|
Adjourned Meeting
October 24, 2000
6:30 p.m.
Meeting Convened. An Adjourned Meeting of the York County Board of
Supervisors was called to order at 6:31 p.m., Tuesday, October 24, 2000,
in the East Room, York Hall, by Vice Chairman James S. Burgett.
Attendance. The following members of the Board of Supervisors were
present: Donald E. Wiggins, James S. Burgett, and Melanie L. Rapp.
Walter C. Zaremba and Sheila S. Noll were absent.
Also in attendance were Daniel M. Stuck, County Administrator; and
James E. Barnett, County Attorney.
WORK SESSION
DARE MARINA EXPANSION (Not on Agenda)
Mr. Burgett noted there were several people in attendance this
evening because of their interest in the plans for the Dare Marina
expansion. He stated the Board has added that topic to its work session
scheduled for November 15, and the staff will be prepared at that time
to provide information and answer any questions. He indicated the Board
members were getting a lot of phone calls concerning the proposed
expansion, and they are very aware of the problem. Mr. Burgett also
noted that the Board had received a petition from over 170 citizens
requesting that the application for the site plan approval be placed on
hold until the affected property owners have an opportunity to be heard
and zoning code compliance issues are fully resolved.
Chairman Zaremba arrived at 6:34 p.m.
Mr. Wiggins noted the application affects the citizens in
Districts 3 and 4 along Chisman Creek. The sound from the marina is the
concern for District 3, and the traffic is also a concern for District
4. He stated many people have a lot of questions as to whether or not
what Dare Marina wants to do can be done legally. The citizens want to
know if the marina is within its rights with regard to the expansion,
and if the County making sure that it was being done according to all
pertinent regulations.
Chairman Zaremba stated the Board will be briefed on the project
on November 15, and nothing concerning the application will be approved
before that time. He apologized to those individuals appearing at
tonight's meeting thinking it was to be on tonight's agenda.
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
Up-River Crossing Study
Mr. Stuck indicated staff would be covering the Secondary Road
Program, the Primary Road Program, a summary of the County's Revenue
Sharing Program, the Dirt Street Program, and the Fort Eustis Boulevard
extension and widening. He stated a consultant would also provide a
briefing on the analysis completed on the potential for constructing an
up-river crossing of the York River.
Mr. Jun Villoria, project manager for the York River Crossing
Travel Demand Study done by TranCore, gave a summary briefing of the
project covering the objectives and approach taken for the project,
tasks undertaken, highlights of the study results, and findings. He
noted the objective of the project was to determine if there was a
demand for an upriver crossing. He explained the approach taken in
analyzing the need for such a crossing, comparing actual 1999 crossing
figures for the current York River Bridge to estimates made with a new
crossing through the year 2045. Mr. Villoria then explained the cost
scenarios for the north and south alternatives that indicated a funding
requirement of $294,000,000 to $537,000,000. He stated without a new
crossing, the forecast traffic volume on the Coleman Bridge will reach
its four-lane capacity by the year 2014. If the Coleman was reconfigured
for six lanes, it would reach capacity in 2033.
Chairman Zaremba asked what the cost would be for six-laning the
Coleman Bridge.
Mr. Horace Welch, representing VDOT, indicated that when the
bridge was widened, it was constructed to accommodate six lanes. There
would only be some minor work needed, but mostly just striping.
Chairman Zaremba asked if the widening project extended on the
Gloucester side.
Mr. Welch indicated it did not.
Chairman Zaremba asked if there were any future plans for widening
the Gloucester side.
Mr. Welch stated the 2018/2020 Plan included funding for widening
Route 17 in Gloucester, but only $2 million has been set aside for that
project.
Mr. Wiggins noted the problem was that the real need in York
County was for Route 17 to be widened south of Fort Eustis Boulevard and
not north of it.
Mr. Welch stated VDOT was aware of that, but there was a shortfall
of funding at this time. He stated VDOT was in the process of doing a
new six-year program, and the widening was included in the plan. The
only question was whether or not it would get funded.
Mr. Wiggins stated the Board was concerned about the fact that the
four lanes handle the traffic adequately from the Coleman Bridge to Fort
Eustis Boulevard. He indicated the Board can't understand why the money
VDOT plans to use to widen that portion of Route 17 can't be allocated
to widening the southern portion.
Mr. Welch stated he felt some discussion had taken place on that
topic, and VDOT was going to work with the County on doing just that.
Discussion followed regarding the concerns of Gloucester County on
the need for an up-river crossing versus six-laning Route 17 north of
the York River Bridge.
Mr. Stuck asked if an analysis was done of Route 17 south of Fort
Eustis Boulevard.
Mr. Welch indicated it was not a part of the study.
Mr. Stuck stated that years ago when York County supported an
up-river crossing rather than widening the Coleman, Gloucester County
also supported the up-river crossing. Once the decision was made to
widen the bridge, the legislators were active in obtaining funds to do
something between the bridge and Fort Eustis Boulevard and I-64, and the
Alternate 5 crossing plan was kept on the table. Mr. Stuck stated it was
his understanding that VDOT would now be asking the Board to accept this
study which allows them to complete their contract. Information of value
to York County is not contained in this study which is the impact south
on Route 17 from Fort Eustis Boulevard. He stated staff had received a
copy of the study several weeks ago, and VDOT was requested to come and
brief the Board on it. He noted he had talked with Gloucester County,
but did not know what its final position will be. The bottom line was
that $3.2 billion has been identified to meet needs statewide, and there
is little chance of finding one-half billion to build another bridge.
Mr. Villoria concluded his briefing stating the 2018 forecast was
that necessary improvements can be made to Route 17 without having to
construct a new bridge. The study recommends that enhancements be made
to Route 17 and eventually operate the Coleman Bridge at a six-lane
capacity.
Discussion followed concerning the unpaid balance on the Coleman
Bridge debt and the cost to six-lane Route 17 from the bridge south to
the Newport News City line.
Secondary Road Six-Year Plan
Mr. Robert Baldwin, Chief Planner, distributed to the Board
members the six-year plan submittal from last year showing the existing
plan. He indicated staff would assume all the projects stay in the plan
unless otherwise directed by the Board. He indicated staff recommended
the addition of a safety project for Newman Road to this year's plan.
Mr. Quintin Elliott, Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of
Transportation, explained the funding allocation process, indicating
there were some things that were different in how VDOT was doing funding
because of the new Transportation Act of 2000. He stated there would be
some changes in next year's funding (decrease). He stated he had been
instructed, because project costs were exceeding estimates, to add an
inflation factor; and this will change some of the costs of the projects
in the current plan and could have an impact on the ad dates and getting
the projects through the program to completion. He addressed the
proposal for the Newman Road safety project, stating it has a very bad
curve and high embankment which needs to be straightened out with an
estimated cost of about $2 million.
Mr. Stuck stated the Newman Road project was on the six-year plan
to be widened at one point, but he recommended that, because of the cost
and timing of the project, and because the traffic volumes on the road
were very low, the money should be spent elsewhere. He noted that a
safety project was left in the program, and that safety project was now
costing almost as much as the original project. He stated there were
transportation issues all over the County, but there was a limited
amount of money to spent on them. Such a project would take about 4-5
years of financing to get it to construction.
Discussion followed concerning other projects contained in the
Six-Year Plan and the use of a regional mix of funds for regional
projects. Also discussed was the status of the Big Bethel Road/Victory
Boulevard intersection project.
Mr. Elliott asked the Board to let him know as soon as possible if
there were any other projects the County wanted added to the Plan
because it would be presented to the Board in December.
Mr. Stuck indicated that staff was looking at development patterns
in the County and the developable land available. This information will
be compared to the road plan and traffic counts, and an evaluation will
be made of whether or not the County was addressing the correct
projects. He stated this information would be made available to the
Board next November for consideration with the Six-Year Plan in the 2001
round of review.
Six-Year Plan for Primary Roads
Mr. Baldwin distributed to the Board members the current project
listing for major roadways. He indicated the Board would be approving
the plan for primary roads in the February/March timeframe for the
spring Commonwealth Transportation Board hearings. He asked that the
Board members review the plan to see if the projects still had the same
priorities as last year.
Discussion followed on the project to six-lane Route 171 between
Routes 134 and 17 and the costs for the I-64 project.
Mr. Stuck indicated the County was not having a lot of success
getting projects into the VDOT plan.
Mr. Baldwin noted the Fort Eustis Boulevard Extension project has
been through the VDOT location public hearing. The next step was to
proceed to the final design stage and then on to public hearing,
right-of-way acquisition, and construction. He estimated a construction
date of 2003.
Chairman Zaremba asked how VDOT worked through the environmental
issues.
Mr. Elliott stated many are taken care of during the location
study. Some mitigation still has to be done, but many of the
environmental hurdles have been overcome.
Chairman Zaremba asked who had oversight for the environmental
concerns.
Mr. Elliott indicated VDOT does the actual mitigation project
which was a part of the construction project, but a number of federal
and state agencies must give approval.
Discussion followed on the new alignment for the Fort Eustis
Boulevard extension project.
Mr. Baldwin then noted staff had met with Mr. Cleveland and Mr.
Elliott this afternoon to discuss the need for widening Route 17 south
of Fort Eustis Boulevard. He stated a compromise had been reached, at
least in concept, to widen Route 17 from Fort Eustis Boulevard north to
York High School and tapering down to four lanes up to the Park Service
property. He stated the remaining money would be used for potential
projects on the south end of Route 17 to improve traffic flow. Mr.
Baldwin stated there would be about $8 million to apply to sections of
Route 17 south of Fort Eustis Boulevard.
Mr. Burgett indicated that was good news, and he asked if there
was a plan for a direct access to Fort Eustis Boulevard from I-64.
Mr. Elliott stated the interchange design was a part of the I-64
widening project. Because of the location, it would be hard to make a
direct connection; but an urban interchange was being considered.
Miss Rapp asked how far would the money go for improvements on
Route 17 south of Fort Eustis Boulevard.
Mr. Stuck stated at the meeting today with Mr. Cleveland and Mr.
Elliott it was agreed that the District would send the County a letter
memorializing the discussions and asking the Board what it wanted to do.
He stated it would be up to staff to make recommendations to the Board
in terms of what to ask VDOT to consider. He noted that $8 million
wouldn't go far, but staff would be looking at what it could do to
maximize improvements to traffic flow.
Revenue Sharing Program
Mr. Baldwin provided a status report of the County's Revenue
Sharing Program from 1991 to the present. He stated the floor was open
for suggestions in terms of projects to recommend for next year, and he
spoke of how the money had been used in the past.
Chairman Zaremba questioned how the Shoreline Stabilization
Project was done with Revenue Sharing funds.
Mr. Stuck indicated that some of the work was in such close
proximity to the road that VDOT provided funding as a road protection
measure.
Chairman Zaremba asked what it meant that it was supplemented from
the Fort Eustis Boulevard project.
Mr. Stuck explained that the County received more STP funds than
it had expected, and the excess was placed in this project, thus
allowing some of the Revenue Sharing Program funding to be shifted to
other projects.
Dirt Street Program
Mr. Bob Peters, Chief of Engineering and Facility Maintenance,
made a presentation providing the Board with background information on
the Dirt Street Program and the process of upgrading dirt streets to
meet VDOT standards in order for VDOT to accept the streets into its
state system of highways. He discussed the two active projects, Russell
Lane and Kay Lane, noting the cost for both was $154,222. He then
discussed the top five projects currently on the active priority list.
Discussion followed on prioritization of the program's projects.
Mr. Peters then outlined the five-step program:
Notification and requests for response as to interest
Acquisition of rights-of-way and easements
Design of the project
Preparation of documentation for Board of Supervisors approval
Actual construction
Mr. Elliott noted the funding came from the Secondary Six-Year
Program.
Meeting Recessed. At 8:35 p.m. Chairman Zaremba declared a short recess.
Meeting Reconvened. At 8:45 p.m. the meeting was reconvened in
open session by order of the Chair.
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR 2001
Mr. Barnett indicated the Board had received his memorandum with
attachments concerning a proposed Legislative Program for 2001 which
included a copy of last year's program and submittals from Board members
and Department Directors with items for the Board's consideration. He
then distributed two additional items for consideration, one from the
City of Williamsburg containing its legislative program, and the other a
list of proposed funding requests to the state for increased funding for
the Yorktown Waterfront projects.
Mr. Robert S. Kraus, Director of General Services, reviewed the
three projects that he felt might get some funding from the General
Assembly:
Shoreline Erosion Protection and Beach Restoration: Request an
appropriation that will earmark state funding in the amount of $900,000
for shoreline erosion protection and beach restoration in Historic
Yorktown.
Riverwalk Connection for the Yorktown Victory Center: Request
special funding in the amount of $150,000 to construct the Riverwalk to
connect the Yorktown waterfront to the Yorktown Victory Center.
New Pier: Request state funding for the construction of a new pier
to promote tourism and to support the 2007 celebration of Jamestown at
an estimated cost of $2.8 million.
Mr. Barnett indicated the package provided to the Board members
tonight was for information only at this time. He stated he needed to
get a final indication from the Board as to what it feels are the
priority items to present to the legislators for their consideration.
The legislators are required to submit bills by December 16 which is
earlier than years prior. After the General Assembly is in session, they
are limited to five additional bills. Mr. Barnett then reviewed last
year's program and the breakdown of specific legislation submitted by
the County, with note of any action taken by the General Assembly, and a
statement of legislative policies to pursue.
Discussion on the County's past record with the General Assembly
regarding requested legislation.
Mr. Stuck suggested that the Board retain the format used last
year and consider the following proposals submitted for requested
legislation:
· Increase transportation Revenue Sharing Program funding
· Request for an Enterprise Zone
· Request use of sliding scale for meeting pump-out requirement
of septic tanks every five years
· Delete the requirement for a Board of Supervisors member to
serve on the Community Criminal Justice Board
· Request appropriations for Yorktown projects
· Oppose Building Code amendment to preclude zoning authority
regarding certain design aspects.
With regard to the policy statements, Mr. Stuck stated he felt the
current ones were excellent, but suggested that transportation and
education funding be separated and listed as two separate items.
Discussion followed on Mr. Stuck's suggestions.
By consensus the Board directed the County Attorney to draft a
legislative program for 2001 for the November 15 work session based on
recommendations made by the County Administrator, with the addition of
any items that may be identified before that time by the Board members.
BUDGET HISTORY BRIEFING-SOCIAL SERVICES (Not on Agenda)
Mr. James O. McReynolds, Director of Financial and Management
Services, made a presentation on general fund expenditures regarding the
Social Services Department since FY89. He noted the change was nearly a
100 percent increase over the 12-year period. The Federal/State
governments have maintained their funding percentages during the same
period. Factors driving the increase include cost increases that are
higher than inflation, and there is more demand for services as well as
more state mandates.
Mr. Burgett asked what percentage of York's population was
receiving Social Services.
Mr. McReynolds indicated he did not have that information at this
time, but he would get it and provide it to the Board members. He then
continued his presentation regarding the factors impacting the increase.
Chairman Zaremba asked how the poverty level was defined.
Mr. McReynolds indicated it depended on the factors of income and
family size.
Chairman Zaremba asked how the 2,700 people below the poverty
level were identified.
Mr. McReynolds stated they were identified through income
statistics provided by the federal government and the Census Bureau.
Discussion followed on the forecast for continuing cost increases
in Social Services.
Meeting Adjourned. At 9:28 p.m. Chairman Zaremba declared the meeting
adjourned to 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, November 15, 2000, in the East Room,
York Hall, for the purpose of conducting a work session.
_____________________________
_______________________________
Daniel M. Stuck,
Clerk
Walter C. Zaremba, Chairman
York County Board of
Supervisors
York County Board of Supervisors
Back to Index
|
