Louisa County supervisors direct VDOT to advertise amended six‑year secondary roads plan after reprogramming rural‑addition funds

Louisa County supervisors on Wednesday discussed amendments to the county’s six‑year secondary roads plan and unanimously directed the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to advertise a public hearing on the amended plan.

The presentation from VDOT representative Thornton explained that new guidance has left the county unable to use telecommunication fee (telefee) funds for new rural additions. “It’s not sent to us anymore,” Thornton said, describing that the code allowing 5% of construction formula funds for rural additions is now inapplicable because the rural‑addition funding stream has not been distributed. Thornton told the board that previously listed rural additions — Albemarle Avenue and Piedmont Avenue — were removed from last year’s plan (about $107,000 combined) and that a prior rural‑addition balance of approximately $340,223 had been reprogrammed to Hart’s Mill and to a countywide traffic engineering services line item.

Why it matters: reprogramming those funds changes which unpaved segments the county can accelerate and how telefee receipts are applied. Thornton said Hart’s Mill’s termini were extended so the project will be hard‑surfaced all the way to Rolling Road, and that West Green Springs Road is fully funded but still requires a rural‑rustic resolution from the board before construction can begin.

Supervisors pressed VDOT on how existing paved secondary roads are maintained and resurfaced. Thornton described the resurfacing process as an annual, bid schedule driven by third‑party pavement condition ratings and traffic counts; roads are categorized for preventative, restorative or full rebuild work, and the resulting schedule and project list is posted on VDOT’s projects page. He offered to send the board a direct link and a printable map of Louisa‑specific projects.

On funding mechanics, Thornton clarified that telefees may be used for secondary roads already in the state system but cannot be used for rural additions that are not in the system. Unpaved district grant funds likewise must be used on roads that are in the state system. For roads not yet in the system, Thornton said the primary local options are a revenue‑sharing application or local contributions.

Board members discussed options to accelerate paving by commingling telefees and district grant funds or by using telefee balances to match other secondary‑system project applications. One supervisor proposed allocating $10,000 per year from telefee receipts into the countywide traffic services line item for planning purposes and redirecting the remainder into the paving schedule to move up prioritized white‑road projects. Thornton said commingling and using funds as a match are allowable but depend on the timing of funding and project applications.

Formal action: the board agreed to direct VDOT to advertise the public hearing on the amended six‑year secondary plan “as amended” with the white‑road priorities retained. The motion was moved and seconded on the floor and passed unanimously by voice vote.

Key figures and specifics discussed during the workshop included roughly $107,000 associated with the two removed rural additions, a prior rural‑addition balance of about $340,223 (now reprogrammed), an estimated countywide traffic services balance of about $512,005.50 by 2031–2032 if unchanged, and annual telefee receipts on the order of ~$98,000. The board asked VDOT to provide the online project link and a map for easier public access.

The board closed the workshop and will reconvene for the advertised public hearing and formal action on the plan at the date VDOT posts; Thornton said the board will return on May 4 for final approval following advertisement.