Laserfiche WebLink
THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 2000 <br /> <br /> pointed out that the funds available for such work in the coming year would be about $1.8 million, <br /> <br /> about equal to the funding of the previous year. Mr. Towamicki stated that the City's allocation of <br /> funds from the State was based upon the lane miles of the City's street system. Council Member <br /> Roop asked if Clearview and Pebble Creek had been added to the system, and was told that <br /> Clearview was in the system and that Pebble Creek would be added in the coming year. Council <br /> Members Dallas and Roop also made note of problems in the City with the level of pavement near <br /> manhole covers, stating that some of them were far enough below the surface of the pavement to <br /> constitute a problem, especially going noah on Route 220 from West End. Mr. Reynolds added that <br /> in years past the funds from the State for this work had not been audited, but that this had changed <br /> and that the funds received had to be spent only on the categories of projects allowed for by the <br /> regulations. Vice-Mayor Teague asked if the same procedure and funding was provided for in the <br /> Counties, and was told that paving work in the Counties was handled differently, according to a six- <br /> year plan, all in conjunction with work done by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Mr. <br /> Fenill asked if the city was doing all that was really needed in the way of street repairs with this <br /> budget, and whether or not anything critical was being left out. Mr. Towamicki responded that basic <br /> needs would all be met and that the City's streets would be kept in reasonably good condition with <br /> the planned improvements, however, there would have to be greater emphasis placed upon work on <br /> residential streets in the near future. Council Member Dallas asked what the general public needed to <br /> know about how to influence the priority of street re-paving work to be done. Mr. Towarnicki stated <br /> that clear evidence of surface problems and conditions, such as deteriorating pavement, would have <br /> to be noted, and that such problems would be prompt a closer look if they received calls to do so. He <br /> stated that the simple fact that a street had not been repaved in a given period of time, even as much <br /> as twenty years, would not necessarily move a street up in priority for work unless real problems <br /> were evident. Vice-Mayor Teague suggested that it might be helpful to find out what formula VDOT <br /> used to schedule County street maintenance and compare that formula to the way in which the City <br /> <br /> <br />