|
July 22~ 1975
<br />
<br />adopted, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />'.'A RESOLUTION URGING THE APPROVAL OF RECOIv~ENDATIONS AMENDING THE VIRGINIA
<br />AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT.
<br />
<br /> ~qEREAS, the Virginia Area Development Act Subcommittee has requested local governments
<br />to review and recommend additions or deletions of proposed amendments to the Virginia
<br />Area Development Act; and
<br />
<br />WHEREAS, the City Manager and his staff has reviewed such proposed amendments.
<br />
<br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
<br />that it approves the recommendations of the proposed amendments to
<br />Development Act.
<br />
<br />Portsmouth, Virginia,
<br />the Virginia Area
<br />
<br /> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is directed
<br />resolution with the Division of Legislative Services, P. O.
<br />Richmond, Virginia."
<br />
<br />to file a copy of this
<br />Box S-AG, State Capitol,
<br />
<br />Ayes: Barnes, Early, Elliott, Oast, Davis
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 75-265 - "Report of the City Manager on~eque~ from Mr. Vernon C. Crump of the Lee
<br />Ward Civic League for setting a priority for curbs and gutters in that area."
<br />
<br /> "The City Council, at its meeting of June 24, requested the City Manager to consider
<br />making changes in the City's Drainage and Street Improvement Priority Lists in order to give
<br />more w~A~to areas wRich have been in the city for longer periods of time. In accordance
<br />with t~ ~lty Manager's request, the Office of Economic Analysis and Information has re-
<br />examined the criteria used in establishing these lists.
<br />
<br /> I strongly recommend that no changes be made in these lists because most of the factors
<br />mentioned by City Council have already been included in the priority system.
<br />
<br /> An elaborate rating system has b~en developed to determine relative need among various
<br />areas of the city. An explanation of the system has been previously presented to Council.
<br />For further clarification, the system established to determine street and drainage improve-
<br />ments is attached.
<br />
<br /> The number of years an area has been in the city was
<br />age priority because it was felt that the priority should
<br />need. This severity is measured by such major factors as
<br />street, (2) damage to residences and yards, ($) damage to
<br />the project has on work underway or soon to be done,
<br />
<br />not a factor for determining drain-
<br />be determined solely on severity of
<br />(I) periodic flooding of a m~ior
<br />businesses, and (4) the effect that
<br />
<br /> The Street Improvement Priority List is based upan major factors such as '(1) unsafe
<br />traffic conditions, (2) heavy traffic flow which warrants street improvements, (5) h~h
<br />maintenance costs, and (4) how long the area has. been a part of the City of Portsmouth.
<br />The age factor in the Street Improvmment List received~onsiderable weight in the older sectio~
<br />of the city. Those areas annexed 1909 or earlier receive a wight of "4". Later areas receiw
<br />a wight of "~", "2", or "1", and the 1968 area receives no age factor w~ight. Since the
<br />highest priority in the Street Improvement List is "S" (for traffic safety), the weg~St that
<br />older areas receive is already given major consideration.
<br />
<br /> In each list, there is a large number of projects which received the same total number
<br />of points. These "ties" were then ranked by considering several of the more heavily w~hted
<br />factors, such as damage to property, high maintenance costs, periodic flooding, traffic sRfety
<br />problems, and how long the area has been a part of the city. If t~o or more projects received
<br />th~ same number pf points, and one of the projects was in an area whick:Amight sustain property
<br />damage, then that project was given the highest priority among the projects with the same
<br />number of points. If ~he projects are still tied, then the one with the highest maintenance
<br />coszs would receive the highest priority. If the tie still exists, then the project with the
<br />most "high weight" items would receive the highest priority because it would have the most
<br />major discrepancies, even if the point total were the same.
<br />
<br /> If projects with the same weight are shifted now to take into account the number of years
<br />a project has been within the city, then the other factors w~ich went into determining how
<br />to rank "ties" would be ignored. In addition, the curbs and gutter projects would in effect
<br />receive a double weighting on the age criterion, since that factor was already considered in
<br />the original ranking.
<br />
<br /> Finally, a shifting of projects with the same total weights would make little practical
<br />difference, since in most cases the projects with the same number of points will be accom-
<br />plished in roughly the same period of time.
<br />
<br /> The priority system as it now stands is a very rational method of deciding the order
<br />in which many projects will be accomplished. An attempt has been made to achieve the greates
<br />level of objectivity by submitting each project to the same criteria. The City should be vet
<br />careful to maintain thatobjectivity and not establish a precedent of shifting priorities
<br />around, or the integrity of the priority system might be compromised."
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Early and seconded by Mr. Barnes, the report to be received as information,
<br />was adopted by unanimous vote.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|