Loading...
TC 08-26-13 Meeting Minutes RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE UTILIZATION OF INDUSTRIAL ACCESS RAILROAD TRACK FUNDS The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, in regular meeting on the 9th day of September 2013, adopted the following: WHEREAS, Miller Milling has expressed its intent and desire to the Board of Supervisors to locate its commercial, business, or industrial operations in Frederick County; and, WHEREAS, Miller Milling and its operation will require rail access; and, WHEREAS, the Officials Miller Milling have reported to Frederick County their intent to apply for Industrial Access Railroad Track Funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Department of Rail and Public Transportation in the amount of $450,000.00; and, WHEREAS, Miller Milling has requested that the Board of Supervisors provide a Resolution supporting its application for said funds which are administered by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, hereby endorses and supports the application of Miller Milling for $450,000.00 in Industrial Access Railroad Track Funds; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby makes known its desire and intent to assist the Commonwealth Transportation Board in providing the maximum financial assistance to Miller Milling for the purpose of locating its business, commercial, or industrial facility in Frederick County. ADOPTED this 9th day of September, 2013. This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman ____ Gary A. Lofton ____ Robert A. Hess ____ Robert W. Wells ____ Gene E. Fisher ____ Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. ____ Christopher E. Collins ____ A COPY ATTEST ______________________________ John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator PDRes#23-13 ***Items Not Requiring Action*** 2. Through Truck Restriction Consideration for Routes 600 and 608 Supervisor Lofton is in receipt of a request for consideration of a Truck Restriction for Routes 600 and 608 between Route 50 and Route 55. The citizen that contacted Mr. Lofton was concerned that the number of trucks has grown significantly on these roadways, particularly since the opening of Corridor H in West Virginia. Staff provided a number of items for the committee to review as they considered this request. Those items included traffic counts with truck percentages from 2001 and 2011, maps of potential alternative routes, and VDOT guidelines for truck restriction requests. Staff noted that while overall traffic volumes had increased, truck percentages had not increased during that time. In addition, potential alternative routes were significant and likely to negatively impact facilities with similar characteristics as those proposed for restriction. Finally staff noted that a key consideration when VDOT determines whether to accept a truck restriction request is that they consider length of alternative routes as a key portion of the decision making process. Mr. Fisher noted that for vehicles trying to travel between Route 50 and Route 55, using the routes proposed for restriction didn’t make a lot of sense. Route 259 would be a much better route. Mr. Fisher and Mr. Racey also noted that additional data would be useful such as origin and destination data for trucks utilizing Routes 600 and 608. Mr. DeHaven noted that such data was not currently available and would be costly to gather. By consensus the committee did not forward a recommendation that the Board of Supervisors request a truck restriction for Routes 600 and 608. £¤600 £¤608 £¤622 £¤628 £¤55 £¤11 £¤522 £¤37 £¤522 £¤11 £¤50 £¤37 £¤522 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 Winchester Stephens City Midd leto wn Frederick CountyProposed TruckRestriction RoutesAug 2013 µ0 2 41 Miles Rt 600 to Rt 622 (vi a Rt 37)26.5 miRt 600 to I81 34.8 mi Rt 608 to Rt 622 (vi a Rt 37)23.9 miRt 608 to I81 32.2 mi Proposed Restricted Routes Proposed Alternative Routes Rt 600 13.5 miRt 608 13.7 mi 3. Children at Play Signage Recently, the County has received a number of requests for Children at Play signs in some of our residential areas. In 2012, VDOT updated their program for these signs to make them the responsibility of localities. In researching the issue in order to determine how to move forward with requests for these signs, what we found was that in many areas where localities are responsible for sign placement these signs are not allowed. Reasons given for not using these signs are many but the most compelling reasons are as follows: 1. The Federal Highway Administration not only discourages use of these signs, but has completely removed them from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices which is the guidebook for sign format and use throughout the country. 2. Studies have shown these types of signs to be ineffective. 3. Placement of these signs by a locality or state agency can be interpreted as encouragement or acknowledgement that playing in the street is an acceptable activity. This has led to liability concerns. 4. Inaccurate impression that areas without these signs may not have ‘children at play’. It is Staff’s recommendation that the Committee not consider requests for these signs. The Committee discussed the items outlined above and the attached materials and by consensus endorsed Staff’s recommendation. 4. Aylor Road Alternatives Following the public meeting held in the area and meetings with local residents, VDOT officials have made revisions to the chosen path for the Aylor Road realignment. Staff has attached the previous and the new recommendation for alignment. The Committee reviewed the attached alternatives and found no issues with the proposed revisions. 5. Revenue Sharing Design Funds Public works and planning staff have recently completed interviews with on call contractors for road design work in the County. The chosen contractor will be qualified and eligible to begin design work on the Russell 150 Roads and Bridge and the Tevis Street Connection. Staff is seeking a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the use of the $470,733.50 in transportation reserve funds toward design on the Russell 150 Roads and Bridge and the Tevis Street Connection. This will allow design to move ahead as planned and prepare us for use of construction dollars awarded by VDOT over the past two fiscal years. Motion by Mr. Fisher and seconded by Mr. Racey to recommend approval for use of these funds toward design of revenue sharing projects. Motion passed unanimously. Note: This is an action item on the Finance Committee report which is why it is not an action item here.