: Final Updates to 14ar d Surface improvement Project Rating System Policy When the Board of Supervisors reviewed the updates to the Hard Surface Improvement Project Rating System Policy, they approved what they were presented. However, they did also request some additional clarifications within the document. Attached please find a black line copy of the policy with proposed amendments to meet their concerns. Deletions are denoted by bold text with a strikethrough and additions are denoted by bold italics. 2 HARD SURFACE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Rk/%, 1NG SYSTEM OLIC.Y Adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on April 25, 2007. The following procedures are intended to delineate the steps necessary for the application of this rating system policy. This policy shall be applied and projects updated and reranked using the most current information available at each update of the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan if funds are available that will allow projects to be added to the `scheduled' list within that plan. Adherence to these procedures will ensure consistency in the application of this rating system policy for existing and future hard surface road improvement project requests. This policy shall be effective following the adoption of these procedures through a public hearing process held by the Board of Supervisors and shall only be altered through the same process. Information pertaining to the rating system application for each hard surface road improvement project shall be maintained in the Frederick County Planning Department. The Board of Supervisors shall have the authority to revise the Hard Surface Road Improvement Projects section of the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan subsequent to the application of the rating system to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Frederick County RATING SYSTEM REVIEW AGENCIES • Candidate projects shall be evaluated by the Frederick County Planning Department, the Frederick County Transportation Committee, and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). • One rating sheet shall be prepared for each candidate project. • Staff from the Frederick County Planning Department and VDOT shall coordinate to complete a rating sheet for each candidate project and submit the results to the Transportation Committee for review. RATING SYSTEM APPLICATION METHODOLOGY • Candidate projects shall be rated utilizing the following information and methodology detailed on the scoring sheet for each category: 1. Average Daily Traffic Count — utilize the most recent traffic counts for each candidate project provided by the VDOT residency. 2. Occupied Structures — utilize the Frederick County Planning Department addressing database and digital mapping system to determine the total number of occupied structures that have direct access to, or whose only means of ingress and egress from a private road is achieved by each candidate project. 3. Physical Road Conditions/Safety a. Surface Width — obtain surface width data for each candidate project through the VDOT Residency. b. Shoulder Width — obtain shoulder width data for each candidate project through the VDOT Residency. c. Horizontal Curvature — horizontal curvature is determined to be deficient if sight distance around the curve is limited by cut sections or vegetation traveling at normal driving speeds. d. Vertical Curvature — vertical curvature is determined to be deficient if sight distance is significantly reduced or eliminated due to the rise and fall of the road segment traveling at normal driving speeds. e. Drainage — candidate projects shall be determined to have good, fair, or poor drainage utilizing the following guidelines. 2 Good: Pipes are of adequate size and number. Water drains away from the roadway and creates no problem with surface maintenance. Ditches are of adequate size which produce no flooding within the roadway. Fair: Pipes are of adequate size; however, additional pipes may be needed. Water drains away from the roadway with minimal maintenance problems. Drainage ditches are in good condition, require little maintenance, and produce no flooding within the roadway. Poor: Pipes are not adequate in size or number. Ditch lines are inadequate and require extra maintenance water does not drain from the roadway effectively, creating maintenance problems and flooding. f. Accident Data — obtain crash data detailing the number of accidents in the most recent data year available from the VDOT Residency. 4. School Bus Travel — utilize information reflecting current or proposed school bus travel routes for each candidate project provided by the Frederick County Public Schools Transportation Supervisor. 5. Time on Road Plan — utilize information from current and previously approved Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plans maintained within the Frederick County Planning Department to determine when candidate projects were incorporated. 3 RATING SYSTEM POINTS APPLICATION • Total points are determined for each category element. A cumulative total is obtained for each candidate project utilizing the total points derived from each category element. • If two or more candidate projects have the same cumulative point average, a tie - breaking system will be utilized. First priority will be given to the project that has been on the road plan longer. 1l t t . c a.Met=a candidate pr will a to the others +_..t_,,,, 3azith --- -.,teg of gF atest weigh and wor-kdng through the categories of lesser- ii eights Fespeetively unffl the tie -ken. Following that the individual categories will be used to break the tie in the following order. 1. Accidents, 2. Combined Score of physical road conditions categories (Surface width, shoulder width, horizontal curvature, vertical curvature, drainage), 3. Average Daily Traffic, 4. School Bus Travel, S. Occupied Structures. • The cumulative point average for each candidate project shall be final. Any citizen request to alter the termini of a current candidate project and subsequent Board action will require a new rating sheet to be completed for the resulting segment(s). The resulting segment(s) will retain the `time on road plan' date of the previous segment. HARD SURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN FORMAT ® The Hard Surface Road Improvement Projects section of the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan will reflect the candidate projects with the highest cumulative point total that can be incorporated into the VDOT Six -Year Improvement Program based on available funding. This information will be provided to the Frederick County Planning Department by the VDOT Residency. • All remaining candidate projects will be placed on an Unscheduled Hard Surface Improvement Projects list which will be incorporated within the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan. Candidate projects incorporated into this section of the plan will be ranked from the highest cumulative point total to the lowest cumulative point total. • VDOT will advise the Frederick County Transportation Committee when funding is available for the inclusion of new candidate projects within the Hard Surface Road Improvement Projects section of the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan. All candidate projects placed on the Unscheduled Hard Surface Improvement Projects list, as well as newly requested candidate projects, will be reviewed by the procedure detailed above to determine current conditions. El Appropriate ranking for all candidate projects will be determined at that time and placed accordingly. NEW PROJECT REQUESTS New project requests and supporting materials must be received by the Frederick County Planning Department by April 1 St to be included in the next plan update. ® A written request must be provided to the Frederick County Planning Department which describes the location of the candidate project, the origin and terminus of the segment, and a petition signed by at least 51 % of all property owners fronting on the proposed segment. The Transportation Committee shall recommend new project requests which meet these criteria after determining that the candidate project includes a segment of a state route that has a rational origin and terminus. The Transportation Committee shall have the authority to adjust the project origin and terminus to create a more mal logical segment at their discretion. Logical termini of projects are evaluated to ensure that a segment is approved that will be the most complete and efficient project from the standpoint of construction and a cotuplete transportation network. PROJECT REMOVAL • Road Improvements projects shall be removed from the plan once VDOT has notified Frederick County that the project has been funded and advertised for bid. • The Board of Supervisors may remove projects from the plan if VDOT has provided notification that right-of-way efforts have been ceased. 5 Item 2: 2008-2009 Updates to the Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Improvement Plans The time has come to begin the process of updating the Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Improvement Plan. To that end, staff has been coordinating with VDOT to create the attached updates for your review and action. Maps will be provided at the meeting. 2008-2009 INTERSTATE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Dk,-,-','-A,,,FT Frederick County Transportation Committee: Frederick County Planning Commission: Frederick County Board of Supervisors: ;'-81 I ,-apL ove ments: Provide additional tr=avel laries on the main line, collector -distributor lanes adjacent to the main line, modifications to existing interchange areas, and develop new interchange areas and bridge crossings of the main line as recommended by the WinFred MPO Long Range Plan. In addition, as the State continues to work toward an ultimate plan for the I-81 widening the County of Frederick continues to support the study of Eastern Route 37 as a potential corridor on new location as an alternative for that effort. Moreover, the County of Frederick supports exploration of the potential for rail transportation as a component of the Interstate 81 Corridor improvements. A) Make Safety and Operational Improvements at Exit 310 (as illustrated on map as priority A) 13) Widen 1-81 from Fairfax Pike to Route 37 North. This should include the relocation of the 277 Interchange, Exit 307, further south to alleviate existing and future congestion on Fairfax Pike. Frederick County would also request continued VDOT assistance and support in the effort to relocate exit 307. From: Route 277, Exit 307 To: Route 37 North, Exit 310 (as illustrated on map as priority B) C) Widen Remainder of I-81 in Frederick County From: West Virginia line To: Warren County line (as illustrated on map as priority C) D) Spot Improvements on I-81 in Frederick County. Provide spot improvements at various interchanges and rest area ramps to increase capacity and/or enhance safety for the motoring public PRIMARY ROAD 1IMPROVEMENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA TNI Frederick County Transportation Committee: Frederick County Planning Commission: Frederick County Board of Supervisors: 1) Route 37 Bypass A. Route 37 - Phase 1 Initiate final engineering and design, acquire right-of-way, and establish a construction phase schedule for the southern segment of the Route 37 Eastern Bypass from Interstate 1-81 to Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South) and the northern segment from Interstate 81 to Route 37. (As illustrated on map as priority IA) B. Note: It is intended that the first phase of Fairfax Pike (Route 277), as identified under item #2, shown below, he programmed for construction following the completion of Phase I of the Route 37 Eastern Bypass. (As illustrated on map as priority IB) C. Route 37 - Phase 2 Initiate final engineering and design, acquire right-of-way, and establish a construction phase schedule for the preferred alternative between Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South) and Interstate 81 to the north of Exit 317. (As illustrated on map as priority 1 C) D. Route 37 - Phase 3 Initiate final engineering and design, acquire right-of-way, and establish a construction phase schedule for the preferred alternative between Interstate 81 to the north of Exit 317 and existing Route 37 around Stonewall Industrial Park. (As illustrated on map as priority ID) 2) Route 277 (East of Stephens City) From: I-81/Route 277/Route 647 Intersection (East of Stephens City) To: Route 340/Route 522 South Intersection (East of Double Toll Gate) Phase l: From the 1-81/277 Interchange to Route 636 (As indicated under note for priority 1B) Phase 2: From Route 636 to Route 340/Route 522 (As indicated on map as priority 2) Improve to a four land divided roadway with County staff to work with site developers to acquire dedicated right-of-way and achieve grading, drainage, and construction improvements in conjunction with development projects which occur along the corridor until such time that funding is available for construction. Establish a construction schedule for the phased improvement of Fairfax Pike (Route 277). Program funding for the completion of right-of-way acquisition and construction of each phase as described above. 3) Route 11 (North and South o` Winchester) A) Establish an Urban Divided Four Lane System From: Southern limits of the City of Winchester To: 0.4 miles south of intersection of Route 37 South, Exit 310 (As illustrated on map as priority 3A) B) Establish an Urban Divided Four Lane System From: Northern limits of the City of Winchester To: Intersection of Route 761 (As illustrated on map as priority 3B) C) Establish an Urban Divided Four Lane System From: Intersection of Route 761 To: West Virginia line (As illustrated on map as priority 3C) 4) Commuter Park and Ride Lots Establish a new park and ride facility along the Berryville Pike (Route 7) corridor. Work with the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission to determine appropriate locations for park and ride facilities at other strategic locations within the County's Urban Development Area. For Park and Ride locations in Frederick County the primary goal should be that they are situated in such a manner that they reduce traffic in Frederick County in addition to adjacent localities. (As illustrated on map as priority 4) 200E-2009 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN for FREDERICK COUNTY, 'VIRGINIA 77-7 r7 Frederick County Transportation Committee: Frederick County Planning Commission: Frederick County Board of Supervisors: FREDERICK COUNTY 111 -MAJOR 0"' TRAPPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2008/2009 through 2013/2014 Major road improvement projects command the reconstruction of hardsurf aced roads to enhance public safety. Improvements required for road width, road alignment, road strength, and road gradient are considered major road improvements projects. 0 LL.l U J F- W Z WLLLL W Q 0 W H z _ z z w� w w 0o 0 LL D LU 0 a F - DN a cWn� �o o Qo aQ o > o W a 1) 655 Sulphur Springs Route 50 0.30 M.E. 5700 1.1 miles SH $9,278,000 2011/12 T2) Road Rt. 656 East Tevis Street 0.2 Miles Route 522 N/A 0.2 miles SH Potential UN/SH Feasibility west of Rt. Revenue Phase 522 Sharing Potential 3) 657 Senseny Road Rt. 656 Clarke Co. 6800 2.07 miles SH/RB Revenue UN/SH Feasibility Line Sharing Phase 4) Warrior Road Rt. 1012 Rt. 277 N/A OP $200,000 UN/SH Feasibility Phase 5) Spine Road Rt. 657 Haggerty N/A 0.7 miles RB $200,000 UN/SH Feasibility Connection Track Phase 6) 1520 Iverlee Way Rt. 50 Rt. 657 N/A 1.06 miles SH Revenue UN/SH Feasibility Sharing Phase 0 FREDERICK COUNTY HARD URF "CE ROAD IMPR : IEENT PROJECTS 2008/2009 through 2013/2014 Hardsurface road improvement projects provide impervious resurfacing and reconstruction of non- hardsurfaced secondary roads. Hardsurface improvement projects are prioritized by an objective rating system, which considers average daily traffic volumes; occupied structures; physical road conditions including geometrics, drainage, and accident reports; school bus routing; and the time that project requests have been on the Secondary Road Improvement Plan. 3 U J Z Fe W W LL W U Q �U Q W W � to Ile W Q Z 0WF- F-� N Z = °� p L p ~ Q i H (9 O P� 4 �� 22 a° >}� 0 as o �o W o o Q 1 a) 705 Ebenezer Church Road 2.0 miles Route 522 170 2.0 miles GA $286,400 03/08 west of Rt. 522 1b) 705 Ebenezer Church Road 0.25 miles 2.0 miles 170 2.0 miles GA $288,590 03/08 east of Rt. West of Rt. 703 522 0.50 miles 2) 681 Chestnut Grove Road north of Route 608 270 1.62 miles GA $298,044 03/09 Potential Rural Rt. 805 Rustic 3a) 679 Indian Hollow Road 0.3 miles 1.5 miles 140 1.20 miles GA $221,380 03/10 Potential Rural west Rt. west Rt. Rustic 608 608 3b) 679 Indian Hollow Road 1.5 miles 0.50 miles 140 1.30 miles GA $223,479 03/11 Potential Rural west Rt. east Rt. 600 Rustic 608 4a) 709 Ridings Mill Road Rt. 735 1.30 miles 160 1.30 miles OP $200,606 03/11 Potential Rural south Rt. Rustic 735 4b) 709 Ridings Mill Road 1.30 miles Rt. 636 160 1.40 miles OP $250,000 03/12 Potential Rural south Rt. Rustic 735 671 Woodside Road Rt. 11 0.4 East of 50 0.4 miles ST Funding By UN/SH Potential Rural Rt. 11 Others Rustic 5) 676 Warm Springs Road Rt. 677 0.83 miles 225 0.83 miles ST $268,000 03/13 Potential Rural north Rustic 6) 671 Woodside Road Rt. 669 WV line 247 0.30 miles ST $150,000 03/14 Potential Rural Rustic 3 FREDERICK COUNTY UNSCHEDULED RDSURFA CE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS RATINGS UPDATED June 2007 2008/2009 through 201312014 W V J Q ��Z Z Z Z IW- Z Z UWJV O M Q H t- LLL D 0 > J � Q O � o 1) 644 East Parkins Rt. 50 East Clarke County 260 0.81 SH 76 Mill Road miles 2) 707 Hollow Road WV Line Rt. 610 200 1.6 BC/GA 73 miles 3) 734 North Sleepy 1.27 Mi. S. W. 2.27 Mi. S. W. of 140 1.0 GA 73 Creek Road of Rt. 522 Rt. 522 mile 4) 692 Pack Horse 1.2 Mi. N. E. Rt. 671 200 1.4 GA 71 Road of Rt. 600 miles 5) 629 Carter Lane Rt. 631 Rt. 625 290 1.8 BC 71 miles 6) 733 Fletcher Road Rt. 50 West Rt. 707 120 1.3 GA 70 miles 7) 638 Clark Road Rt. 625 Rt. 759 70 0.8 BC 69 miles 8) 607 Heishman Rt. 600 End of State 100 0.78 BC 68 Road Maintenance miles 9) 695 Middle Fork 2.3 Mi. N of WV Line 30 0.9 GA 68 Road Rt. 522 miles 10) 677 Old Baltimore Rt. 676 Rt. 672 200 1.2 GA 68 Road miles 11) 634 Cougill Road Rt. 635 Rt. 11 130 0.25 BC 67 miles 12) 612 Fishel Road Rt. 600 Rt. 600 30 1.6 BC 67 miles 13) 629 Laurel Grove Rt. 622 2.5 Mi. W. of 180 2.5 BC 63 Road Rt. 622 miles 14) 636 Canterburg Rt. 640 Rt. 641 130 1.5 OP 63 Road miles 15) 811 Timberlakes Rt. 671 End of State 180 0.25 ST 63 Lane Maintenance miles 16) 661 Wright Road Rt. 669 WV Line 140 1.84 ST 61 miles 17) 636 Huttle Road Rt. 709 Rt. 735 150 1.1 OP 60 miles 18) 730 Babbs Rt. 654 Rt. 677 50 0.9 GA 59 Mountain miles Road W. �JLL J V � Y fLU Z Z -Q, W Z w o a '` >o� CI) 9 o U- a F- 0- L) 0° 19) 696 South Timber Rt. 522 Rt. 694 130 1.3 GA 56 Ridge Road miles 20) 616 McDonald Rt. 608 Mid- 0.44 Mile N. Rt. 85 0.45 BC 41 Road Int. 608 miles FREDERICK COUNTY INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION 200812009 through 201312014 Incidental construction projects are defined as minor construction projects. Examples involve drainage improvements, site distance improvements, spot widening, replacing overflow pipes with box culverts, and the application of plant mix on existing road surfaces. The Virginia Department of Transportation determines if a proposed project qualifies for Incidental Construction based on the overall scope of the improvement. 0 TMM z o ¢� o Y Q O E= F" a W V W W HI— ¢ J� z 'Q W zz 4 p v � �jF- U) EO en w LU o � LU 1) 661 Redbud Road 0.45 mile east of Rt. 11 R/R Crossing -Install ST $15,000 2005/06 Federal flashing lights & gates 10% Funds match 2) 649 Springdale 0.55 mile west of Rt. 11 R/R Crossing -Install BC $13,000 2006/07 Federal Road flashing lights & gates 10% Funds match 3) 664 Stephenson 0.06 mile east of Rt. 11 Drainage Improvement ST $125,000 2007/08 VDOT/Fred Road Co. Cooperative Project 739 Fox Drive From: 400 ft south of Rt. Construct right turn GA Revenue 522 lane Sharing H5) To: Rt. 522 815 Blossom Drive From: 250 ft south of Rt. 7 Construct right turn ST Revenue To: Rt.7 lane Sharing 6) 1400 Apple Ridge Various roads Plant Mix RB $100,000 2007/08 Subdivision 7) 633 Kline's Mill 0.13 miles west Rt. 11 R/R Crossing -Install OP 2007/08 Safety Road flashing lights & gates Funding by VDOT 8) 668 Branson 0.22 miles southeast Rt. 11 R/R Crossing -Install ST 2007/08 Safety Spring Road flashing lights & gates Funding by VDOT 9) 853 Sinking Spring 0.06 miles south Rt. 651 R/R Crossing -Install BC 2007/08 Safety Lane flashing lights & gates Funding by VDOT 10) 672 Brucetown From: Rt. 11 PE & R/W for ST $100,000 2008/09 Road To: 0.30 miles east Rt. 11 proposed relocation 11) 642 Tasker Road From: 0.10 miles west Rt. Install left turn lanes OP $200,000 2008/09 636 To: 0.10 miles east Rt. 636 White Oak Road 12) 642 Tasker Road From: 0.10 miles west Rt. Install left turn lanes OP $200,000 2008/09 719 To: 0.10 miles east Rt. 719 Warrior Road 13) 1364 Opequon Various Roads Plant Mix ST $70,000 2008/09 Estates 14) 991 Regency Various Roads Plant Mix ST $125,000 2008/09 Lakes 0 FT- Uj Z Q pLLI �E � W 4:9 Z LLI Z LU o Li Oa O W a p CO O L W U 15) 1304 Merriman Various Roads Plant Mix SH $80,000 2009/10 Estates & Westside Station 16) 823 Jackson Various Roads Plant Mix BC $60,000 2009/10 Woods 17) 723 Carpers Valley At Clarke County line Rehabilitation of bridge SH Beyond Bridge Road over Opequon 2013 Funding by VDOT Item 3: Transportation Impact Fees At the May Transportation Committee meeting the committee directed staff to use the relocation of Exit 307 to create a sample Impact Fee Service District for consideration. Staff did the calculation based upon the proposed district mapped on the following page and came up with the following. The proposed district does not include properties within the UDA. Also attached, please find the relevant legislation. Project Cost: $80,000,000 Avg Building Permits Per Year in the district: 141 Fee per unit based upon 30 year bonding: $41,000.00 ($5.8 M per year) Fee per unit based upon 20 year bonding: $49,000.00 ($6.9 M per year) Revenue from District at other Fee levels based upon 141 Building Permits per Year $10 k per unit = $1.4 M per year $15 k per unit = $2.1 M per year $20 k per unit = $2.8 M per year $25 k per unit = $3.5 M per year $30 k per unit = $4.2 M per year This breaks down to $141,000 per $1,000 of fee. Additionally staff calculated potential revenue from impact fees in the event that a district or districts were to include the entire county outside of the UDA. The results based upon average annual building permits for residential units of 526 are as follows: $10 k per unit = $5.3 M per year $15 k per unit = $7.9 M per year $20 k per unit = $10.5 M per year $25 k per unit = $13.2 M per year $3 0 k per unit = $15.8 M per year This breaks down to $526,000 per $1,000 of fee At this point this analysis does not go into the UDA but focuses on the rural areas of the county. Additionally it does not project a growth rate of building permits, but uses an average based on the permit rates of the past 5 years. Finally, it currently focuses on residential property. Should the county choose to pursue the fees further, it will be important to refine these areas. N Text Regarding Impact Fees from IIB 3202 § 15.2-2317. Applicability of article. This article shall apply to (i) a eetm4y having a population of 500,000 or- more as a; rA eeui4y, M any eounly having ,la4ier between 58,000 and 62,000 ., deteFmined by the 1990 U.S. Census, (vi) Fauquier- Geu*ty, (vii) Spotsylvania Go and (vii) Fr -e o,.;^v County any locality that has adopted zoning pursuant to Article 7 (§ 15.2-2280 et seq.) of Chapter 22 of Title 15.2 and that (i) has a population of at least 20, 000 and has a population growth rate of at least 5% or (ii) has population growth of 15% or more. For the purposes of this section, population growth shall be the difference in population from the next -to -latest to the latest decennial census year, based on population reported by the United States Bureau of the Census. § 15.2-2318. Definitions. As used in this article, unless the context requires a different meaning: "Cost" includes, in addition to all labor, materials, machinery and equipment for construction, (i) acquisition of land, rights-of-way, property rights, easements and interests, including the costs of moving or relocating utilities, (ii) demolition or removal of any structure on land so acquired, including acquisition of land to which such structure may be moved, (iii) survey, engineering, and architectural expenses, (iv) legal, administrative, and other related expenses, and (v) interest charges and other financing costs if impact fees are used for the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes or other obligations issued by the locality to finance the road improvement. "Impact fee" means a charge or assessment imposed against new development in order to generate revenue to fund or recover the costs of reasonable road improvements neeessitated by and attr;butable te benefiting the new development. Impact fees may not be assessed and imposed for road repair, operation and maintenance, nor to expan existing roads to meet demand which existed prior to the new development. "Impact fee service area" means's„a designate by ,,,.a;,,anee within ., t,,, ality, an area designated within the comprehensive plan of a locality having clearly defined boundaries and clearly related traffic needs and within which development is to be subject to the assessment of impact fees. "Road improvement” includes construction of new roads or improvement or expansion of existing roads and related appurtenances as required by applicable eenstMetien standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation, or the applicable standards of a locality with road maintenance responsibilities, to meet increased demand attributable to new development. Road improvements do not include on-site construction of roads which a developer may be required to provide pursuant to § § 115.2-2241 through 15.2-2245. § 15.2-2'19. Authority to assess and impose impact fees. Any applicable locality may, by ordinance pursuant to the procedures and requirements of this article, assess and impose impact fees on new development to pay all or a part of the cost of reasonable road improvements tt 'butable in substanfial pai4 to that benefit the new development. Prior to the adoption of the ordinance, a locality shall establish an impact fee advisory committee. The committee shall be composed of not less than five nor more than ten members appointed by the governing body of the locality and at least forty percent of the membership shall be representatives from the development, building or real estate industries. The planning commission or other existing committee that meets the membership requirements may serve as the impact fee advisory committee. The committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to assist and advise the governing body of the locality with regard to the ordinance. No action of the committee shall be considered a necessary prerequisite for any action taken by the locality in regard to the adoption of an ordinance. § 15.2-2320. Impact fee service areas to be established. The locality shall delineate one or more impact fee service areas within its comprehensive plan. Impact fees collected from new development within an impact fee service area shall be expended for road improvements %4thi benefiting that impact fee service area. An impact fee service area may encompass more than one road improvement project. A locality may exclude urban development areas designated pursuant to § 15.2-2223.1 from impact fee service areas. § 15.2-2321. Adoption of road improvements program. Prior to adopting a system of impact fees, the locality shall conduct an assessment of road improvement needs wi" benefiting an impact fee service area and i the !a and shall adopt a road improvements plan for the area showing the new roads proposed to be constructed and the existing roads to be improved or expanded and the schedule for undertaking such construction, improvement or expansion. The road improvements plan shall be adopted as an amendment to the required comprehensive plan and shall be incorporated into the capital improvements program or, in the case of the counties where applicable, the six-year plan for secondary road construction pursuant to § 33.1-70.01. The locality shall adopt the road improvements plan after holding a duly advertised public hearing. The public hearing notice shall identify the impact fee service area or areas to be designated, and shall include a summary of the needs assessment and the assumptions upon which the assessment is based, the proposed amount of the impact fee, and information as to how a copy of the complete study may be examined. A copy of the complete study shall be available for public inspection and copying at reasonable times prior to the public hearing. The locality at a minimum shall include the following items in assessing road improvement needs and preparing a road improvements plan: 1. An analysis of the existing capacity, current usage and existing commitments to future usage of existing roads, as indicated by (i) current and projected service levels, (ii) current valid building permits outstanding, , exeep6ens, and speeial use pefmi*s, and (iii) approved and pending site plans and subdivision plats. If the current usage and commitments exceed the existing capacity of the roads, the locality also shall determine the costs of improving the roads to meet the demand. The analysis shall include any off-site road improvements or cash payments for road improvements accepted by the locality and shall include a plan to fund the current usages and commitments that exceed the existing capacity of the roads. 2. The projected need for and costs of construction of new roads or improvement or expansion of existing roads attributable in whole or in part to projected new development. Road improvement needs shall be projected for the impact fee service area when fully developed in accord with the comprehensive plan and, if full development is projected to occur more than ten 20 years in the future, at the end of a tense 20 year period. The assumptions with regard to land uses, densities, intensities, and population upon which road improvement projections are based shall be presented. 3. The total number of new service units projected for the impact fee service area when fully developed and, if full development is projected to occur more than ten 20 years in the future, at the end of a ten year 20 year period. A "service unit" is a standardized measure of traffic use or generation. The locality shall develop a table or method for attributing service units to various types of development and land use, including but not limited to residential, commercial and industrial uses. The table shall be based upon the ITE manual (published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers) or locally conducted trip generation studies, and consistent with the traffic analysis standards adopted pursuant to § 15.2-2222.1. § 15.2-2322. Adoption of impact fee and schedule. After adoption of a road improvement program, the locality may adopt an ordinance establishing a system of impact fees to fund or recapture all or any part of the cost of providing reasonable road improvements required by benefiting new development. The ordinance shall set forth the schedule of impact fees. § 15.2-2323. When impact fees assessed and imposed. The amount of impact fees to be imposed on a specific development or subdivision shall be determined before or at the time the site plan or subdivision is approved. The ordinance shall specify that the fee is to be collected at the time of the issuance of a ^er*ifie^*e of oeoupaney building permit. The ordinance shall provide that fees (i) may be paid in lump sum or (ii) be paid on installment at a reasonable rate of interest for a fixed number of years. The locality by ordinance may provide for negotiated agreements with the owner of the property as to the time and method of paying the impact fees. The maximum impact fee to be imposed shall be determined (i) by dividing projected road improvement costs in the impact fee service area when fully developed by the number of projected service units when fully developed, or (ii) for a reasonable period of time, but not less than ten years, by dividing the projected costs necessitated by development in the next ten years by the service units projected to be created in the next ten years. The ordinance shall provide for appeals from administrative determinations, regarding the impact fees to be imposed, to the governing body or such other body as designated in the ordinance. The ordinance may provide for the resolution of disputes over an impact fee by arbitration or otherwise. § 15.2-2324. Credits against impact fee. The value of any dedication, contribution or construction from the developer for off-site road or other transportation improvements vAthin benefiting the impact fee service area shall be treated as a credit against the impact fees imposed on the developer's project. The locality shall treat as a credit any off-site transportation dedication, contribution, or construction, whether it is a condition of a rezoning or otherwise committed to the locality. The locality may by ordinance provide for credits for approved on-site transportation improvements in excess of those required by the development. The locality also shall calculate and credit against impact fees the extent to which (i) other developments have already contributed to the cost of existing roads which will see benefit the development, (ii) new development will contribute to the cost of existing roads, and (iii) new development will contribute to the cost of road improvements in the future other than through impact fees, including any special taxing districts, special assessments, or community development authorities. § 15.2-2325. Updating plan and amending impact fee. The locality shall update the needs assessment and the assumptions and projections at least once every two years. The road improvement plan shall be updated at least every two years to reflect current assumptions and projections. The impact fee schedule may be amended to reflect any substantial changes in such assumptions and projections. Any impact fees not yet paid shall be assessed at the updated rate. § 15.2-2326. Use of proceeds. A separate road improvement account shall be established for the impact fee service area and all funds collected through impact fees shall be deposited in the interest-bearing account. Interest earned on deposits shall become funds of the account. The expenditure of funds from the account shall be only for road improvements w3 benefiting the impact fee service area as set out in the road improvement plan for the impact fee service area. § 15.2-2327. Refund of impact fees. The locality shall refund any impact fee or portion thereof for which construction of a project is not completed within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed fifteen years. In the event that impact fees are not committed to road improvements benefiting the impact fee service area within seven years from the date of collection, the locality may commit any such impact fees to the secondary or urban system construction program of that locality for road improvements that benefit the impact fee service area. Upon completion of a project, the locality shall recalculate the impact fee based on the actual cost of the improvement. It shall refund the difference if the impact fee paid exceeds actual cost by more than fifteen percent. Refunds shall be made to the record owner of the property at the time the refund is made. Item 4: Article Review The following are a number of transportation related articles from the past month. HAMPTON ROADS Business (Printable Version) Page 1 of 2 Norfolk Southern proposes $2 billion -plus rail corridor By GREGORY RICHARDS, The Virginian -Pilot © June 7, 2007 Last updated: 10:16 I'M Norfolk Southern Corp. is proposing a $2 billion -plus rail corridor stretching from Louisiana to New Jersey to capture more cargo being moved by trucks on highways. The project, called the 1-81 Crescent Corridor, would speed cargo shipments while reducing congestion on such highways as Interstate 81 in western Virginia, the Norfolk -based railroad said. The plan involves upgrading and expanding existing rail lines to accommodate more, faster trains; purchasing new locomotives and railcars; and building new terminals in Maryland and Tennessee and improving others. It is far more ambitious than the roughly $253 million Heartland Corridor that Norfolk Southern is building to shave a day's transit time off cargo shipments between the port of Hampton Roads and the Midwest. "This is exciting, this is a big deal," said Michael R. McClellan, vice president of automotive and intermodal marketing for Norfolk Southern, the nation's fourth-largest railroad. The company announced the plan Wednesday at an analyst conference in New York. As with the Heartland Corridor, Norfolk Southern says public dollars are necessary for the Crescent Corridor. The federal government and several states are bankrolling $163 million of the Heartland Corridor's cost, including $22 million from Virginia. "NS is fully prepared to invest, invest a lot of money in fact, up to a point where we earn reasonable rates of return on the projects," McClellan said. "But there will be a gap between that number and what the entire project costs. We're looking for the public to recognize the benefits associated with this project... and contribute accordingly." The Crescent Corridor's public benefits include improved roadway safety and air quality, stemming from the projected reduction of trucks on highways, he said. One million truckloads of freight may be taken off highways every year by the project, he said. Norfolk Southern hasn't decided how much it will ask various governments to contribute, McClellan said. But, he said, Virginia has agreed to pay $40 million. The Commonwealth Transportation Board, which sets Virginia's transportation policies, will meet June 21 to formally consider the $40 million as part of its six-year transportation plan, said Jennifer Pickett, a spokeswoman for the state's Department of Rail and Public Transportation. The state's contribution comes out of $65 million approved by the General Assembly in April to upgrade rail corridors along Interstates 95 and 81 to reduce congestion, she said. For years, Norfolk Southern and the state have been examining ways to improve its rail line that parallels 1-81. If the project's financing all comes together, construction would begin next year. McClellan would not discuss what work it would entail in Virginia, saying the railroad first wanted to have detailed discussions with public bodies. The plan involves two parallel north -south routes through Virginia, extending between Roanoke and Front Royal and between Lynchburg and Manassas. t,9a9,•//7,.,,, 1,ami¢n r�ar�c_rnvn/ctr�rzcc/nrrnt_cfvn�Stnrv=�.2h1.RI&rgn: 101257 6/7/2007 HAMPTON ROADS Business (Printable Version) Page 2 of 2 The Crescent Corridor came about as Norfolk Southern was looking for ways to expand its intermodal business - the movement of truck trailers and international shipping containers - beyond such routes as its core "Golden Triangle" between Atlanta, Chicago and Harrisburg, Pa., McClellan said. The rail routes encompassed by the Crescent Corridor have little or no intermodal competition while highway congestion on interstates near the rail lines is "increasingly severe," he said. The projects may even be supported by such large national trucking companies as J. B. Hunt Transport Inc. Hunt and several other big truck operators provided "unprecedented" levels of help to Norfolk Southern as it formulated its corridor plan, McClellan said. A Hunt spokeswoman did not return calls for comment Wednesday. McClellen would not name the other companies. Trucking companies use railroads to move freight for portions of long hauls where it makes sense, said Clayton Boyce, an American Trucking Association s spokesman. However, Boyce questioned the use of public dollars to improve privately owned rail lines, rather than investing in highways. "One should not automatically assume that freight rail investments would produce more positive results than the highway investment alternative," he said. Gregory Richards, (757) 446-2599, gregory.richards@pilotonline.com © 2007 Hampton Roads.com/PilotOnIine.com 1�9-Fv.•//L,nm� hmrn fnnrnnr]c rnm/ctnr9PC/nrint (`I.m9-,tnry=1. 26181&ran-1.01257 6///200/ Item 5: Other COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM .j TO: Transportation Committee FROM: John A. Bishop AICP, Transportation Planner .� RE: June Meeting DATE: May 22, 2007 This memorandum serves as notification and confirmation that the June 25, 2007 Transportation Committee meeting has been rescheduled to June 18, 2007. The time of 8:30 and the location of the Board of Supervisors meeting room remain unchanged. Please contact staff at 665-5651 or email jbishopkco.frederick.va.us should you have any questions or concerns. JAB/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000