October 28

Document Sample
October 28 Powered By Docstoc
					                      Thursday, October 28, 2004             1





                                Charles R. Allen, Jr., Chairman
                                John J. Adams, Sr., Vice Chairman
                                Teresa L. Altemus
                                Michelle R. Ressler
                                Burton M. Bland
                                Christian D. Rilee
                                Louise D. Theberge
                                William H. Whitley, County Administrator
                                Daniel M. Stuck, County Attorney


            Mr. Allen gave the invocation which was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.


            Delegate Harvey B. Morgan, Board of Supervisors members from Mathews; Mr.

Charles Ingram, Mr. Mike Rowe, Ms. Nina Putt, and Mathews County Administrator Mr.

Steve Whiteway.    Also in attendance was Mr. Dan Kavanagh from the Middle Peninsula

Planning District Commission.

            VDOT representatives included Chief Financial Officer Barbara Reese, Mr.

David Ogle, Fredericksburg District Engineer, Marcie Parker, Saluda Resident Engineer and

Sean Trapani, Saluda Assistant Engineer.


            Ms. Reese thanked Mr. Allen for the introduction.       She stated that she has

been in the role of Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Transportation since

August, 2002. Her responsibilities include procurement, all fiscal/financial activities of the

department, toll road operations, debt managements, the programming of the six-year

improvement program for the interstate, primary and urban systems of highways, public

transportation and other duties. The first presentation was given to the Hampton Roads

Metro Leadership Group/Hampton Roads Partnership. Mr. Allen and Mr. Whitley had been

present at this meeting and asked Ms. Reese to come to the Board Meeting and present the

same topics. (SEE INSERTION)
                        Thursday, October 28, 2004                2
Slide 1

                       Highway Outlook

                   Barbara Reese, VDOT CFO
                            Fall 2004

Slide 2
          • Allocations and Spending

          • Forecasts

          • Construction Outlook

          • Tolls and PPTA


Slide 3
                       CTB Allocations
          • Of the $3.1 billion allocated by the CTB in FY
            2005, $2.8 billion is administered by VDOT

                               CTB               VDOT
             – FY 05        $3.1 billion      $2.8 billion
             – FY 06        $3.2              $2.8
             – FY 07        $3.3              $2.9
             – FY 08        $3.5              $2.9
             – FY 09        $3.4              $3.0
             – FY 10        $3.5              $3.1
             TOTAL          $19.9 billion     $17.5 billion

                         Thursday, October 28, 2004                 3
Slide 4
                   Highway Allocations
           • The $2.8 billion breaks down to -

              – $1.3 billion road maintenance
              – $0.2 billion debt service
              – $0.3 billion for operations, payments to
                other agencies, administration
              – $0.2 billion special financing & earmarks
              – $0.8 billion systems construction


Slide 5
                       VDOT Spending
            • Of total $2.8 billion in annual spending

               – 66% to private sector
               – 19% to VDOT payroll
               – 9% to debt payments (14% of dedicated
               – 6% to everything else including localities,
                 general fund, etc.


Slide 6
                   Highway Forecasts
          • Transportation revenue growth will average 2%
            a year for the next six years

          • 60% of construction revenue is federal and this
            share will also grow

          • National models predict 1.9% CPI growth for
            next six years, with recent growth hovering at
            – ENR’s construction cost index growth has jumped
              from 1.3% to 6.4% in last year

                                                Thursday, October 28, 2004                                                                       4
Slide 7
                     General Fund vs
                 Transportation Revenue
          • Transportation revenues are NOT general
            fund revenue
                – Different sources (GF – income and sales)
                – Dramatically different growth
          • First Quarter – FY 05 (September 30, 2004)
                – General Fund – 10.5% growth
                – Transportation Fund – 2.6%


Slide 8
                                           Revenue Sources
           • Transportation spending is highly
             dependent on motor fuels taxes in

           • Transportation capacity expansion is
             highly dependent on federal funding


Slide 9
                                         Revenue Sources







                                                Vehicle License

                                                                                           General Funds
                                Vehicle Sales

                                                                          Retail Sales &
                  Motor Fuels

                                 & Use Tax

                                                                                                             User Fees


                                     87% of the federal revenue is from the federal motor fuels tax
                            Thursday, October 28, 2004                   5
Slide 10
                Maintenance of Infrastructure

           • Virginia law - maintenance is the number one
             transportation funding priority - 4% yearly increase
             in base

           • Local maintenance – about $155,000 per centerline
             mile for next six years

             – VDOT - $110,000 per centerline mile


Slide 11
           Maintenance of Infrastructure, cont’d
              • More than 69,000 miles of roadway

              • 17% primary and interstate pavements are

              • 1,112 deficient bridges that qualify for federal

              • 212 million miles driven a day


Slide 12
               Paying Obligations – CTB Debt
              • All CTB debt - $1.9 billion outstanding - is
                part of VDOT’s budget

              • Debt service totals $1.6 billion in next six

              • Transportation Debt Reform
                 – develop a debt management policy (2003)
                 – implement a debt management policy (2004)

                                   Thursday, October 28, 2004                           6
Slide 13
                              CTB Debt - June 2004
                                          (in millions)

                                          Outstanding     FY 05 Debt   Year Paid
                      Program                Debt          Service        Off

           Oak Grove Connector               $ 26.8         $ 2.3        2022
           Powhite Parkway Extension           36.1           6.2        2011
           Coleman Bridge                      38.8           3.5        2021
           Dulles Toll Road                    54.2          11.4        2016
           Route 28                           113.5           7.5        2018
           NOVA Trans. District Program       330.9          28.0        2027
           Route 58 Corridor Program          586.3          50.8        2026
           FRANS                              786.7         136.5        2012
                                 Total     $1,973.3        $246.2


Slide 14
                Paying Obligations – Contracts
                • Outstanding contractual commitments as of
                  September 30, 2004 - $1.6 billion

                • To complete interstate, primary, and urban
                  projects in FY 05 Program requires another
                  $8.2 billion

                      – Does not include Third Crossing
                        construction or Coalfields Expressway


Slide 15
                   Paying Obligations – Deficits
                • $601 million in budget deficits remain on 68
                  completed and 8 on-going projects

                                                     05- Six-
                      – $508 million addressed in FY 05-10 Six-
                        Year Improvement Program

                      – Budget deficits occur when project
                        spending outpaces project budget

                                     Thursday, October 28, 2004                                                  7
Slide 16

                What Does this Mean to
             Future Highway Construction?

Slide 17
           • Little is left statewide to plan new
             capacity once maintenance, past and
             on-going costs are financed
                                                 # of PE starts               PE estimated cost
                    Interstate                           11                        $2.5 million
                         Primary                         54                        $9.9 million
                         Urban                           66                        $9.5 million
                         Total                           131                    $21.9 million

              Secondary in Program                       23                        $5.6 million


Slide 18
                 Growing Difference in
           Maintenance & Construction Funding

           $1,200                                             VTA



                    FY    FY   FY   FY   FY    FY   FY   FY    FY   FY   FY   FY   FY   FY   FY   FY   FY
                    93    94   95   96   97    98   99   00    01   02   03   04   05   06   07   08   09

                                          Maintenanc e          Systems Construc tion

                       Thursday, October 28, 2004               8
Slide 19

                What Does this Mean to
                 Gloucester County?

Slide 20

           • Based on current policy,

             – Maintenance of existing roads and bridges
               will be funded

             – New capacity will be difficult to finance

             – Federally eligible roadways will see some
               improvements – others will not


Slide 21
                      Outlook, cont’d
           • Statewide, in FY 2005, $123 million is
             available to match any additional
             federal funding or other funding needs

           • In FY 2010, $29 million and by FY 2014,

                               Thursday, October 28, 2004                             9
Slide 22
                            Gloucester County
                             Road Statistics
                 • There are 617 lane miles of secondary roads
                   in the County

                    – Of those lane miles, only 19%, or 116, are
                      eligible for federal funding

                    – The County’s FY 05 secondary road
                      allocation is comprised of 48% federal
                      funds and 52% state funds


Slide 23

                            Highway Outlook

                          Barbara Reese, VDOT CFO
                                    Fall 2004

      At the end of this presentation, Ms. Reese entertained questions from the Board.

Mrs. Ressler referenced the maintenance of infrastructure. Mrs. Ressler said she was not

sure she could differentiate between the local maintenance versus VDOT maintenance. She

asked Ms. Reese what was meant by “local” maintenance. Ms. Reese stated that in the

Code of Virginia Arlington and Henrico counties and every city or town with a population of

3,500 or more, is responsible for the maintenance of local roads within their bounds. She

noted that cities we think commonly of, i.e., Williamsburg, Newport News, Hampton, VA

Beach, Fredericksburg all receive a payment as part of their budget to maintain rural

owned roads. Back in the mid-1980’s, there was a formula put in place in the Code of

Virginia that stated this was how much will be paid to a city for their maintenance per this

formula.   She stated that this number is calculated from that formula and has been in

place for about twenty years. It equals out to around $155,000 per mile compared to
                            Thursday, October 28, 2004                        10
VDOT’s maintenance budget of $110,000 which includes picking up trash, mowing grass,

repairing potholes and repaving roads.

      Ms. Altemus stated that so many people question her as to why the Coleman Bridge

is a toll facility and the bridge in West Point is not a toll facility. Is it, in part, because of

federal funds? Is it all federal funds? Is it partially state or all state funds? Ms. Reese

noted that the only state funds on those bridge replacements are the matching

requirement. Federal funds never or rarely come 100% so they specifically aid each one; the

state match required is on those bridges.

      Ms. Reese’s understanding is that when the toll was lifted from the Coleman Bridge,

after being built as a toll facility, the volume increased dramatically which caused heavy

congestion. The Board requested that VDOT look at what could be done to help alleviate

that congestion, particularly during rush or peak hours. She also understands that the

Board was not interested in having to wait to go through a long federal process where the

bridge would have to be declared functionally obsolete. The bridge function fund level was

starting to deplete and the Coleman Bridge did not have structural deficiency. The West

Point bridges have functional deficiency.

      Ms. Altemus stated that she found this interesting as she was not here when the

bridge was built and/or tolled.     She understood that the Coleman Bridge was in such

disrepair that it basically had to be rebuilt. She has always been led to believe and/or told

that the reason the Coleman Bridge tolls are in place is because the tolls are what is

actually paying back the bond. Nothing else can be used to pay the bond except for what is

collected in tolls at the Coleman Bridge.

      Ms. Reese told Ms. Altemus she would be addressing this issue shortly.

      Mr. Ogle stated that he, like Ms. Altemus, was not in this area when the bridge was

built, however, it did have some elements of disrepair.        According to everyone that was

dealing with this issue, at the time, it was decided to build a bond referendum to go ahead

and build the bridge to add capacity, and this required tolls.

      Ms. Altemus noted that if she understood Mr. Ogle correctly, the toll was initiated

due to the Board. She wanted to clarify if that was the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Reese

stated that she knew there were studies done and in the early 80’s there was a request by

the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors to look at what could be done to address the

bonds. A member of legislature has to put in the legislation to do the bond issue. Mrs.

Ressler also noted that she understood what Mrs. Reese was saying but she was also
                              Thursday, October 28, 2004                           11
hearing that it was due to the bond issue itself. Mr. Bland suggested that this issue be



         At this time Ms. Reese gave her presentation on the Coleman bridge (SEE

Slide 1

                     George P. Coleman Bridge

                                Barbara W. Reese
                               Chief Financial Officer
                      Virginia Department of Transportation


Slide 2

                       George P. Coleman Bridge

                • Reconstructed and reopened in 1996 at a cost of
                  $75 million

                • In 1994, $43.3 million in 9(c) revenue bonds
                  issued by the Commonwealth’s Treasury Board

                • Plus an additional loan of $38 million from the
                  Toll Facilities Revolving Account

                           Thursday, October 28, 2004                        12
Slide 3
                        9(c) Revenue Bonds
          • Authorized by General Assembly based on
            project’s ability to be self-financing

          • Project’s revenue must pay for (in order)
             –   Operations
             –   Maintenance
             –   Debt Service
             –   Long-term maintenance replacement

          • Commonly referred to as a “net revenue” pledge
            for debt service payments


Slide 4

                   9(c) Revenue Bonds, cont’d

          • Treasury Board and Commonwealth
            Transportation Board (CTB) entered into an
            agreement that requires the CTB to covenant
            that the toll revenues

             – Will at all times produce net revenue sufficient to
               pay the principal and interest on the bonds

             – Will be sufficient to provide for contributions to
               the Maintenance and Replacement Fund


Slide 5
                 Coleman Bridge Toll Revenues
          • Revenues generated from tolls are not
            sufficient to pay operations, maintenance,
            debt service, or a maintenance replacement

             – In late 2003, CTB authorized VDOT to hire
               toll consultants on their behalf to conduct
               investment grade traffic and revenue
               studies for existing and potential toll

                                      Thursday, October 28, 2004                              13
Slide 6
                         Revenues & Expenses
                       George P. Coleman Bridge
                                                         Actual           Estimated
                                                    Fiscal Year 2004   Fiscal Year 2005
              Toll Revenue & Interest                  $4,891,956         $4,994,000


              Operations                              $2,941,611*         $1,990,662

              Bridge Oper./Ordinary Maint.             $501,485           $508,000
              Debt Service                             $3,378,493         $3,451,268
              Reserve Maintenance                          --                 --

              Improvement Fund                             --                 --

             Total Expenses                            $6,821,589         $5,949,930

             REVENUE SHORTFALL                        ($1,929,630)        ($955,930)

           • Includes cost of toll system upgrade


Slide 7
                   Revenues & Expenses, cont’d

          • Because toll revenues are not sufficient to
            cover all expenses, the CTB is not meeting its
            requirements with the Treasury Board

              – VDOT is covering the annual operating expense
                shortfall from the Toll Facilities Revolving Account
                adding additional “loans”

              – Bridge and ordinary maintenance expenses are
                being provided from the Hampton Roads District’s
                annual maintenance allocations

              – The maintenance reserve account is not being

Slide 8

                           Toll Rate History
                       George P. Coleman Bridge

                                                         1996          1997 - Present
            Motorcycles                                  $0.50              $0.50

            Commuters                                    $0.50              $0.50

            Cars, Vans, Pickups                          $2.00              $2.00

            Two-Axle Trucks                              $2.00              $2.00

            Three-Axle Trucks                            $6.00              $3.00

            Four-Axle Trucks                             $8.00              $4.00

            Five-Axle & More Trucks                      $8.00              $4.00

                                Thursday, October 28, 2004                              14
Slide 9

                       George P. Coleman Bridge

                                 Barbara W. Reese
                                Chief Financial Officer
                       Virginia Department of Transportation


             Ms. Reese entertained questions after the presentation. Mrs. Ressler inquired

as to whether the debt on the Coleman Bridge could be refinanced. Ms. Reese noted that

the debt cannot be refinanced nor can there be any kind of refinancing until the year 2008.

Mrs. Ressler noted that it was brought to her attention that the James River Bridge was

under construction at the same time as the Coleman Bridge,          and the Coleman Bridge

ascertained a toll but the James River Bridge never had a toll. Mrs. Ressler questioned

why?      The other bridge in question is the Monitor-Merrimac Bridge Tunnel. Ms. Reese

stated that the Monitor Merrimac is part of the interstate system and is federally funded;

she has no knowledge of the James River Bridge.       Ms. Reese also stated that the decision

to toll a bridge has to be a 9-C debt authorization put into the General Assembly that

authorizes    a certain amount of debt to be sold to do a particular project,        with the

understanding that 9-C means it must be self-financing. (tolls)

             Mr. Rilee inquired as to whether eight million dollars ($8,000,000) that the

state is going to spend in Gloucester Point could be applied to the bridge debt to avoid tolls.

Ms. Reese advised that this is not in the bond covenant, but she is not saying that it could

not be done.      Mr. Ogle stated that some of this money is Metropolitan Planning

Organization funds and Surface Transportation Program regional funds (federal funds).

Ms. Reese stated that federal funds could not be used. She also noted that she could have

bond counsel look at this matter, if the Board wanted to take secondary road allocations

and put it toward the bridge to pay off the tolls. She stated that this is something that

could be considered.
                             Thursday, October 28, 2004                           15
      Ms. Altemus wanted to clarify what Ms. Reese was saying since she did not have the

full presentation at hand. She inquired if the Commonwealth could appropriate money in

other areas; such as bridge maintenance or any other items which do not fall under the

purview of the bonds so that the tolls would not have to be raised. Ms. Reese reiterated

that the way a 9-C bond is authorized is a net revenue pledge.          After the expense of

operations,   bridge   operation/ordinary    maintenance   and   debt   service,   there   were

insufficient funds remaining; therefore, a fiduciary toll was put in place.        Ms. Altemus

followed up by asking, “basically the only way to “catch up” or to make this work would be

to raise tolls? There are no other options?” Ms. Reese stated that she is not aware of any

other option(s).   After further discussion, Ms. Reese noted that “the Coleman Bridge Bonds

had the full faith and credit of the Commonwealth behind them” which makes them Triple-

A Bonds. Ms. Altemus stated that she felt frustration over the fact that we were locked in

for another four years or more, and our citizens have to bear the burden due to lack of

planning in Richmond. She feels this is very unfair. Ms. Reese noted that if asked, any

board where there is a toll facility would agree.

      Mr. Bland stated that he understands VDOT’s position on the Coleman Bridge,

however, he also understands that a consultant will be contacting the Board or County

regarding economic impact.      Ms. Reese assured Mr. Bland that Mr. Whitley would be

contacted.    Mr. Bland also inquired as to whether the state of Virginia was unique as far

as the “dire straights” of the state’s overall transportation funding or are all states in the

same condition. Ms. Reese responded by saying that there were a greater number of states

in the same predicament. She did state that it has been almost twenty years since there

has been a revenue adjustment for transportation (good or bad) in Virginia.


      Mr. David Ogle, District Administrator for VDOT gave a slide presentation of the

Primary Road Projects in Gloucester County (SEE INSERT)
Thursday, October 28, 2004   16
Thursday, October 28, 2004   17
Thursday, October 28, 2004   18
Thursday, October 28, 2004   19
Thursday, October 28, 2004   20
                                Thursday, October 28, 2004                              21

This concluded Mr. Ogle’s presentation. At this time, he entertained questions from the

Board members.     Mr. Adams referenced an email that was sent to Mr. Ogle with some

concerns about the Coleman Bridge and improvements in the median strip at the Point.

Mr. Adams did state that he appreciated the work that has been done on the crossovers

and he feels this has already improved the flow of traffic.   He also noted that everyone who

owns a business on Route 17 from the bridge to the Pizza Hut is “up in arms” regarding

this matter. They dislike the plan and felt as if they were “left out” of the initial planning.

The primary concern is left turns. Businesses are being completely blocked.

      Mr. Ogle noted that the draft plan was outlined this evening and also at the public

hearing.   He also stated that there was a lot of preliminary work to be done before the

actual building would take place; i.e., public hearing, purchase the right-of way, moving of

the utilities, etc. The Commonwealth Transportation Board has to approve and sign off on

the plans before this takes place.

      Mr. Adams also noted another thing that was not considered by VDOT Planners. The

people who work or own businesses will lose their jobs because of the left turn situation.

      Ms. Altemus inquired as to whether policy prevented a second public hearing. Is only

one required? Mr. Ogle stated that “no” they had multiple public hearings on some projects

in the past.   Ms. Altemus stated that from what she is hearing Mr. Ogle say,          he has

received comments, concerns, and suggestions.        Ms. Altemus suggested that “after the

meeting Mr. Adams is going to host in the month of November, maybe you could take a look

at it, redesign the project with as less invasive change as possible that would encompass

and certainly embrace the citizens concerns/business owners concerns down at Gloucester
                             Thursday, October 28, 2004                      22
Point, then re-advertise and go to public hearing one more time and present a plan

incorporating everyone’s concerns.” Ms. Altemus noted that if she were a business owner

in Gloucester Point, she would rather you postpone the bidding for a few months and let

her “have her say” and at least know that you are going to address her concerns before it

goes to bid.

      Ms. Theberge noted that she had talked to a few people at Gloucester Point and one

of the things they asked her was “Why VDOT didn’t utilize the end of Greate Road and why

you were cutting another cut through to Greate Road south of the In and Out rather than

using an existing road.” Ms. Parker, Resident Engineer with VDOT stated that right now,

there is nothing across from Greate Road. They would like Camp Okee Road to line up

with Great Road and have a crossover there with a traffic light.    Ms. Theberge stated that

another issue at Gloucester Point businesses was signage. If signs must be taken down, is

VDOT going to be responsible for replacing the signs or is this going to fall on the business

owner?    Mr. Ogle stated that VDOT would not install the sign/s for property owners,

however, they will pay to have them installed at their assessed value.     After some further

discussion, Mr. Ogle stated that this area is “just not that safe a roadway,” but if there are

thoughts and ideas about how it can work, he is certainly open to suggestions.

      Mrs. Ressler asked if there was a timeline as to when a decision would be made. Mr.

Ogle stated that they would leave things as they are, and wait for Mr. Adam’s meeting on

November 22, 2004. After the meeting, they will make a final decision unless something

were to come out of that meeting and they needed to take more time or work with a group,

they would be willing to do so.

      Ms. Theberge questioned the strange looking “T” behind the post office. What was

the rational behind the “T” instead of a public access road straight through Greate Road to

the post office? Again, Mr. Ogle reiterated that was a suggestion that they would like to

consider. At present, the residents only have access off of Route 17 so an access point

would have to be created from the back side.

Thursday, October 28, 2004   23
Thursday, October 28, 2004   24
Thursday, October 28, 2004   25
Thursday, October 28, 2004   26
Thursday, October 28, 2004   27
                               Thursday, October 28, 2004                            28


      Ms. Altemus noted that there were several people on Route 672, Fleming Road,

that approached the Board last year and asked that the road be taken into the system.

VDOT was supposed to meet with these citizens, and Ms. Altemus does not recall seeing

anything in this presentation regarding Fleming Road. Citizens have been inquiring about

the status of this road.

      Mr. Scudder advised the reason for this, he believes, is that the contact person did

not follow through with the application.
                                 Thursday, October 28, 2004                          29
        Mr. Allen stated that the Board would hold a public hearing in December to address

the Six-Year Plan. He also mentioned that maybe some guidelines were needed from VDOT

so the program monies would not be lost.

        Mr. Whitley stated that guidelines were already in place for the Rural Additions

Program.      He advised that the Rural Additions list will be developed for the next year,

VDOT will inform the County of the road to be funded, and the contact person notified to

see if everything is in place so VDOT can build the road. If everything is not in place at that

time, the next road on the list will be considered. This is the policy of the Board that is

already in place.

        Ms. Altemus stated, for “purposes of discussion”, that every road on the list did not

meet the criteria. Ultimately, the Board would have to repeat the process. Ms. Altemus

inquired as to whether it was possible to converse with these folks before the public hearing

so the Board would know if there are other roads that could be added to the Rural

Additions list.

        Mr. Whitley stated that he thought they should “just let the policy work”.          Ms.

Altemus was just confirming that they are not limited to eight roads on the Rural Additions


        Ms. Altemus stated that she thought not only was the public hearing important, but

also that the folks know they have this opportunity. Ms. Parker informed Ms. Altemus that

there is over $500,000 available for the Rural Additions.


        Ms. Parker stated that as far as the issue of Figg Shop Road was concerned, she

could not say that “all” trucks on Figg Shop Road were technically “thru trucks”, as there

was logging on the road. The County would have to suggest a reasonable alternate road,

and VDOT would then have to make that determination.

        Ms. Altemus asked Mr. Whitley if it were possible to have the Thru Trucks on Figg

Shop Road Public Hearing in December, along with the other transportation issues. Mr.

Whitley suggested he look at their schedule for the December agenda. The Board may want

to postpone this until January.

        Mr. Whitley stated that if it was the consensus of the Board this evening, they could

certainly take the two issues of “thru truck” restrictions (Route 17 Business) and (Figg

Shop Road) to public hearing.
Thursday, October 28, 2004   30
                               Thursday, October 28, 2004                                31


            Mr. Ogle provided a brief summary of some of the legislation that involves

Programs managed by the Local Assistance Division that went into effect July1, 2004. This

included Secondary System Allocations. This would allow up to one third of the annual

secondary system allocation to be used to reimburse any locality for debt service for bonds

or eligible project costs incurred on approved project included in the County’s Secondary

Six-Year Improvement Program and Capital Improvements Program.

            The Rural Additions Statute changed the qualifying date a “street” had to be

established and in public use from 1990 to July 1, 1992. Mr. Ogle stated that it also
                                 Thursday, October 28, 2004                              32
clarifies several approaches to financing and it allows the carryover of four years instead of

three years, which means you can have five years work of your Rural Addition allocation

available at any point in time. These funds are also eligible for other secondary projects.

            The next item to be addressed by Mr. Ogle is Land Use Permit Surety held until

damage claims are resolved. This applies to any company that is either not under the State

Corporation Commission or not a participant in Miss Utility. It requires VDOT to hold

sureties for all work within the right-of-way until all damage claims are resolved.

You must either join Miss Utility or notify all the property owners then give an affidavit to

VDOT that you have notified all the property owners before VDOT can issue a permit to do

the work. If they are notified by a property owner that there is a claim against the utility

contractor when they do the work that is covered by this permit VDOT must hold the surety

until that claim is settled. This does not mean that VDOT settles the claim for the utility or

mediate in any way between the property owner and the utility however, VDOT needs to

know that the claim has been settled before the bond will be released for the work.

            The last item that Mr. Ogle addressed was Notification of Land Use Permits for

Gas Pipelines. This legislation requires VDOT to notify counties affected by landfill gas

pipelines that are under permit. This is done to ensure localities are aware of these landfill

gas pipelines since they are not always registered as a utility.


            Mr. Whitley stated that this was an issue that the Board needs to take some

time to consider. There are nine transportation districts in the state. As Mr. Ogle noted, all

the roads in Gloucester for purposes of construction and maintenance are in the

Fredericksburg Transportation District. The Coleman Bridge is in the Hampton Roads

Transportation District for purposes of construction and maintenance. Mr. Whitley noted

that during the construction of the bridge, there were some difficulties that the Board

thought they had throughout this process.      Mr. Whitley just wanted to raise this issue to

the Board so they could be considering whether it would be in the best interest of this

community to be included in the Hampton Roads Transportation District rather than the

Fredericksburg District.

Mr. Whitley reiterated that as far as transportation issues, the County has more in common

with the communities on the Peninsula rather than the Northern Neck and the Middle
                                Thursday, October 28, 2004                       33
Peninsula.       Mr. Whitley stated that if this was something that the Board wanted to

pursue, he would give it consideration, bring ideas back to the Board and also speak with

people at the Virginia Department of Transportation.

      Mr. Rilee questioned whether Gloucester would be the smallest locality in the district.

Would Gloucester fall out of the budget picture? Mr. Whitley noted that Gloucester was not

the largest locality in the Fredericksburg District. Mr. Whitley said this would be an issue

of some concern.      Mr. Whitley advised   that the funding situation would need to be

considered; certainly if that were an issue, there was no need to discuss this matter

further.     Mr. Rilee also inquired as to whether the Coleman Bridge could possibly be

transferred to the Fredericksburg District. Mr. Whitley stated that he thought this would

be a good option.

      Mr. Adams stated that with the possibility of the Alliances merging, this would put

Gloucester in a position of “clustering” improvements. Mr. Whitley noted that this would be

a consideration.

      Ms. Altemus stated that if you consider who was invited to the Work Session and

“look at what that encompasses, that itself speaks volume as to how important the

Coleman Bridge is to not only Gloucester County but the surrounding localities”.         Ms.

Altemus inquired as to when the Board could expect to hear if they could legally change


      Mr. Whitley stated that he thought this was an issue for the Commonwealth

Transportation Board as opposed to a legal issue.

      Mrs. Ressler stated that she thought a good place to start would be the

Commonwealth Transportation Commission. She noted that we should get their thoughts

on this matter to see if they would even give this consideration.   Mrs. Ressler stated that

the Board should come up with a plan or steps on how this could be accomplished to

present to the Commission to prompt a more positive response. Mr. Whitley noted this was

a good suggestion.

      Mr. Stuck advised that this has only been done once, that anyone can remember ,in

Northern Virginia. Mr. Stuck noted that this would be a very difficult undertaking.      Ms.

Altemus noted that if the Board decided to go forth with this plan, it could also be

discussed at Mayors and Chairs.      She stated that it would be better to approach the

Board’s colleagues on the Peninsula for support before going to the Transportation

                               Thursday, October 28, 2004                              34
             Mr. Allen suggested that the Board give this further consideration.


             Mrs. Ressler advised that she would just like to encourage our citizens to vote

on November 2, 2004.

             Mrs. Altemus inquired if there was something that would inform the citizens

regarding the change of polling places. Mr. Whitley informed Ms. Altemus that it was in the



             On a motion by Ms. Altemus, seconded by Mr. Adams, and carried by

unanimous voice vote, the October 28, 2004 Board of Supervisors Work Session was


_______________________________            _________________________________________
Charles R. Allen, Jr., Chairman            William H. Whitley, County Administrator