TC 08-28-17 Meeting MinutesCOUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Assistant Director - Transportation
RE: Transportation Committee Report for Meeting of August 28, 2017
DATE: August 30, 2017
The Transportation Committee met on August 28, 2017 at 8:30 a.m.
Members Present Members Absent
Gary Lofton Chairman (voting) Mark Davis (liaison Middletown)
Judith McCann-Slaughter (voting) Gary Oates (liaison PC)
James Racey (voting)
Barry Schnoor (voting)
Gene Fisher (voting)
Lewis Boyer (liaison Stephens City)
***Items Not Requiring Action***
1. Revenue Sharing Policy Update:
The Revenue Sharing Policy had significant changes which took place
effective July, 2017 from the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) the
most significant is the reduction from $10 million to $5 million in funds on an
annual basis. Also, another is the limit of $10 million per project. The CTB
also changed the way Revenue Sharing allocations can be transferred between
projects. Supervisor Slaughter-McCann asked for clarification about the
deallocation process on surplus funds which have changed from 24 months to
6 months after a project is completed. VDOT verified that this is accurate.
The cap of $10 million per project could impact Jubal Early Drive project if
the cost estimate were to increase on that project.
MEMORANDUM
2. SmartScale Program Update:
A major proposed change that was discussed is the reduction in the number of
applications that a locality can apply for which has been reduced to a limit of four.
This would be less than Frederick County has applied for in the past. The MPO
and Regional Commission can add four (4) applications each on behalf of
Frederick County. However, concern is that those regional groups compete with
other localities for funds. Based on the past data, projects under $5 million are
most likely to get funded. The Transportation Committee and the Board of
Supervisors will have major decisions to make in the future as to what projects
they would apply for. The CTB will act on this change at the next meeting. Also,
another major change that was announced on Friday, August 25, 2017 was that
projects that are proffered will not eligible for funding. Staff asked for
clarification on this issue at next meeting. The Chairman asked committee
members to give feedback to staff and the committee will be taking this item back
up at their meeting in September for a recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors.
3. VDOT Arterial Preservation Program
On June 15, 2017 staff attended the VACO Transportation Steering Committee
meeting at which Mr. Garrett Moore gave a presentation on VDOT’s new Arterial
Preservation Program. The VACO Transportation Steering Committee is a new
committee but has been very active. The VDOT staff is working very hard on this
program, to the point of already implementing elements, even though it is still in
the development stage. Mr. Terry Short, Planning Manager, VDOT Staunton
District discussed this program with the committee as is referenced by the
attached presentation. In our area, this program impacts all of the major roadways
that have interchanges with I-81. With this renewed focus on arterial
preservation, new accesses and intersections will receive significant scrutiny and
new signals will have to be approved in Richmond while other intersection types
or a signal removal would be approved locally. Mr. Bishop advised that this has
potential to significantly impact project timelines for both public road projects
and private developments.
4. Route 37/Shady Elm Access Management Discussion
VDOT is currently working on a potential limited access break for a property next
to the Route 11/Route 37 interchange. If this is implemented, this will create an
additional access on the north side of Route 37 in Kernstown across from the
interchange ramps. The County has been asked to weigh in on the process and
perhaps even partner in revenue sharing with the developer of the parcel for the
roadway improvements that would be needed for the new access. Impact studies
have been done that shows needed improvements by the property owner. Staff
noted that the MPO went through two rounds of study that analyzed the
interchange between Route 11 and Route 37 at Kernstown, as well as a potential
interchange at Shady Elm Drive. Those studies did not support the interchange
existing long term however, neither study was adopted by Frederick County. The
property in question does currently have an access point with Commonwealth
Court. The property is a by right development, and can have the same use with or
without break per VDOT. VDOT does not have an officially designed plan only a
conceptual design. There is a difference of opinions between the property owner
and VDOT as to what improvements shown in the Applicant’s TIA are required
to support the break. The Applicant is expected to seek revenue sharing
assistance on the portion that they do not agree is needed to offset the impact of
the break.
5. VACO Transportation Legislative Priorities
Staff attended a VACO Transportation Steering Committee meeting on August
21, 2017. The topic at this meeting was to refine their legislative priorities for
2018. The major proposed changes to the preliminary legislative program for
2018 was “including dedicated funding for Metro” into the first priorities. This
focuses on the fact that SmartScale does not deal well with secondary funding.
Since, the drop in funding during the decades only with needs increasing. This
change has greatly impacted the County. The next priority proposed change is
revenue sharing from $15 million to $150 million through CTB. Staff noted that if
the General assembly implemented this change, then the power of the CTB and
whomever the current Secretary of Transportation is would not be able to cut the
program as easily as it has been recently cut. Staff noted that the program has
already been cut from $150 million to $100 million and that the Secretary of
Transportation had originally planned to take it much lower before the CTB
listened to feedback from localities and stopped at $100 million. Staff noted the
importance of the revenue sharing program to Frederick County and other
localities like ours. The Chairman asked committee members to give feedback to
staff and the committee will be taking this item back up at their meeting in
September for a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
6. County Project Updates
Snowden Bridge Boulevard:
Recent heavy rains created some unexpected washing out on some of the
shoulders on the roadway. Staff has coordinated with VDOT to address these
issues. The resolution for adoption into the state system is expected to go before
the Board of Supervisors on September 13, 2017 with tentatively scheduled for
September 18, 2017 takeover of VDOT. A dedication ceremony will be schedule
soon after the VDOT takeover.
Tevis Street Extension/Airport Road/I-81 Bridge:
Bridge design is ongoing and draft environmental documents for VDOT have
been received. Bridge design has exceeded 90% and is expected to be approved
by early November, 2017 while 60% roundabout plan and 30% roundabout plans
have been submitted to VDOT for comments and are expected to be approvable
by February, 2018. The bids should go out soon after the approval in February,
2018.
Renaissance Drive:
TPOF agreements have been received from VDOT. Evaluating with the Board of
Supervisors on the status of revenue sharing matching funds prior to beginning of
design. Completing new project documentation for CSX through the County
Attorney. The pending Carbaugh rezoning application also has potential to impact
this project with proffers.
Valley Mill Road Realignment:
Private partner has reiterated a desire not to continue the project. Staff is looking
into opportunities to transfer funds. This would come to the TC and Board for
action.
Coverstone Drive:
No activity at this time.
Jubal Early Drive Extension and Interchange with Route 37:
Communication was sent to the Applicants and noted that the County could make
no further moves forward on the project until a revenue sharing agreement is in
place. Following that, a meeting was held at which the agreement was discussed
and staff is awaiting feedback from the Applicant.
Other
The Chairman deferred to the next meeting Items 7 & 8 on the agenda.
JAB/ks
REVENUE SHARING POLICY CHANGES - JULY 2017
Policy Previous Policy NEW POLICY Anticipated Impact / Purpose
1 Initial Allocation from Application
1-a Locality Allocation Request Limitation $10M per locality annually $5M per locality annually ($10M per biennial application cycle). Provide immediate impact of reducing Tier 1 requests
allowing more localities and additional projects to receive
Revenue Sharing allocations.
1-b Project Allocation Limitation Unlimited $10M per project (statewide match) lifetime, including transfers. Provide long-term benefits by ensuring very large projects
do not continue to exhaust limited Revenue Sharing
funding at the disadvantage of smaller projects.
2 Transfer of Revenue Sharing Funds
2-a Surplus funds from a completed
project to existing Revenue Sharing
Project
Funds transferred administratively; no
restrictions
Project must be viable and in the current Six Year Improvement
Plan with concurrence of District CTB Member.
Provides additional oversight and oversight with minimal
delay. Provides some benefit of successfully completing
project under budget and reduces future need on existing
projects.
2-b Transfer from on-going Revenue
Sharing project to on-going Revenue
Sharing project
Funds transferred administratively; no
restrictions
Must meet deallocation process requirements: project must be
viable and in the current Six Year Improvement Plan; transfer
can only go to a project which needs funding to go to
advertisement or award within the next 12 months or to address
a deficit on a completed project; with concurrence of District
CTB member.
Ensures transfers are made only to projects with an
immediate need and minimizes the ability to use Revenue
Sharing program as funding source for projects which have
not gone through application process. Ensures additional
transparency and oversight with minimal delay.
2-c Surplus funds from a completed
project to non-Revenue Sharing
project
Project must be viable and in the current
Six Year Improvement Plan; approved by
CTB Action
Must meet deallocation process requirements: project must be
viable and in the current Six Year Improvement Plan; transfer
can only go to a project which needs funding to go to
advertisement or award within the next 12 months or to address
a deficit on a completed project; approved by CTB action .
Ensures transfers are made only to projects with an
immediate need and minimizes the ability to use Revenue
Sharing program as funding source for projects which have
not gone through application process.
2-d Transfer from on-going Revenue
Sharing project to non-Revenue
Sharing project
Project must be viable and in the current
Six Year Improvement Plan; approved by
CTB Action
Must meet deallocation process requirements: project must be
viable and in the current Six Year Improvement Plan; transfer
can only go to a project which needs funding to go to
advertisement or award within the next 12 months or to address
a deficit on a completed project; approved by CTB action .
Ensures transfers are made only to projects with an
immediate need and minimizes the ability to use Revenue
Sharing program as funding source for projects which have
not gone through application process.
2-e Surplus funds from a cancelled
project
Funds currently may be transferred in
accordance with policies applicable to
existing Revenue Sharing project or non-
Revenue Sharing projects
Surplus funds must be returned to Revenue Sharing Program
Balance Entry; Funds may be reallocated only by CTB action.
Ensures funding which is no longer needed for an approved
project returns to the Revenue Sharing Program balance.
2-f Miscellaneous Provisions In some cases, a Locality has requested
additional funds during application cycle
to replace funding transferred to another
project.
Clarification that a Locality may not request additional funds
during application cycle to replace funds transferred off a
Revenue Sharing project.
Prevents misuse of transfer process eliminating the
replacement of funds that have been transferred to other
projects; ensures localities plan and estimate for funding
provided during application cycle.
3 Other
3-a Deallocation process - Surplus funds
after project completion
Project subject to deallocation 24 months
after projects is completed
Project subject to deallocation 6 months after projects is
completed.
Ensures timely reallocation of surplus funds.
3-b Timely expenditure of funding;
requirement to expend funds within
one year of CTB allocation
Projects must spend a portion of their
Revenue Sharing funding within one year.
Currently, there is no enforcement
provision.
The CTB will have discretion to defer future project allocations
when a project has not expended a portion of their Revenue
Sharing Funds within one year of CTB allocation.
Helps ensure timely implementation of projects.
August 28, 2017
VDOT Arterial Preservation Program
Terry R. Short, Jr.
VDOT Staunton District Planning Manager
VDOT Arterial Preservation Program
Access Management
Arterial Management Plans
Chief Engineer May 2017 CTB Presentation
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2017/may/pres/2_arterial_preservation.pdf
Access Management Update October 2016
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2016/oct/pres/8_Access_Management.pdf
Corridor Preservation Update February 2017
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2017/feb/pres/2_Corridor_Preservation.pdf
Arterial Management Plan Methodology
http://www.virginiadot.org/Projects/asset_upload_file126_94825.pdf
Arterial Management Plan Toolbox of Alternatives
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Arterial_Management_Plans/AMP_-
_Toolbox_of_Alternatives.pdf
VDOT Arterial Preservation Program
WestVirginia
Maryland
NorthCarolina
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Kentucky ¬«3
¬«7
¬«3
¬«55
¬«207
£¤33
£¤13
£¤1
£¤460
£¤250
£¤29
£¤17
£¤33
£¤460
£¤60
£¤11
£¤11
£¤58£¤58
£¤11
£¤29
£¤301
£¤58
£¤301
£¤220 £¤460
£¤250
£¤13
£¤15
£¤1
£¤33
£¤460
£¤1
£¤58 £¤58
£¤460
£¤50
£¤58
£¤58
£¤11
£¤29
£¤11
£¤60
£¤17
£¤220
£¤17
£¤460
£¤220
£¤52
£¤13
£¤29
£¤360
£¤360
§¨¦66
§¨¦195
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
§¨¦64
§¨¦95
§¨¦264
§¨¦77
§¨¦64
§¨¦85
§¨¦64
§¨¦77
§¨¦664
§¨¦495
V i r g i n i a
B e a c h
Fairfax
Franklin
Roanoke
Colonial
Heights
Manassas
Martinsville
Bedford
Alexandria
Norfolk
Bristol
Danville
Petersburg
S u f f o l k
Staunton
Emporia
Chesapeake
Buena Vista
Charlottesville
Hampton
Portsmouth
Covington
Newport
News
Fredericksburg
P oq u o so n
Harrisonburg
Galax
Salem
Waynesboro
Lynchburg
Norton
Lexington
Manassas Park
Richmond
Winchester
C a r o l i n e
C a r o l i n e
C u l p e p e r
C u l p e p e r
G r e e n s v i l l e
G r e e n s v i l l e
A m h e r s t
A m h e r s t
H a l i f a x
H a l i f a x
F a i r f a x
F a i r f a x
P o w h a t a n
P o w h a t a n
Pul ask i
Pul ask i
Prince EdwardPrince Edward
W i s e
W i s e
NorthumberlandNorthumberland
Prince GeorgePrince George
P a g e
P a g e
F l u v a n n a
F l u v a n n a
B r u n s w i c k
B r u n s w i c k
GloucesterGloucester
F r a n k l i n
F r a n k l i n
N e w
N e w
K e n t
K e n t
AlleghanyAlleghany
S h e n a n d o a h
S h e n a n d o a h
A m e l i a
A m e l i a
D i c k e n s o n
D i c k e n s o n
FauquierFauquier
A c c o m a c k
A c c o m a c k
B e d f o r d
B e d f o r d
MiddlesexMiddlesex
RappahannockRappahannock
S o u t h a m p t o n
S o u t h a m p t o n
L o u d o u n
L o u d o u n
M o n t g o m e r y
M o n t g o m e r y
S m y t h
S m y t h
G r e e n e
G r e e n e
WestmorelandWestmoreland
T a z e w e l l
T a z e w e l l
RockbridgeRockbridge
S c o t t
S c o t t
Y o r k
Y o r k
ArlingtonArlington
C h a r l e s C i t y
C h a r l e s C i t y
EssexEssex
B l a n d
B l a n d
C la r ke
C la r ke
GoochlandGoochland
C a m p b e l l
C a m p b e l l
H e n r y
H e n r y
A u g u s t a
A u g u s t a
A p p o m a t t o x
A p p o m a t t o x
B a t h
B a t h
C r a i g
C r a i g
L a n c a s t e r
L a n c a s t e r
C h e s t e r f i e l d
C h e s t e r f i e l d
II ss ll ee oo ff
WW ii gg hh tt
King GeorgeKing George
CumberlandCumberland
KKiinnggaanndd
QQuueeeenn
BuchananBuchanan
N o t t o w a y
N o t t o w a y
L e e
L e e
M a d i s o n
M a d i s o n
R o a n o k e
R o a n o k e
King WilliamKing William
P i t t s y l v a n i a
P i t t s y l v a n i a
G r a y s o n
G r a y s o n
G i l e s
G i l e s
L u n e n b u r g
L u n e n b u r g
M a t h e w s
M a t h e w s
P a t r i c k
P a t r i c k
Prince WilliamPrince William
D i n w i d d i e
D i n w i d d i e
R u s s e l l
R u s s e l l
S p o t s y l va n i a
S p o t s y l va n i a
N o r t h a m p t o n
N o r t h a m p t o n
S u r r y
S u r r y
M e c kl e n b u r g
M e c kl e n b u r g
N e l s o n
N e l s o n
O r a n g e
O r a n g e
SussexSussex
R o c k i n g h a m
R o c k i n g h a m
F l o y d
F l o y d
W y t h e
W y t h e
WarrenWarren
W a s h i n g t o n
W a s h i n g t o n
S t a f f o r d
S t a f f o r d
RichmondRichmond
H a n o v e r
H a n o v e r
B u c k i n g h a m
B u c k i n g h a m
HenricoHenrico
L o u i s a
L o u i s a
C h a r l o t t e
C h a r l o t t e
C ar r o l l
C ar r o l l
FrederickFrederick
B o t e t o u r t
B o t e t o u r t
Hi ghl and
Hi ghl and
JamesJames
CityCity
A l b e m a r l e
A l b e m a r l e
Date: 5/15/2017
Arterial Preservation
Corridor of Statewide Significance
Mobility Preservation Segment
Mobility Enhancement Segment
Mobility Preservation Segment (non-CoSS)
Mobility Enhancement Segment (non-CoSS)
Bristol
Culpeper
Fredericksburg
Hampton Roads
Lynchburg
NOVA
Richmond
Salem
Staunton
Urbanized Areas
²
0 50 10025Miles
Commonwealth of VirginiaArterial Preservation (draft)
Bristol Salem Lynchburg Richmond Hampton Roads Fredericksburg Culpepeper Staunton NOVAUS-11 US-11 US-29 US-1 US-13 US-1 VA-3 VA-7 US-1US-19 US-58 US-58 US-33 US-17 VA-3 US-15 US-11 VA-7US-58 US-220 US-221 US-58 US-58 US-17 US-17 US-33 VA-28VA-381 US-460 US-360 US-60 US-60 US-33 VA-28 US-50 US-29US-460 US-460 US-250 US-460 VA-207 US-29 US-60 US-50US-501 US-301 US-301 US-33 US-220 VA-55US-360 US-360 US-50 US-250 VA-234US-460 US-250 VA-659
Network excludes segments that are access controlled and segments that have a parallel access controlled facility in locations outside urbanized areas (e.g. U.S. 1, U.S. 11, U.S. 250, etc.)
Chief Engineer May 2017 CTB Presentation
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2017/may/pres/2_arterial_preservation.pdf
Access Management Update October 2016
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2016/oct/pres/8_Access_Management.pdf
Corridor Preservation Update February 2017
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2017/feb/pres/2_Corridor_Preservation.pdf
Arterial Management Plan Methodology
http://www.virginiadot.org/Projects/asset_upload_file126_94825.pdf
Arterial Management Plan Toolbox of Alternatives
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Arterial_Management_Plans/AMP_-
_Toolbox_of_Alternatives.pdf
VDOT Arterial Preservation Program
SMART SCALE UPDATE
http://dashboard.vasmartscale.org/map
Staff Recommendations for Round 3 - July 19, 2017
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2017/july/pres/5_smart_scale.pdf
2017 Smart Scale Technical Guide Update DRAFT - Comments
accepted until 10/20/17
SMART SCALE Round 3
8
9
10
11
12
13
SMART SCALE UPDATE
http://dashboard.vasmartscale.org/map
Staff Recommendations for Round 3 - July 19, 2017
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2017/july/pres/5_smart_scale.pdf
2017 Smart Scale Technical Guide Update DRAFT - Comments
accepted until 10/20/17
SMART SCALE Round 3