Policy Committee Meeting Minutes April 15, 2013 · off of the parking area for the St.Michael Archangel High School, ... in a new Spotsylvania County Board ... Policy Committee Meeting

April 15, 2013 - FAMPO Policy Committee Meeting Minutes

Policy Committee Meeting Minutes April 15, 2013

http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/committees/policy-committee/ Members Present: Mr. Gary Skinner, Chair, Spotsylvania County Mr. Beverly Cameron, City of Fredericksburg Mr. Matt Kelly, City of Fredericksburg Mr. Doug Barnes, Spotsylvania County Mr. David Ross, Spotsylvania County Mr. Anthony Romanello, Stafford County Mr. Gary Snellings, Stafford County Mr. Cord Sterling, CTB Mr. Alfred Harf, Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC) Mr. Quintin Elliott, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Ms. Allison Richter, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Mr. Chris Arabia, Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) Others Present: Mr. Dan Grinnell, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Mr. Jim Ponticello, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Ms. Michelle Shropshire, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Mr. Craig Van Dussen, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Ms. Doris McLeod, VDEQ Mr. David Whyte, Kimley-Horn Ms. Kathy Beck, FRED Transit Ms. Wendy Kimbell, FRED Transit Ms. Fran Larkins, Transportation Advisory Group (TAG) Mr. Rupert Farley, Transportation Advisory Group (TAG) Mr. Scott Shenk, Free Lance Star Ms. Kate Gibson, UMW (Student) Mr. Josh Mallon, UMW (Student) Prior to the onset of the FAMPO Policy Committee meeting starting, there was a public involvement period and the following list are the names of the citizens in attendance who signed in: Michael Danaher, Resident of Spotsylvania County; Muriel May, Resident of Spotsylvania County; Steve May, Resident of Spotsylvania County; Jim Schott, Preserve Homeowner, Spotsylvania County; Shayneh Schott, Preserve HOA, Spotsylvania County; Elizabeth Stenstrom, Preserve HOA, Spotsylvania County; Dale Swanson, Resident of Spotsylvania County; R.K. Taubert, CSSA, Inc.; and Richard Thompson, Resident of Spotsylvania County Mr. Romanello asked that the following information be noted for the record that due to a family emergency late this afternoon that Mr. Milde was unable to be in attendance at tonight’s meeting.

http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/committees/policy-committee/

April 15, 2013 - FAMPO Policy Committee Meeting Minutes 2

Staff Members Present: Mr. Lloyd Robinson, FAMPO Administrator Mr. Tim Ware, GWRC Executive Director Ms. Diana Utz, GWRC Mr. Andy Waple, GWRC/FAMPO Mr. Rodney White, GWRC/FAMPO Mr. Danny Reese, GWRC/FAMPO Ms. Leigh Anderson, GWRC Ms. JoAnna Roberson, GWRC CALL FAMPO MEETING TO ORDER Chairman Gary Skinner called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM A quorum was present. APPROVAL OF FAMPO AGENDA A motion was made by Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Snellings to approve the agenda. The Board approved unanimously. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Mr. Jim Schott, who represents the HOA for the Augustine Preserve in Spotsylvania County, spoke. Mr. Schott stated that he was representing thirty-five families and homes and he was here tonight to talk about the Toll Road project. Mr. Schott stated that to date, since the adoption of the original plan, the Toll Road project is why the plan is not endorsed. Mr. Schott stated that when the discussion occurred in regard to the road going through the Preserve, that there were four other HOA representatives in attendance who represented over 1,800 homes that also spoke in opposition. Mr. Schott stated that the residents fought to get a traffic light installed at Single Oak Road. Mr. Schott stated that there are only two ways of getting in and out of their subdivision – one is Single Oak Road and the other is 5-Mile Road. Mr. Schott stated that the Toll Road project runs right through both of these streets. Mr. Schott stated that this project would effectively cut off any access. Mr. Schott stated that he went through the same action before in Fairfax County when the Fairfax County Parkway came into his housing community. Mr. Schott stated that the development of this Parkway caused his property values to go down in value by $75,000. Mr. Schott stated that at the time, he was also re-assigned by the military so this was a personal hit. Mr. Schott stated that when everyone talks about things having monetary effects, it truly has monetary effects. When you look at the access road and where it goes into the community, you are taking about 50’ off of the parking area for the St.Michael Archangel High School, which is also the school that runs all of the high school swim meets.


Mr. Schott stated that when you come through the other property, you then destroy the development aspect of the high school and its future needs. When the Preserve property was developed three years ago, no one was told about the possibility of a toll road project being developed at that site. Mr. Schott stated that he found out about the project by reading the Free Lance Star. Mr. Schott stated that he wanted to reinforce that Spotsylvania County does not want the Toll Road and asked how come the petition that was received in 2010 that contained over 400 signatures of opposition is not found anywhere. Mr. Schott also stated that there are no records where this item was ever scheduled for a public comment period. Mr. Schott stated that as a member of the US Army staff, that his job was re-alignment of the Army through the BRAC re-organization. In this job, he found out that there will always be problems and that things can always be re-worked for a better option. Mr. Schott asked when you look at this area and move forward, what are the other options. Being an analyst and driving around the area he has found right now that people are using River Road as a by-pass to Route 3. When you go out to the Chancellorsville Battlefields where River Road connects to Route 3 there is a back-up of about thirty cars every night at that traffic light. Instead of going through a new area, this Board needs to look at a way to utilize and expand on something already being used rather than building right through a new area. Mr. Schott stated that in relationship to this and to the UPWP this also falls into where the LRTP should be amended in going along with the GWTRA’s recommendation for a Toll Road project in Spotsylvania County. The Toll Road project is not a viable solution and should not be incorporated; however, he just offered a possible viable solution for consideration at River Road. Ms. Dale Swanson, Spotsylvania County resident also spoke. Ms. Swanson stated that she has lived in Spotsylvania County all of her life. She does not think the Toll Road project is good for the county and feels that Fredericksburg and Stafford will be the ones who receive all of the Toll Road benefits. Ms. Swanson stated that FAMPO’s goal is to gain consensus – this is not consensus when a project is rammed down the throats of those most affected and over the objections of the elected representatives. Ms. Swanson stated that the residents of Spotsylvania County have stated clearly that the Toll Road project from I-95 is not wanted and they desire for it to be cancelled. Ms. Swanson stated that there were over 400 signatures collected from those in opposition of the Toll Road project and these signatures have been ignored. Ms. Swanson stated that the Toll Road project will not help Spotsylvania County’s traffic problems on Route 3 and very well may make it worse. The Toll Road will not help to alleviate the traffic on Route 3. The people going up and down Route 3 through out the day for shopping, schools, Loriella Park, etc. will not be taking this toll road. The Toll Road would be a land grab to Spotsylvania County residents. Ms. Swanson stated that she has been a victim of land grab within the county. She stated that it has taken her eight years to get a settlement. Ms. Swanson stated that she had $100,000 in damages and did not even get enough from the settlement to fix her road. Ms. Swanson stated that the tolls would be paid largely by the Spotsylvania County residents which is another unfair burden to the citizens. Ms. Swanson stated that Spotsylvania County would never ask our elected officials to support something going through either the City of Fredericksburg of Stafford County


that their elected officials had stated clearly and had defined reasons that they did not want something that would not benefit their constituents. However, Ms. Swanson stated that this is what FAMPO has continually done to the Spotsylvania County representation since January of 2012. Ms. Swanson stated that the Toll Road project is a bad concept and the citizens of Spotsylvania County are asking that the Toll Road project be removed from occurring within Spotsylvania County. A third speaker spoke indicating that he has lived on River Road since 1978. He stated that he has opposed the Toll Road project from the onset. The data already depicts that even if built, it will become obsolete in 2030. The cons far exceed the pros. It was stated that the problem is that you are always chasing the development – if you are going to do something like this, then you need to be ahead of development. Obviously, the growth is occurring further out Route 3 towards Route 20. If something like this is going to happen, it will need to be something more similar to an Outer Connector, which he and others also were not in favor of in years back. He stated if your goal is to improve traffic off of Route 3, realizing that the exit off of I-95 for the Silver properties has to show that it also has to have positive impacts to Route 3 traffic in order to justify the project. He stated that this is just not going to happen and Spotsylvania County citizens have been telling everyone this over and over. He stated that he was quite surprised to see this even re-surface as he thought the $2 million dollars that had been assigned to this project had in fact been diverted elsewhere and the Toll Road project was in fact dead. He stated that it is still the feeling that if you are going to do something good for the community, you still have to be ahead of the development and not be chasing it. He stated that by 2030, the Toll Road will be obsolete and will have had minimal improvement impacts to the traffic on Route 3. The fourth speaker was Ms. Muriel May. Ms. May stated that she lives on River Road and she has been attending this meeting and other similar FAMPO and GWTRA meetings over the last two years. Ms. May stated that she has attended these meetings specifically to voice her concerns about the Spotsylvania County Toll Road project and the possibility of it still remaining within the LRTP. Ms. May stated that the community in Spotsylvania County voted in a new Spotsylvania County Board of Supervisors, perhaps as a result of the Spotsylvania County residents being ignored initially over the desire to not have a Toll Road project built in the county. Ms. May stated that in 2010 there was a petition submitted with over 400 signatures of residents who were expressing their opposition to the Toll Road project. Ms. May stated that some residents, going back to the original corridor study from fifteen years ago, asked for a study to be done further west on Route 3 to help reduce the congestion. At that time, the five corridors were not deemed as viable, yet one is quite similar, if not identical, that has now been resurrected again which she believes to be the toll road route. Ms. May stated that they were told it was taken off of the radar screen; however, now to be told it may be put back into the 2016 LRTP.


Ms. May stated that she realizes that FAMPO is a transportation policy committee so she is requesting that the study dollars be used elsewhere where it will be better used; or better yet, please do not use it at all but instead save it for our children and grandchildren. The fifth speaker was Ms. Fran Larkins. Ms. Larkins stated that she is a resident of Stafford County and is a member of the FAMPO TAG committee. However, Ms. Larkins advised that she is here tonight speaking for herself and not representing the TAG committee. Ms. Larkins stated it is understood why Spotsylvania County does not want the Toll Road project; however, this project has now been combined with getting the Route 17 access onto I-95 and the Rappahannock River Crossing project. Ms. Larkins stated that it is a shame that these two projects have been combined because now it leaves the residents on Route 17 in a bind. Ms. Larkins stated that she would just like to encourage FAMPO to remember the problems also on Route 17. The other thing that she would like to point out is that the time may be right again for re-evaluation of the Outer Connector project. Ms. Larkins stated that an Outer Connector project would in fact take care of all of the problems the region is experiencing so that we can plan ahead for the future. Ms. Larkins stated that she would like to see this item re-addressed as it was originally discussed fifteen years ago and she feels now that some opinions may have changed. The comment was made that unofficially, a possible solution has been reviewed with both Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Ross and the Outer Connector project possibly being re-considered would not be the same one from fifteen years ago. However, it would be an Outer Connector project that will be designed as one to get ahead of the growth. PUBLIC HEARING – DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM (UPWP) There were no public comments made in regard to the FY2013 UPWP. ACTION ITEMS

a.) Approval of Minutes of the FAMPO Meeting of March 18, 2013 – Mr. Lloyd Robinson Mr. Robinson stated the minutes included in tonight’s agenda packet have been revised since the agenda packet material was printed. Mr. Robinson advised that per request from Mr. Harf included in an e-mail that is included, that Mr. Harf requested some changes and edits on pages five and six of the FAMPO minutes from the March 18th meeting. Mr. Robinson also advised that an e-mail correspondence received from Ms. Doris McLeod with DEQ is also attached. Ms. McLeod had requested clarification of statements made by her from page seventeen of the FAMPO minutes from the March 18th meeting. Mr. Robinson advised that staff had received no additional requests for minute revisions. Mr. Sterling stated that he was not at the last meeting; however, noticed a number of comments made by Mr. Ross including that it was not his intent to put Mr. Sterling on the spot as he was absent. Mr. Sterling


stated that he is in attendance tonight and that Mr. Ross can in fact put him on the spot. Mr. Sterling asked the chairman to articulate if this is the appropriate time within tonight’s meeting to proceed. Mr. Ross stated that his first question was how did the $2 million dollars get moved to FY2016. Mr. Ross stated that he thought this would not have happened. Mr. Ross stated that he thought that VDOT and the CTB are the actual boards that move these funds and asked if this was correct. Mr. Ross stated that his point is that as Mr. Sterling is a member of the CTB and that he is sure that the CTB would defer to Mr. Sterling for anything happening in this region. Mr. Ross stated that the only reason the money got moved was because of Mr. Sterling’s participation and membership with the CTB. Mr. Ross stated that this was the only comment he had previously made at the March meeting; however, if Mr. Sterling wanted to clarify on how the money got moved, or his actions for doing so, etc. Mr. Sterling stated that it was his recommendation to the full CTB board and to the resource staff of VODT as we put together the draft form to be submitted to the CTB that the funding be moved for several years out. Mr. Sterling stated that this was done per your request and per request of the Spotsylvania County Board of Supervisors. Mr. Sterling stated that the project was opposed and indications were that another alternative project was going to be presented. Mr. Sterling stated his instructions to the staff were to give Spotsylvania County time to find an alternative project that would in fact be brought back before the MPO. Mr. Sterling stated that right now there is a huge problem that involves the entire network. Mr. Sterling stated he hears Route 17 mentioned; Route 3 mentioned; the Rappahannock River Crossing project mentioned; etc. Mr. Sterling stated that for him personally, coming from DC to the meeting tonight, that his longest portion of the commute was south of Centreport Parkway to Route 3. Mr. Sterling stated that traffic was backed up and it does have an impact. Mr. Sterling stated that the models reflect this and that we do have to find a solution. This particular toll road project is one that had been submitted before he (Mr. Sterling) was on the CTB. It has been in the LRTP as decided and determined. However, Mr. Sterling stated that he now understands that the Spotsylvania County Board of Supervisors wants this removed from the draft 2040 LRTP. Mr. Sterling stated that in deference to the request and desire to see a change he directed staff to move the allocated funding out for a couple of years to finish up the environmental study and to give Spotsylvania County time to deliver an alternative solution. Mr. Sterling stated that the alternative needed to be a viable one that would solve the transportation problems within the network. Mr. Sterling stated that the county has one year and different concepts and proposals were discussed at tonight’s public hearing. Mr. Sterling stated that he would suggest that if the County is able to identify an alternative solution that meets the transportation needs; if you are able to secure the agreement and support from the other communities involved; (even though the needed support would come from outside of this MPO); if the battlefields are not effected; and if the Culpeper MPO also supports the said project as well as all other affected parties, then he is more than willing and more than anxious and more than ready to put in an Outer Connector project request.


Mr. Sterling stated that he was giving Spotsylvania County a challenge to provide data to this Board. Mr. Ross stated that he has seen many ideas and then a new idea is not ever even brought back before the Board. Mr. Ross stated that for the record, he has not ever asked for money that includes a Toll Road project in Spotsylvania County to be applied to a toll road that goes through the Courtland District in Spotsylvania County to move forward to FY2016. Mr. Sterling stated that Spotsylvania requested time to find an alternative. Mr. Ross stated, yes, requested time to find an alternative but not time to be devoted to the Toll Road project. Mr. Ross stated that from January 2012 until now, opposition to the Toll Road project has been continually been said with a no vote that Spotsylvania County which did not support the portion of the toll road project going through Spotsylvania County. Mr. Ross stated that the Spotsylvania Board of Supervisors does not think it is going to work and they have made this perfectly clear. Mr. Ross stated that he has already brought back several alternatives to the MPO, which have been rejected. Mr. Ross stated that what he would offer is that he, Mr. Sterling and Mr. Elliott could meet with Bryce Reeves and with Orange County to discuss the alternatives. Mr. Ross stated that he has brought these alternative ideas to this Board and they have been rejected. Mr. Sterling asked Mr. Robinson if this MPO has any authority over a project outside of this MPO’s jurisdiction which he believes the preferred alternative is to move it outside of this MPO. Mr. Ross stated that this does not mean that an item cannot be discussed. Mr. Sterling concurred but to his knowledge that this body has neither accepted nor rejected any alternative proposal. Mr. Robinson stated that the alternative in question has never been brought to the MPO for discussion. Mr. Ross stated that he most certainly has – that he brought in a map, etc. in 2012. Mr. Robinson stated that this presentation was brought before the GWTRA board but not before the MPO. Mr. Ross stated that this was incorrect and that he had in fact made the presentation to both GWTRA and to the MPO. Mr. Ross stated as the GWTRA Board, composed of the same membership as this Board, has rejected the alternative. Mr. Robinson asked for clarification on which board actually rejected the alternative – the GWTRA or the MPO. Mr. Ross stated that both boards had rejected it. Mr. Sterling stated that he has absolutely no problem with an alternative solution that solves the problems and that he is anxious to see such a project secured. Mr. Ross stated that maybe they could meet soon off-line because that seems to be the way things are conducted. Mr. Sterling stated that he would be more than willing and able to meet whenever a time was scheduled. Mr. Robinson stated that FAMPO was asked to model Mr. Ross’s alternative idea. The results of this were given to Mr. Ross and there has not been a request from Mr. Ross for the item to be agendaized here.

A motion was made by Mr. Kelly and seconded by Mr. Snellings to approve the minutes of the FAMPO meeting of March 18, 2013. The Board approved unanimously.


b.) Approval of FAMPO Resolution No. 13-07, Adoption of the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) for the George Washington Region – Mr. Lloyd Robinson

Mr. Robinson advised that adoption of Resolution No. 13-07 was tabled at the March meeting with a request that it be brought back to the April meeting for adoption. Mr. Robinson stated that one of the components was the splitting of the Route 17/I-95 Rappahannock River Crossing project and the new Interchange/Toll Road project. Mr. Robinson stated that a series of questions were asked at the March meeting and he was directed to send the questions to VDOT for explanation. Mr. Robinson stated that the questions have been answered by VDOT representatives and are included with tonight’s agenda packet materials. Mr. Skinner asked if any member at tonight’s meeting had any additional questions. Mr. Ross stated that the question he has is in regard to question number three where it says the GWTRA would be responsible for any pay backs. Mr. Ross stated that this was always a concern for Spotsylvania County; however, on a different issue. Mr. Ross stated the concern was if the Toll Road project failed, then who would be responsible for re-payment. Mr. Ross stated that as the GWTRA has no funds, then how does this work. Mr. Elliott stated that the agreement VDOT has in regard to the Toll Road project is in fact an agreement with GWTRA. Mr. Elliott stated that legally he does not know who is responsible should any pay-backs be required. Mr. Robinson stated that he is not an attorney; however, the GWTRA signed the agreement for the project and not for the study. Mr. Robinson stated that if there is a pay-back required, then it will become the responsibility of the GWTRA. Mr. Robinson stated that to date, the only money expended on this project is the EA work that VDOT has completed. Mr. Ross stated that it was his understanding that now the EA work has been discontinued. Mr. Elliott stated that due to the lack of commitment from the region on the project as a whole (I95 improvements, new interchange, toll road), the current efforts toward an environmental document have been put on hold and re-scoped to focus on I95 improvements only. Mr. Robinson asked Mr. Elliott what is the magnitude of the expenditures to date. Mr. Elliott stated that right now it appears that the amount that has been spent is $360,000. Mr. Robinson stated that if the Toll Road project does not move forward, but the Rappahannock River Crossing project does, then his question is that if a portion of the entire project is moving forward then why would a pay-back be required. Mr. Elliott stated that the project in its entirety is not moving forward so therefore the portion that is moving forward would need to have FHWA endorsement. FHWA would have to acknowledge that the portion of work on I-95 is part of it and that VDOT is in fact able to salvage those expenditures. Mr. Elliott stated however, that if any work was deemed to be solely associated with the Toll Road portion, then there would possibly be a pay-back required. Mr. Ross stated that his question still remains – how does GWTRA pay it back when GWTRA has no funds. Mr. Elliott stated it goes back to legally how the GWTRA is comprised and who likely could be held liable. Mr. Ross stated that he was a member of GWTRA and he has thoroughly read and become familiar with the By-laws of GWTRA and there is nothing in there that mentions pay-backs, reimbursements, or funding.


Mr. Ross stated that a follow-up to this item, on the same bullet #3, the $360,778 when mentioning pay-back as part of the IJR. Mr. Elliott stated that he felt the GWTRA would need to re-convene to discuss this issue. Mr. Elliott stated that the toll road authority is still a legal entity and they would need to discuss how this would be handled. Mr. Ross stated that out of the $360,778 amount, wasn’t $200,000 of this money donated to the Toll Road Authority. Mr. Robinson stated that the total expenditures for the study of the IJR was more than $600,000 and that state and federal funds only have been expended on the EA. Mr. Robinson stated that the IJR was a study and was not a project or a phase of a project and that it is his understanding that these fees are not subject to pay-backs. Mr. Elliott stated again that VDOT would have to re-evaluate what could be salvaged and then FHWA would be the entity who would determine if a pay-back and the amount accordingly would be. Mr. Robinson stated that for another point of clarification – not regarding pay-backs but in regard to the project being split into two different projects. Mr. Robinson stated that it his understanding that both an MPO or VDOT could decide to split a project into two separate projects. If the LRTP is approved tonight as is, then the MPO will split the original project into two separate projects. However, to actually build it, FHWA would have to acknowledge that they are also in agreement of the revisions. Mr. Robinson stated that if FHWA approved, then a study of independent utilities would have to be completed, just like we are doing currently with the Jackson Gateway project. Mr. Elliott stated that as the project has not been cancelled through the GWTRA, then there is still a viable agreement to construct a project that includes both the I-95 and Toll Road projects. Mr. Robinson asked Mr. Elliott if he was suggesting that a meeting be scheduled with the GWTRA. Mr. Elliott stated that in some fashion the GWTRA needs to state that they are requesting to be relieved of the original agreement. After this has been completed, then VDOT would go back and address any other issues associated with it. Mr. Robinson stated that as there are members at the MPO tonight who are also members of the GWTRA committee and if it is the desire for him to advise members accordingly, prepare a proposed agenda, and schedule a meeting with GWTRA that he will be happy to comply. Mr. Barnes stated that he has two questions for clarification. One is that the GWTRA needs to meet and take a formal action to cancel the original agreement. Mr. Elliott concurred. Mr. Barnes stated that his second question is that if any money would be required to pay back funds used to date on the Toll Road study that FHWA would be the agency who would make decision on this process. Mr. Elliott again concurred. Mr. Barnes asked how long this process takes. Mr. Elliott stated that he does not know how long the process could take as it involves other agencies and other moving parts to the total process. Mr. Elliott stated that should the CTB in its next update of the Six-Year Plan choose to include a portion of the project, then this would have an effect. So until the Six-Year Plan is adopted, answers to these questions remain unknown at this time. Mr. Barnes stated that from Spotsylvania County’s perspective, it is a moving target and he is just trying to understand the sequence of events and potential consequences of what happens with all of the components. Mr. Barnes stated that a bullet-recap of the results of if the Toll Road project is cancelled then


regarding the obligation of monies already spent and who would be responsible would be an important document for discussion with his Board. Mr. Sterling stated again to Spotsylvania County – get an agreement; get an alternative with all parties endorsing; get this submitted before the 2016 time frame; and then if FHWA requires a pay back that he will recommend that VDOT or the State cover whatever expenses have already been incurred. Mr. Ross stated that there are three members of GWTRA in the room tonight. Mr. Ross stated that GWTRA basically shut itself down because there was a defining moment where the purpose of the GWTRA was defined. Mr. Ross stated that this was not his purpose of the GWTRA. However, it was the consensus of the majority on the committee that the purpose of the GWTRA was to only be a financial tool to implement what FAMPO wanted to do. Mr. Ross stated that it was the consensus that if FAMPO did not have any ideas, then GWTRA would not re-convene. Mr. Ross stated secondly that this opened a can of worms because with his time serving on the GWTRA that for Spotsylvania County, the Toll Road project almost caused his locality to pull out of membership on the GWTRA. Mr. Ross stated that it was his understanding that should the Toll Road project fail, then Spotsylvania County, Stafford County, and the City of Fredericksburg would be responsible for the reimbursement of a $400 million dollar road-way project. Mr. Skinner stated that if every study that did not go through required reimbursement then the localities would have been consistently paying back funding that had already been expended. Mr. Sterling stated that the reimbursement requirement came to be as a result of the new laws that were passed last July. Mr. Ross asked as this project was in the works prior to last July would it not be grandfathered in. Mr. Sterling stated that he saw none presented at the CTB that were covered with a grandfather clause. Mr. Sterling stated that if the Toll Road project had actually been cancelled before the new laws went into effect then the new law would not have been applicable. Mr. Snellings stated that FAMPO was actually cancelling a project that was deemed to be feasible. Mr. Sterling concurred. Mr. Snellings stated that there was a difference in a non-feasible project versus a feasible project. If there is a non-feasible project, then no one pays back because it became a project that you could not do anyway. However, with a feasible study moving forward and then an individual locality cancels the project, then he thinks reimbursement from the locality would in fact be expected. Mr. Skinner stated that he thinks the MPO definitely needs to get these questions answered and asked who we go to get the answers. Mr. Elliott stated it is still all hypothetical until determination is made on the Six-Year Plan. Mr. Elliott stated that if a portion of the original project becomes a part of the Six-Year Plan, then this changes the amount of money that may have to be paid back and/or if any monies at all will have to be paid back. Mr. Elliott stated that the Code of Virginia clearly states that if a locality (in this case, the GWTRA) cancels a project then they would be responsible for paying back any allocated funding previously utilized. Mr. Ross stated that even though it has been awhile; however, he has read the legislation that established the GWTRA several times. Mr. Ross stated that he has also read and reviewed the By-Laws and MOU’s for the GWTRA.


Mr. Ross stated that there is nothing stipulated in these agreements that forces a locality to pay in to it. As the GWTRA organization has no funding source other than what is contributed from the City and surrounding counties he does not see how the GWTRA could be held liable. Mr. Elliott stated this specific code reference is not reflected within the specific documents that Mr. Ross referred to. However, they are reflective in the responses provided by VDOT staff and staff refers to Section 33.1.1.2. Mr. Elliott stated that this code section is a separate section of the State Code that deals with any locality within the State of Virginia and their liabilities accordingly. Mr. Ross stated that he understands this; however, he does not believe that there are any agreements that Spotsylvania County has with the GWTRA that provides a document that forces Spotsylvania County to pay into membership on the GWTRA Board. Mr. Robinson stated that looking at the summary of Senate Bill 10-75 which he believes Mr. Elliott is referring to. Mr. Robinson stated that this was approved by the Governor in Chapter 3-88 and was effective on July 1st of 2012. Mr. Robinson stated the category in question is included under the “Transportation Projects and Planning Reimbursement of VDOT by localities.” Mr. Robinson stated that the summary requires a locality to re-pay VDOT when a said locality has requested termination of a project and the department does not agree with the termination. Mr. Robinson stated that the summary also states that liability is incurred should either a locality or an MPO not advance a previously agreed on project. Mr. Robinson stated that the Senate Bill also expands the step before a locality requests alternatives to a project to include the design phase approval by the chief engineer. Mr. Elliott stated that there was an additional law that was also passed last year. Mr. Robinson stated that that it was his understanding that the additional law was for projects and not for planning. Mr. Kelly stated that we are talking about a 2040 Plan and a legal interpretation and as no one at the table are attorneys, then he would like to express a comment coming from a different direction. Mr. Kelly said to take a look at the Toll Road component. The reason the Toll Road component came up is because we (a number of officials at that time including officials from Spotsylvania County) realized that there was no chance of getting a significant regional project completed under the current dynamics for funding. It was a new way to try and advance a project outside of the normal process. If we had gone with the normal process, the project would not have gone anywhere and would not even be on the project list. Mr. Kelly stated that these are the dynamics facing the region, in that there is very little funding available. Because of this, the region as a whole needs to become more creative and more innovative which strictly speaks to the tool of the Toll Road as an option. Mr. Kelly stated that every project that is included in the 2040 LRTP affects another one and each have cascading effects from locality to locality. The 2040 LRTP is a model that depicts the best way to move traffic throughout the region. Mr. Kelly stated that the reason that Corridor 5 was originally selected from all of the past discussions held on the original Outer Connector project was that it had the least amount of impact to property owners, to businesses, to the environment and to historical concerns. Mr. Kelly stated that to take this to another level, when land grab was referenced to in tonight’s Public Hearing, if you plan to go out to Route 20 and around Route 20 and back to I-95 you are looking at more than land grabs.


Mr. Kelly stated that building a road from I-95 to Route 20 and bringing it back down would not occur in anyone’s lifetime sitting at the table tonight. Mr. Kelly also stated that the Route 20 proposal is a variation of the Outer Connector discussion. Mr. Kelly stated that he again does not ever see an Outer Connector materializing in anyone’s life time at the table tonight. However, even though as it is now contemplated to heading out west of Spotsylvania County towards Route 20, that this will be great for the I-95 traffic. However, it is not the cure for transportation issues that involve regional traffic congestion. With all of this being said, the Toll Road project was viewed as the best alternative with what could be done to separate residential traffic from commercial traffic through a very congested Route 3 corridor. Mr. Kelly stated that he is not asking for concurrence or endorsement with his statements but is just trying to point out what has been discussed in regard to the project. This project in Spotsylvania County would also feed into and impact accordingly the City of Fredericksburg and the County of Stafford. Mr. Kelly stated that some alternatives that have been expressed may not directly impact your neighborhood but it will impact someone else’s and then these citizens will be expressing the same concerns that have been stated here tonight. Mr. Kelly stated that he has no problem in listening to citizen concerns; in looking at other alternatives for a better solution that can be workable and attainable. However, he does have a problem in simply removing a project within a LRTP because it goes through a specific neighborhood. Mr. Kelly stated that this type of mindset does not get the region headed in the direction it needs to be going. Mr. Kelly stated that the question is if the MPO can come up with an alternative that meets the region’s needs, that fits into the LRTP, and that moves the traffic, then he is all ready to listen. At which time this comes to be, we can then remove the existing project and replace it with the new alternative. Mr. Kelly recommended that the MPO adopt the 2040 LRTP as it is with the understanding and agreement that when the alternatives are presented, reviewed, discussed, studied and agreed to, that the MPO at that time removes the existing Toll Road project and replaces it with the project deemed most workable for the MPO. Mr. Sterling stated he was expanding on Mr. Kelly’s comments. Right now, it appears that there is only one project in the LRTP that has caused concern and disagreement. This specific project is not even slated to move forward until 2016. This means there is time. There should be an intent on those who are requesting alternatives to provide them accordingly. Mr. Sterling stated that he too recommends that the MPO adopt the 2040 LRTP tonight as it is and to then begin finding alternatives and securing agreements. Mr. Ross stated that he would like to make comments to statements made by Mr. Kelly. Mr. Ross stated that at the last MPO meeting that Mr. Kelly raised the voice of the Route 20 alternative not even coming before him. For the record, this is not the first time this discussion started. The discussion started in January 2012 and for whatever reason as we go back to the prior board in Spotsylvania County; as well as the dynamics of funding this project; there are now 400 signatures voicing opposition that have been ignored and disregarded. This is a function of the prior board as well that have now resulted in new elections with new representation that he feels has been ignored over the past year. Mr. Ross stated that the committee talks about bringing new ideas forward for discussion, yet the GWTRA is listed just as a financial tool.


Mr. Ross stated that when talking about land grabs, he knows that in Stafford County’s Transportation Plan the Berea Parkway that starts at Exit 136 and comes all the way down there is no additional land grab there. Mr. Ross stated that Spotsylvania County has looked at homes going all the way down Highway Route 20 which is only ten miles out of Route 3 and it actually is possible not too even take one home. Especially in Culpeper County as this portion of that county is not heavily populated within this area at all. Mr. Ross stated that there used to be a ferry road on both sides of Stafford County and Culpeper County that has the same name so he is sure at some point a long time ago there was also a ferry crossing at the same point. Mr. Ross stated that the other point he would like to make in regard to the widening of River Road and if you already have cars backed up with thirty in length. Mr. Ross stated that he knows this is not the answer but understands why some think that way. A lot of people are driving River Road and that is a dangerous road. This is why we need something else. The people in Spotsylvania County here tonight are not saying they do not like it because it is in their back yard but instead are saying they do not like it because it is going to dump more traffic onto Gordon Road without solving any of the current traffic issues. Mr. Ross stated that an independent design by T-3 Design, who was a sub-contractor with the Michael Baker Association’s study, who went forward with the IJR, clearly pointed this out and he hopes someone other than himself has taken the time to read and review this document. Mr. Ross stated to address another point in regard to the dynamics of funding. For Spotsylvania County, if this were ever built, the funding for tolls will primarily be coming from Spotsylvania County residents and not people who are visiting the battlefields. Again, Mr. Ross stated that he feels the shoulders and entire weight of this project to include land grab and funding with tolls being assessed will be assessed on the residents of Spotsylvania County. Mr. Ross stated that this is not even mentioning that it is 2.7 miles out Route 3; not to mention that since the traffic lights have been re-timed on Route only caused an eight minute traffic time save that you will not save much time anyway. However, he does think a By-Pass to Route 20 needs to be looked at. Mr. Ross stated that Option 5 from the original Outer Connector project from fifteen years ago was the worst option listed for each of the scenarios presented. Mr. Ross stated that we need to look ahead and if you do something that is ten miles out on Route 3 it will help to relieve the region’s traffic issues; it will help Stafford County; it will help the Route 3 traffic; it will help with the congestion in Fredericksburg because it all piles up on itself. Mr. Ross stated that he would recommend that the committee flip these projects and be split accordingly and whoever has to pay any funds back would be sorted out a later time if in fact reimbursements are due to VDOT. Mr. Harf stated that he thinks it would be instructive for Mr. Robinson to clarify what the approval of the 2040 LRTP signifies with regard to the Toll Road project in its split fashion. Mr. Harf also stated that he thinks the MPO needs to know what approvals would be required in post-dating the adoption of the 2040 LRTP. Mr. Harf stated that he thinks that some in the room harbor the view that by approving the 2040 LRTP tonight that the MPO is making a final determination about some element involving the Toll Road project. Mr. Robinson stated that by adopting the 2040 LRTP as submitted, the Toll Road project is in the Plan just as a study only. There is a million dollars of funding allocated within the first bracket to be dispersed in 2016. Now, the CTB can decide to put that money in or not put it in.


Mr. Robinson stated that the first approval step would need to come from the CTB who would need to stipulate that the money should be spent on the Toll Road project and then to make it available accordingly. Beyond that, in order for VDOT to split the project into two separate projects, you would need to approve the independent utility with FHWA which would be the second step in the approval process. Mr. Robinson stated that then the third step in the approval process would be an entire design and environmental process for the Toll Road project which has to prove its own independent utility which he doubts it could do. Mr. Robinson stated that if it could be proven, you would then need an entire environmental and design process with either CTB or local funding; then approval for right-of-way funding; and then finally to construction funding. Mr. Robinson stated that at the last meeting people stated that the cost of the Rest Area Access project was going to $400 million dollars as if that were a fact. However, the estimated project cost is $300 million dollars per the IJR. Part of this amount is for the Rappahannock River Crossing project and part is for the new interchange and the Toll Road project. Mr. Robinson stated that it was never established by the IJR, by FAMPO, by the GWTRA, etc. as to what the toll road user fees would be; it was never established as a matter of policy with VDOT and the CTB on the overall project on how much would come from state federal funds and how much would come from the tolls. Mr. Robinson stated that all of this still remains, if ever, to be discussed. Mr. Robinson stated that staff had $10 million dollars to enter into design and environmental and as part of the design process, staff wanted to do an investment grade analysis to answer some of the questions that some think have already been answered – i.e. where the road will go; what the toll rate will be; how much could bonds realistically support the project; etc. Mr. Robinson stated that all of these things would need to be answered by all with the CTB endorsement and also with the local by-in and FAMPO endorsement. Mr. Harf asked Mr. Robinson what would be the downsize risk of delaying the approval tonight of the 2040 LRTP. Mr. Robinson stated that if not approved, it will cripple the region’s ability to spend federal funding dollars allocated at all. Mr. Skinner asked a question to Mr. Elliott. When the new Spotsylvania Board members came on and they did not want the Toll Road project included within the 2040 LRTP and therefore they voted accordingly at which point any progression on that project was then stopped. Is this correct? Mr. Elliott stated that as GWTRA took no action to cancel the project, then VDOT continued to proceed. Mr. Skinner stated that he thought there was a need for a unanimous and complete vote to continue with the road and Spotsylvania County did not want this included within the Plan. Mr. Ross stated that there was never anything that stipulated a unanimous vote. Mr. Sterling stated that the big thing for Spotsylvania County is that if you have to go to condemnation and to the GWTRA was the organization building it, it would have been the localities involved, independent within their own plans to stipulate so in that regard it could have become a unanimous decision. Mr. Ross said to Mr. Skinner that he may have been told this information off-line that this was the case; however, that was never official. Mr. Skinner stated that here is the question he has. If Stafford did not want something in the Plan where it was stated it would not fix their problem and they therefore did not


want it, obviously the GWTRA could still have pursued it. However, from Spotsylvania’s perspective, the hope was that the GWTRA would not in fact pursue and that VDOT would also not come in and build a project where a locality did not want it. Mr. Skinner stated that he understands that Spotsylvania County is only a piece of the pie; and that everything is contingent on other projects. Mr. Skinner stated that Spotsylvania does not want to take anything away from the Rappahannock River Crossing project or from Route 17. Mr. Skinner stated that he does not want to take anything away from either the City or Stafford; however, he also needs to support the Spotsylvania Board’s request in that the Toll Road project is not at a point where it is needed. Mr. Skinner stated that the majority of the Spotsylvania Board of Supervisors supports the feelings that the Toll Road project is not the solution at this time. Mr. Skinner asked if the project is split tonight does it hurt us in regard to federal monies. Mr. Sterling stated that if you split the project and then cancel the Spotsylvania portion, then there is the potential financial liability associated with it. Mr. Sterling stated that if you split it for the sake of splitting it, then the project is actually not at this time cancelled. Mr. Skinner asked who actually will ultimately vote to remove the Toll Road project – would it be FAMPO or GWTRA? Mr. Ross stated that he believes it would be FAMPO. You can take it off of the 2040 LRTP but keep in place the Stafford and Fredericksburg portions. This would take changes; however, Spotsylvania County had the same thing occur with the Jackson Gateway study. Mr. Ross stated that the Jackson Gateway project in its entirety would not get funded so Spotsylvania paid $25,000 for a revised study that Stafford County did not support; however, Spotsylvania is thankful that the City did endorse. Mr. Ross stated that right now the GWTRA only has the ability to charge $1.00 or less under the current State Legislations. Mr. Ross stated that where these revenues would go would be two alternatives which are less than 300 yards apart at the widest points in Spotsylvania County. Mr. Ross stated that the FAMPO charter is to build consensus. Mr. Ross stated that he feels if this Board does not split this project to vote on cancelling the project through Spotsylvania County that the friction that has existed since he joined the MPO and the GWTRA Boards will continue to exist; even though he would like it not too. Mr. Ross stated that he is not asking to scuttle the LRTP; not asking it to effect anything in Stafford County or the City of Fredericksburg; but he would never dream of doing this if other locality representatives did not want a project coming through their locality but the Board said we are going to vote on it anyway so he would ask for the same consideration for Spotsylvania County. Mr. Sterling reiterated and would make the suggestion again that as the funding is in 2016; there are three years to put forth and deliver an alternative; that nothing happens during this time frame; that no road will be built or designed; that no money will be expended; and that all work requested previously by VDOT will cease. Mr. Sterling stated that he feels if the Board votes to either split or cancel the project tonight, even though he is recommending that the Board not do this, that it is the misconception that on July 1st the bull dozers will arrive. Mr. Sterling stated that this simply is not the case. Mr. Sterling stated that the engineers will not arrive nor will any designs be made.


Mr. Sterling stated that he thought time would be better spent on finding an alternative solution that will in fact solve the problem; rather than continuing to dwell on an issue within the Plan that will not even be initiated until 2016. Mr. Ross stated that if he felt the road made sense and that it would really solve traffic issues that he would concur with Mr. Sterling completely. However, he does not think that it will be the answer. By dumping traffic at the Gordon Road intersection, 2.7 miles west of Route 3, is not a solution to the traffic needs. Mr. Snellings stated that in regard to Mr. Sterling’s points, in 2004 FAMPO killed the Outer Connector project which is a reason why we are in the situation we are in today. The Outer Connector was killed without bringing an alternative back to the table. When that vote was made, even though at the time he was not on FAMPO, but he remembers it vividly. All of those against the project breathed a sigh of relief and went home. Now, here we are again ten years later, with a population that has doubled, and no alternative was ever brought back to the table for discussion and review. Mr. Snellings stated when you look at the LRTP, you have to look at one thing – in 2040 where across the region the population will be 600,000 people. Route 17 is already at a level of service grade of “F” and with all due respect to Spotsylvania County, he is not going to vote for anything that will jeopardize the Rappahannock River Crossing project as Stafford County has got to have it. Mr. Snellings stated that he understands the ramifications of property owners losing homes as his son experienced the same thing when Stafford County put in the Airport Interchange; his mother’s front yard went into her back yard and she lost every neighbor she had and now she sets on an island, so he does understand first-hand the feelings from property owners. However, Mr. Snellings stated that the region needs to make some tough decisions. Mr. Snellings stated that after finding out at the last meeting that with splitting the project it could impact Route 17, that there is no way he can support the request for it to be split. Mr. Snellings stated that he agrees with Mr. Sterling and that we need to move forward; and we need to come up with a viable alternative within the next three years. Mr. Snellings stated that once these two things are agreed on that he would readily support the new discussion being brought to the table. Mr. Skinner asked if we keep the Plan as it is now, can Spotsylvania County be assured 100% that no additional funding will go towards a study, etc. for the Toll Road project. Mr. Sterling stated that he has no intention on moving anything forward on the Toll Road portion of the project but instead will be focusing all efforts onto the Rappahannock River Crossing project. Mr. Elliott also stated that VDOT has stopped all work on the Toll Road portion of the project. VDOT will not be initiating any additional work unless so directed by the CTB with results that money is being allocated on the project accordingly for it in fact to be moved forward. Mr. Kelly stated that the realization for the City of Fredericksburg is that within the City’s 10.4 square miles there is very little that can or will be done that will have an effect on anything else within the region. For the City, it comes down to what is happening in both Spotsylvania and Stafford counties. The City has maintained that attitude regionally to ensure that everything continues to move for the region. Mr. Skinner re-caped and stated that if the 2040 LRTP is approved tonight as it is, then there is the assurance that up to 2016 the Toll Road portion of the project will neither continue nor have funding allocated; that


the 2040 LRTP can be amended at any time; and that Spotsylvania County will bring a viable alternative to the table for study and review within the next three years. Mr. Ross stated that the MPO can also pass the 2040 LRTP tonight with the project being split without it jeopardizing anything for either the City or Stafford and the only amendment would be the removal of the Toll Road project within Spotsylvania County. Mr. Ross commented on a statement made by Mr. Snellings in that fifteen years ago FAMPO cancelled the Outer Connector project and it is funny to him that what was cancelled is still on the table. Mr. Ross stated that he will continue to strive to get a viable alternative for the traffic solutions because he does care about both the traffic on Route 3 and the traffic concerns for the region. Mr. Ross stated that even fifteen years later, the Toll Road portion is still viewed as being the least desirable option from the original Outer Connector concept. Mr. Ross reiterated again that if he thought the project makes sense for Spotsylvania County then he would love to keep it on the books. Mr. Ross stated that this project simply does not do that. Mr. Ross stated that the population data received for Spotsylvania County has the schools flat-lined. Spotsylvania County has experienced a 300 student decrease in enrollment since 2009. All of this is based off of forecasting, analytical data, and a federal sequestering of 17 trillion dollars in debt. Mr. Ross stated that the thing that brings people to the area are mostly federal jobs. We are the second highest federal employee state in the union; with California being number one. Mr. Ross stated that he does not think if you look at population trends across the United States then they are actually decreasing and not increasing. So, all of the forecasting of a doubled population may not actually come to a creation either. Mr. Ross stated that he completely agrees with keeping the project on the books if it makes sense. However, it does not – it is 2.7 miles out, in a fifteen year ago plan that was cancelled and to date in 2013, it still does not make sense. Mr. Ross asked that the committee adopt the 2040 LRTP tonight and to remove the Toll Road portion of the Plan within Spotsylvania County from Gordon Road from the Plan. Mr. Sterling stated that one thing to note that seems to not be fully articulated and completely understood is that these projects are all related in terms of I-95 being the central point. At Route 17, if it is putting people onto I-95 then it is backed up because people cannot get off of I-95 at Route 3 because ultimately Route 3 is backed up then this alternative does not help or vice-versa. Mr. Sterling stated that they are all related and the solution would have to be able to accommodate and to take the transportation to improve the current level of service ratings. Mr. Sterling stated that he understands that the feeling from Spotsylvania County is that the Toll Road portion of the project will not advance the region to a solution. However, he stated that the models and studies have actually shown the reverse. Mr. Sterling stated that this also does not mean they are correct as they are simply models and perhaps the models are in fact wrong. However, there are differences of opinions in regard to the transportation values of it. Mr. Sterling stated that this is not an isolated project and cancelling it does have impacts regionally for outside of what people are taking into consideration.


Mr. Kelly stated that a lot of discussion had occurred tonight and he feels that it is time to vote accordingly. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve Resolution 13-07 for adoption of the 2040 LRTP for the George Washington Region. Mr. Snellings seconded the motion. Mr. Ross made a motion for approval of a substitute motion which was to approve Resolution 13-07, for adoption of the 2040 LRTP for the George Washington Region with the removal of the Spotsylvania Toll Road project from the Plan. Mr. Barnes seconded the substitute motion. Mr. Skinner called for vote on the amended motion. Mr. Kelly asked that this was for adoption of the 2040 LRTP with the Toll Road project removed from the Plan. Mr. Skinner concurred. Mr. Barnes asked for a roll-call vote. This motion was not approved with a vote count of 3-yes; 5-no; & 1 abstain and the vote count is as follows: David Ross - Yes Al Harf - Abstain Matt Kelly - No Bev Cameron - No Quintin Elliott - No Gary Snellings - No Doug Barnes - Yes Anthony Romanello - No Gary Skinner - Yes Mr. Skinner stated that now the vote would be taken on the original motion which is adoption of the 2040 LRTP as it is currently submitted. This motion was approved with a vote count of 6-yes; & 3 no and the vote count is as follows: David Ross - No Al Harf - Yes Matt Kelly - Yes Bev Cameron - Yes Quintin Elliott - Yes Gary Snellings - Yes Doug Barnes - No Anthony Romanello - Yes Gary Skinner - No b.) Approval of FAMPO Resolution No. 13-12, Amending the Fiscal Year 2013 Unified Planning Work

Program (UPWP) – Mr. Lloyd Robinson Mr. Robinson advised that Resolution No. 13-12 Amending the Fiscal Year 2013 Unified Planning Work Program had been presented to the Policy Committee before at previous meetings. The Resolution is requesting approval of a minor accounting error within the FY2013 UPWP. As there was a funding deficit of approximately $30,000, staff is required to go through the amended process. Mr. Robinson advised that a Public Hearing and Public Comment period was held and there were no comments received. Mr. Robinson stated that both the Technical Committee and TAG, as well as staff, have reviewed and request approval from the Policy Committee.


Upon motion by Mr. Kelly and seconded by Mr. Snellings, with all in favor, Resolution No. 13-12 was unanimously adopted by the FAMPO Policy Committee. c.) Approval of FAMPO Resolution No. 13-13, Adoption of Fiscal Years 2014-2019 Congestion Mitigation

and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) and Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) Funding Allocations – Mr. Lloyd Robinson

Mr. Robinson advised that Resolution No. 13-13 is adoption of Fiscal Years 2014-2019 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) and Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) Funding Allocations. Mr. Robinson stated that this item has been presented to the Policy Committee previously as well as to both the Technical Committee and to TAG. Mr. Robinson stated that along with staff, both the Technical Committee and TAG have endorsed with a request that the Policy Committee adopt. Mr. Romanello asked just for clarification that as Staffordboro came in with a few hundred thousand dollars overbid and it was the understanding from Stafford County that funds were taken from the US Route 1 BRAC project and moved to Staffordboro. Mr. Robinson stated that the funding transfer went from BRAC to Onville Road. Mr. Romanello stated that he misspoke in regard to it being for the Staffordboro project. However, he asked if this transfer was a dollar for dollar transfer? Mr. Robinson stated that the agreement with the County and with VDOT is that they were fine with the US Route 1 BRAC figure as it is depicted here and that the excess money went to Onville Road. Mr. Robinson stated that Onville Road is also now fully funded. Mr. Sterling stated that as this advances forward, there could still be some tweaks. One major one that is not necessarily a tweak; however, the State is right now in the process of making determination on 5307 funds. In 5307, FRED would receive a substantial amount of additional funding on an annual basis. These are funds that because of the funding ratio allocations that FRED was actually underfunded in the past when compared to other communities that had been overfunded. Mr. Sterling stated that if this funding becomes available, it will be his recommendation to move the funds off of the FRED Bus Replacement category and to move it to the City’s parking structure to advance the additional parking project for the VRE. Mr. Harf stated that the amount of CMAQ funds that would be vacated would be approximately $1.2 million dollars. Mr. Robinson stated this funding re-allocation would take a TIP amendment for the subsequent years out from FAMPO. Mr. Sterling stated that the CTB would just need to amend the State’s Six-Year Program. Mr. Sterling stated that after the tweaking has been completed that he expects not to take action at the state level until the Six Year Program has been approved in its final form. Mr. Sterling stated that he expects finalization on this in June by the CTB so he would count on a July time frame for it to be released. Upon motion by Mr. Kelly and seconded by Mr. Snellings, with the vote count being 8 – yes and 1- abstination. The vote count was as follows:


David Ross - Yes Al Harf - Yes Matt Kelly - Yes Bev Cameron - Yes Quintin Elliot - Abstain Gary Snellings - Yes Doug Barnes - Yes Anthony Romanello - Yes Gary Skinner - Yes Mr. Elliott stated that for the record he would like to justify why he abstained. Mr. Elliott stated that as this Board makes recommendations to the CTB and likewise he also makes recommendations to the CTB per request of VDOT that he did not want to cast either a yes or no vote accordingly. d.) Approval of FAMPO Resolution No. 13-14, Adoption of the Fredericksburg Area Ozone Advance

Action Plan – Mr. Lloyd Robinson Mr. Robinson advised that Resolution No. 13-14 is requesting adoption of the Fredericksburg Area Ozone Advance Action Plan. Mr. Robinson stated that a presentation has been given to both the Technical Committee and to TAG and that Ms. Doris McLeod with DEQ has given a presentation to the Policy Committee. Mr. Robinson stated that Ms. McLeod is in attendance tonight if the committee has any additional questions. Mr. Robinson relayed that both the Technical Committee and TAG, as well as staff recommendation is that Resolution No. 13-14 be adopted by the Policy Committee. Upon motion by Mr. Kelly and seconded by Mr. Snellings, with all concurring, Resolution 13-14 was unanimously approved by the FAMPO Policy Committee. e.) Approval of FAMPO Resolution No. 13-15, Directing that a Public Comment Period and Public

Hearing be Held Prior to the Adoption of the FY2014 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) – Mr. Lloyd Robinson

As Resolution No. 13-15 is simply requesting that a Public Comment Period and Public Hearing be held prior to the adoption of the FY2014 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Mr. Kelly stated that he did not feel any additional discussion was needed and he made the motion to adopt Resolution No. 13-15. The motion was seconded by Mr. Skinner and the vote count was unanimous. DISCUSSION ITEMS a.) Jackson Gateway Interstate Access Study Update – Mr. Lloyd Robinson and Mr. David Whyte of Kimley-

Horn & Associates Mr. Robinson stated that it was noted previously that FAMPO has been requested to amend the contract with Kimley-Horn for the Jackson Gateway IMR. In order to phase the project, the phasing had to reflect that there was independent utility among the phases and no harm done to the interstate. Mr. Robinson stated that an agreement was signed with FAMPO/GWRC and Spotsylvania County to fund this request.


Mr. Robinson stated that Mr. David Whyte with Kimley-Horn is here tonight to provide an update. Mr. Robinson stated that excellent progress has been made to date, and it is his desire to have the IMR with the phasing presented to FAMPO for adoption in May or no later than June. Mr. Whyte gave a brief update. The project Kimley-Horn is tasked is to look at the interstate accesses between the mile post markers at Thornburg and Spotsylvania. Mr. Whyte stated that they have gone through the process of looking at multiple alternatives over the last several years. Mr. Whyte stated that the course of action has changed a couple of times based on land use issues, forecasts, etc. Where Kimley-Horn is at now, is there is a prepared draft document that has been submitted to the review team for their initial comments. The review team is comprised of members from VDOT, FHWA, Spotsylvania County, FAMPO, etc. Mr. Whyte stated that also occurring at the same time is a study of independent utility looking at how this interchange that has grown in scale and scope meets some of the requests of the project. Kimley-Horn is looking for a way that this can be put together where it is not just projects that can be phased but in fact are projects that can stand alone without doing harm to the interstate as the interchange is implemented in the process. Mr. Whyte stated that the preferred alternative, as per the decisions made by the working group, involved not creating any new access to I-95 but instead providing modifications to providing CD roads along both sides of the interchange. Mr. Whyte stated that these modifications are an approximate distance of 6.5 miles in length; with approximately 3 miles in each direction. This would place a point of access tied into the existing exit at 126, approximately 1 mile South of 126. Mr. Whyte stated that there would be additional ramps coming off of the CD roads to the Spotsylvania Parkway as well as to Route 17. Overall, the project would involve the re-construction of Exit 126, as it does not have the capacity to serve the future demands as well as the construction of a full movement point of access tied into Exit 126. Arterial road connections would be needed to make the point of access function in the way it was intended. The Route 1 widening, which is also in conjunction with the LRTP, as well as re-constructed ramps around Exit 126 with a new direct ramp to the Southpoint Parkway are also planned. Mr. Whyte stated that there will also be re-constructed ramps within the NE Quadrant to fix geometric issues that exist today as well as upgrades to the other quadrants. Mr. Whyte stated that it was discussed earlier tonight that models are models that are based on assumptions. Over time, the assumptions could change; however, the models are currently the best tools that are available. Mr. Whyte stated that the updated concept represents these thoughts without getting tied into something that may not be needed. Mr. Whyte stated that they wanted to look at what just might be needed in a priority order. Mr. Whyte stated that the ultimate interchange project was broken down into four separate projects of independent utility that can all ultimately work into the overall concept. Mr. Whyte stated that the four projects are in no particular order and can be implemented in any order and in any combination. Mr. Whyte stated that what is being done now still provides benefit into what the effects of doing these would be in a stand alone manner.


Mr. Whyte stated that Project 1 modifies the existing diverge of Courthouse Road with an additional lane that provides a direct connection to the ramp at the Southpoint Parkway as well as modifying the existing ramp that ties into Route 1 as it is today. Mr. Barnes asked if there are cost estimates available yet. Mr. Whyte stated that this is what is being worked on now and he expects to have these estimates available within the next several weeks. Mr. Robinson stated that once staff is in receipt of these estimates that they will be circulated to this committee. Mr. Whyte stated that Project 2 builds a portion of the western side of the ultimate interchange concept. It re-constructs a part of the existing south-bound off ramp at Exit 126. This needs to be re-constructed to accommodate the beginning of the CD road that runs parallel on the west side of I-95 terminating just South of Spotsylvania Parkway. Mr. Whyte stated that there is a partial point of access that serves the south-bound direction, both with an off/on ramp at Spotsylvania Parkway. This ties into the CD road directly at I95. Project 2 also adds no points of access with this concept which is something that both FHWA and VDOT have significant concerns about. Mr. Robinson stated that according to FHWA requests, the CD roads can have access off of these virtually anywhere without them being new access points to the interstate. Mr. Whyte stated that when looking at the “big picture” at what this alternative will solve will be to alleviate the failing of Route 1 in the future. Route 1 is expected to have volumes of traffic in excess of 100,000 vehicles daily; partially as a result of the dis-connective nature of Route 17 for this part of Spotsylvania County. Mr. Whyte stated that in order to fix these deficiencies, there is a solution that looks at Route 1. This solution really transforms the character of Route 1 and makes it into very much an expressway facility. The effects on properties, the cost, the disruptions, and both the engineering and construction challenges in this option did not really make a lot of sense. Mr. Whyte stated that it made more sense to use a CD road system to distribute the access to where it was needed to be so you did not have access along Route 1 that affected some of the natural resources. Mr. Elliott asked in looking at the connection off of the CD road, is that an on and off ramp? Mr. Elliott stated that he thought the previous plans only showed one point of access so asked if this was a change. Mr. Whyte stated that this is a change and it was brought up at the last meeting. During the length of time it takes to get to this access ramp and the value of having Route 1 looked at, that both an on and off ramp would be more beneficial than just having one off ramp. Mr. Whyte stated that Project 3 focuses on the east side of Route 1. Project 3 adds a CD road just south of US Route 17 with a half interchange on the east side serving the north-bound traffic that ties into Route 17. The existing off-ramp at Exit 126 north bound is tied into the CD road. This also would tie into the north bound CD lanes ending past Courthouse Road in the north-bound direction. Project 3A is a scaled down version of Project 3. This perhaps could be an early phase to Project 3. This is a re-construction of the loop ramp to the north-bound and south-bound off ramp and north-bound on ramp tying it into construction of CD roads in the south-bound direction that resolve the safety issues that exist in this quadrant today. Mr. Whyte stated also there would be a re-construction of a south-bound ramp tying into south-bound at Route 1 also resolving safety and congestion issues. Mr. Whyte stated that as part of their efforts they are also putting together a draft financial plan based on the phasing costs of each project. The consultant has updated the draft financial plan to look at different opportunities for financing. As the financial components for the project are a challenge, an approach that


takes into account projects of independent utilities is much more in line for the amount of revenue that can be generated from various sources. Mr. Sterling asked just for discussion purposes, if using the $450 million dollar price tag for the completion of the entire project, what percentage of this amount would be classified as interstate versus primary or secondary road projects. Mr. Sterling stated that the more a project is not classified as an interstate project that the more revenue sharing is available that could coincide with TIF fundings. Mr. Whyte stated that to date, it is his understanding that the vast majority of the total project is classified as interstate because of the CD lanes, etc. Mr. Sterling asked that in order to open up other funding alternatives, he would ask that the consultants be cognizant of the other options and be as creative as they can with their analyses. The question was asked as to what “TIF” stands for. It was explained that it stands for Tax Increment Financing. Mr. Sterling stated that TIF is essentially another tax bill that goes beyond the normal rate as it is allocated for a specific purpose. Mr. Skinner had a question in regard to Project 3. Mr. Skinner asked if the CD roads are going to be connected to Route 17. Mr. Whyte stated that yes, the CD roads would exit north of Spotsylvania Parkway and would go under the existing Route 17 interchange where you would then have both an on and off ramp constructed. Mr. Elliott asked regarding Project 3A that in the overall plan he did not see the full interchange plan listed at the lower end. Mr. Elliott asked where this gets picked up within the phasing. Mr. Whyte stated that as you have to build the CD roads in its entirety heading South, the interchange was not identified as a project of independent utility. Mr. Whyte stated that this item was discussed among the review committee in implementing a new interchange. Mr. Robinson stated that the consensus of the group was that the new access to South of the hospital would be the last piece of the puzzle and you would build up to that point. Mr. Whyte stated that it really came down to a cost issue. Mr. Elliott asked if this was not going to be included within the IMR request. Mr. Whyte stated that it is not to be included within the IMR request as a full-build preferred alternative. Mr. Sterling asked what are the limits of the 6.5 miles of CD roads. Mr. Whyte advised that these would occur between mile post 1.23 and north-bound at mile post 1.27, so it is actually 6.5 total lane miles; with three miles in each direction with a two-lane CD road constructed. Mr. Whyte stated that when you start thinking about costs, that this is what really escalates a project when you are building four lanes of interstate pavement. Mr. Barnes stated that he had a question in regard to Mr. Sterling’s comments. If the majority of the project cannot be classified as interstate in regard to securing alternative funding opportunities, then how much is the majority. Mr. Whyte stated that to some extent it will depend on where the limited access lines are drawn. Mr. Barnes requested when a written document is brought back to FAMPO for review that he would like to request some specific verbage included that better describes what actually is a majority range.


Mr. Sterling stated that from a State perspective, the more it is not directed at the interstate and the more the definitions are reflective of the project being classified as a non-interstate one, then the more it is eligible for revenue sharing opportunities and the more that financing becomes more flexible. Mr. Robinson advised Mr. Barnes that with discussions held with Ms. Golden, that she would be briefing the Board of Supervisors and his issues and concerns would be addressed. Mr. Barnes stated that the Board definitely needs to be briefed accordingly; however, at this time he feels we are still missing some pertinent data. Mr. Barnes stated that in reference to the last slide within tonight’s power point presentation, he asked Mr. Whyte for more specifics on the time line and asked for further detail on the first two bulleted points. Mr. Barnes stated that when this is presented to his Board that he thought this information would be a vital discussion point. Mr. Whyte stated that by this time they have the refined financing plan that will be shared soon with the review committee. Mr. Whyte also relayed that they could make a presentation to the Spotsylvania Board of Supervisors at the May 14th meeting. Mr. Elliott stated that if an IMR is going to be submitted; however, it does not include the interchange piece of the project at the lower end, then he is not sure how that gets into the overall plan. Mr. Elliott stated that you essentially would have a project without a funding package that covers the project throughout its entirety. Mr. Elliott stated that if you submit an IMR but there is no way to pay for the total project and there is no long-range plan to accommodate it, then the IMR will after awhile become obsolete and would have to re-submitted. Mr. Elliott stated that part of the reason the discussion occurred on separating this into different projects was that if you completed an IMR, then the IMR is not done for more than can be funded. Mr. Elliott stated that otherwise a lot of time and money is spent on developing an IMR that will soon be obsolete. Mr. Barnes asked of Mr. Whyte in regard to time, when can he be prepared to have a finalized and complete document that can be then presented to the Spotsylvania Board of Supervisors for their review. Mr. Barnes stated that what he would need would be a report that includes the following information: project phase costs; how much of the total project could be classified as a secondary road project; listing of all potential funding alternatives; and an established financial plan. Mr. Robinson stated that in regard to the financial plan, it is $12,000 out of a huge project relatively speaking. This is not an investment grade financing plan but is instead a cost estimate and that $12,000 is the cost for financing a $450 million dollar set of projects. Mr. Robinson stated that FAMPO got into trouble with this issue in regard to the Rest Area Access Study as citizens complained that the finance plan was not accurately reflective of the total expenses of the project. Mr. Elliott stated that it is not just a financing plan but also a financial funding source. Mr. Elliott stated that the funding sources would need to be identified and committed too. Mr. Elliott stated that it is his recommendation that nothing be submitted to VDOT until all of the funding pieces are referenced. Mr. Whyte stated that he would take the requests made tonight and have the review team update and incorporate as many of the discussion items mentioned above as they can so the presentation to be made on May 14th will be as concise as it can be. The question was asked as to what is an “opinion of probable cost”. Mr. Whyte stated that this is their wording for cost estimates.


STAFF AND AGENCY REPORTS Mr. Robinson advised that Ms. Donley’s surgery was successful and that she is recovering and expects to be back at work within the next several weeks. Mr. Robinson also advised that he would be attending the annual AMPO meeting in Washington, DC on May 2nd. Lastly, Mr. Robinson advised that a luncheon is scheduled with the local engineers for May 24th for a discussion of the LRTP. FAMPO BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Kelly asked a question of staff. Mr. Kelly stated that in regard to I-95 and the recent problems regarding the potential raceway project that could occur in Thornburg, would the MPO be tasked in making any decisions or recommendations on this project. Mr. Robinson stated that there are already federal funds allocated to the Mudd Tavern and bridge projects. Mr. Robinson advised that anything that is done to the current interchange whereby federal funds are involved, then the MPO will have a decision-making role in the process. FAMPO CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Robinson stated that correspondence is included in tonight’s packet and is regarding an administrative TIP amendment by staff that moved money between federal fiscal years for the Route 630 Interchange project in Stafford County and for the Fall Hill Avenue project in Fredericksburg. Mr. Robinson advised that no money was added or deducted but internally re-allocated and the letter of correspondence just lets everyone know what transpired. FAMPO COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Mr. Robinson stated that both the FAMPO Technical Committee (FTC) and the Transportation Advisory Group (TAG) meeting minutes were included in the packet. ADJOURN FAMPO MEETING/NEXT MEETING, APRIL 15, 2013 Upon motion by Mr. Kelly and seconded by Mr. Elliott, with all concurring, the Policy Committee adjourned at 9:35 p.m.

Documents

Policy Committee Meeting Minutes April 15, 2013 · off of the parking area for the St.Michael Archangel High School, ... in a new Spotsylvania County Board ... Policy Committee Meeting