1/30/2021 - Special - DRAFT
January 30, 2021
69
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administrator Center Third Floor Training Room for the purpose of a
Board of Supervisors Retreat. Audio recordings of this meeting will be held on file for a
minimum of five (5) years in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. A copy
of the PowerPoint presentation is on file in the office of the Clerk.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Peters called the meeting to order at 9:04 a.m. The roll call was
taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman P. Jason Peters; Supervisors Paul M. Mahoney,
Martha B. Hooker, Phil C. North and David F. Radford
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Daniel R. O’Donnell, County Administrator; Richard
Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Rebecca Owens,
Assistant County Administrator, Peter Lubeck, Senior
Assistant Attorney and Deborah C. Jacks, Chief Deputy
Clerk to the Board
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Current Regional Economic Conditions and Post COVID Forecast
– John Hull, Director of Roanoke Regional Partnership
Mr. Hull provided a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in
the office of the Clerk to the Board.
2. Planning Updates and Priorities – Philip Thompson, Director of
Planning; Jill Loope, Director of Economic Development:
(a) Current Planning Project Updates
(b) Discussion of Priorities:
1) Community Plans
January 30, 2021
70
2) Comprehensive Plan
3) Zoning Ordinance Revisions
Mr. Thompson provided a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on
file in the office of the Clerk to the Board.
With regard to the Oak Grove project, Supervisor Mahoney noted he
thinks those are great ideas. What scares him is nobody in the valley pays attention to
pedestrians, and thinks it's going to be a real educational process to convince the
motorists not to run over the pedestrians, particularly, at 419 and Brambleton. You are
going to have to change motorists' perceptions and practices. Mr. Caywood advised
there would be a stop light there. Supervisor Mahoney added he thinks that is excellent,
and thinks we've heard about it from the community meetings, but you are going to have
to educate a whole lot of motorists.
With regard to the Economic Development, Supervisor Hooker
commented she thinks it would be interesting is to hear the feedback from potential
developers or even redevelopment projects, in their perception; if there was feedback
that we should be taking note of, "This is a good idea. This is going to be difficult." For
those things that you deem as something that we can help in, she thinks that we should
be hearing some of that feedback. Ms. Loope commented it is interesting you bring that
up because we do hear some of that feedback and it usually is around the regulatory
process. It's around density, it's around parking requirements, and zoning requirements.
Mr. O’Donnell stated he would assume that is part of your economic development
strategic planning you're going to talk about later too. Ms. Loop responded it's in concert
with planning, of course. We work together a lot on these initiatives, but the developers
need to have a pathway towards flexibility, and they need to understand that their
government is in support of that flexibility and accommodating their development needs.
So we're moving in that direction and that's really great news. Ms. Loope outlined some
of the site changes in the market that you've been hearing about this morning with John,
Hull about large site projects. There've been a lot of real estate transit actions in our
market in the last several months. This is happening very quickly, and this is an
example of property that is changing hands. The former Ingersoll Rand building was
recently sold to Ring Tree Capital Partners. They're represented by Colliers out of
Charlottesville, a large international brokerage firm. That was pretty much a transaction
for just managing the property and leasing it to multiple tenants, but the bigger part of
this equation is the 64 acres behind the Ingersoll Rand building. She indicated the
property is under contract, currently, with Realty Link out of the Carolinas and the
adjoining acreage, which is about 50 acres, is also under contract. Now, all total that
gives us a really large site that is being assembled potentially in the Hollins area in
excess of a hundred acres. These are two properties that are both zoned industrial and
could represent a very large scale project. One or two, depending on what the new
owners wish to do with it.
January 30, 2021
71
Additionally, just across the street from that is the Bradshaw property that is now under
contract with Thalheimers. It's 255 acres on Old Mountain Road, and it's zoned R1 and
R2, so that too represents a redevelopment, or a new development opportunity that was
previously unavailable and not listed. So there's a lot of interest in the market for selling
property and developing property.
Supervisor Mahoney asked what is it being marketed as with Ms. Loope
responding current zoning is R1 and R2, and that's what it's being marketed as right
now. Supervisor Mahoney then asked what is the comp plan with Mr. Thompson
responding he thinks it is suburban residential, but will check.
With regard to the 419 plan, Supervisor Hooker asked about underground
utilities with Mr. Thompson responding not overhead, they are moving them back.
With regard to Fallowater, Supervisor North asked what is the update or
sense of the development once that road is completed. Ms. Loope responded that is
regarding the Ridges and Fallowater development that was a part of the 419 center
plan, as you all know, we've been working with the developer on that and his plan is to
time his project consistent with the road construction timeline. However, it's going to
take a lot of additional work from staff and in particular, probably, a finance team to help
us figure out solutions to work with this project because it's still very complicated and
Fallowater's is one piece out of a much larger puzzle that we're still trying to work
through. Developer's still interested. He's still under contract, and thinks that is going to
move forward in the next year or so with regard to Tanglewood. Mr. Caywood stated
staff has been working with Alexander Boone on some other issues regarding E & S
and how we do that in the County. But he just mentioned his interest in the 419 plan,
and we met with him and walked through the plan and what it looked like for the
property that he had. So one thing that he wanted to stress to the Board, that while we
are looking at a variety of potential regulatory changes through our zoning process and
other things to implement the plan, the business community has been following it, is
already very interested in it, and it's already influenced a number of investment
decisions, even in the absence of something that's a formal directed plan. The very first
one was the Lewis Gale project where they made some minor changes to their building,
but that was right when the plan was coming together. They added sidewalks to the
frontage, added landscaping, changed a few of the architectural features of the building
just to fit a little more with where we're going. So there's a lot of power in casting a
vision for a different future that folks pick up on, that sometimes does not think really
understand the full impact that these public discussions have. But it's created a lot of
interest and a lot of investment, even as we're working on building a toolbox of changes
we may want to look at further down the line. So I thought this was a good example
where this is exactly the type of building that we envisioned in this spot. That's an
investment that wouldn't have happened absent the plan and this way and it's going to
be a true mixed use project. Mr. O’Donnell asked if this is replacing old residential, with
Mr. Caywood responding in the affirmative.
January 30, 2021
72
Supervisor Radford asked where Fallowater Square is with Supervisor
Peters advising behind Long and Foster on the road to Windy Hill Key.
Supervisor Mahoney asked with regard to all of these plans, especially
Fallowater, does our zoning ordinance allow it with Mr. Thompson advising they are
transitioning into that. Supervisor Mahoney stated he thinks what Alexander Boone is
hoping to do really helps that because there were what two or three little old houses that
were rentals that were somewhat deteriorating, slowly? Mr. Caywood stated while his
development fits into what we allow today, we've worked with him through a lot of
questions that we need to more clearly answer about setbacks and heights and things
where I think he'll make it work under the existing framework, but we may want to adjust
to make something like that easier, and quite frankly, use land more efficiently. And a lot
of this will be dialing back some things we require now. Another example is minimum
parking requirements and some of those may need to be adjusted as people live a little
differently. So there's a host of things that he brings up, but most of them are things that
for these projects are existing things we have in place that are actually restrictive in
nature that we may want to relax and then we may want to add a few things to
encourage particular types of development.
Supervisor Mahoney stated the County and the Commonwealth have put
a lot of money into the 419 highway projects that were led by Philip Thompson and his
staff. We had the 419 plan. So there was a lot of publicity with that, so hopefully all
these different pieces come together
Supervisor Hooker stated she really appreciates the idea of the tour. She
really likes the idea of the group dynamic and hearing feedback from our peers,
commissioners, and board members, whether it's just the commissioner and the
supervisor together, however, we orchestrate that, she thinks that's a great idea. She
added that's a leftover sentiment on her part from planning commission days. The other
element is she just wanted to applaud you and your team on those booklets. They are
so good. She knows for years we talked about having something that is so user-friendly
and portable and you've done it.
Supervisor Peters stated he would take a step further with community
plans and say that he does not know that any of them are relevant at this point. He
knows the Vinton area corridor plan was 2011, with Mr. Thompson advising 2010.
Supervisor Peters added Mount Pleasant was 2008 or 2009. So everything has
changed dramatically since that time. He cannot speak for Catawba, but knows the
ones in his area; he does not think either one of them are relevant at this point because
things have changed so dramatically, whether it's issues like Explore Park or whatever,
it's changed everything. So we almost have to start all over again.
January 30, 2021
73
Mr. Thompson stated to some degree, what we hope to do is use this
process to do that, just to pull that out and update it to be more relevant because you're
right. There are a lot of things that I talked about. I think there's a lot of things that need
to be revisited, especially water and sewer wise, what was the assumptions that were
made? So, yeah, from a phasing and development standpoint, and over 10, 12 years of
the Board and Planning Commissioners have changed too. So there are different
perspectives on what they want to see as well. As most of you know, we have a
somewhat continuous process of looking at our ordinance. Everyday usage situation
comes up, "Okay, well that doesn't make sense. Well maybe we need to look at that
issue." Development proposals come in and rezonings come in. Okay. Well, it makes
sense in most of the situations, but not in that. So we do have a process, typically it's a
six month process. So for 2021, we have a series of amendments from January to June
and July to December, but there are some that we're going to try to integrate into this
process for 419, and I kind of separate it. So when we look at the 419 Town Center,
there's probably some things that we could do no matter what that we could move
forward with. Then there's the part that is more tricky part, which looks like, how do we
make this a town center? How may we look it like a town center and a lot of that deals
with design standards and development standards. So some of the things that we are
working into that miscellaneous amendment section is relevant to 419 deals with height
limitations in R3 and R4, right? So as you know, the hillside behind on 419 where South
Peak is and all that adjacent to it is zoned R3. So part of the issue becomes if we're
going to require, or we want to see apartments there, or multi-family housing there,
what's that footprint look like? And potentially, it may require structured parking
underneath of the building, which that elevates the height. So for that, for the height
limitations on R3 and R4, is 45 feet. You can't even do the standard where we have in a
lot of our districts where you can go up one foot in height for two foot setback. We don't
even have that provision. So we're going to look at it, number one, County-wide. Could
we go up higher than 45 feet County-wide or should we just leave it? We'll evaluate that,
but then, not only in 419, but also Oak Grove and Hollins and that type of development
as well. So it may be that we have those town center boundaries that might be an
elevated number. We're going to look at that probably in the January, June timeframe.
Supervisor Radford stated you hit on a point that influenced our decision
on the height for McVitty Forrest. We wanted to go six stories, but we knew that with
rezoning, we would not get it. It fit well to do six stories. We put the parking under
garage undergrade so we could stay within that 45. So it impacted our decision early
on.
January 30, 2021
74
Mr. Thompson added, it was not listed here as well, but thinks one of the
other things we'll look at is density. So if you're R3 and you build apartments, it's 12
units per acre. If you go to R4, it's 24. R3, you could do 12 townhouses. So the
townhouses and the apartment ratio are the same, whereas in R4, it's 24 and 18, 24
multifamily dwellings and 18. So we also may look at adjusting that number in R3 to
make it that 18. So that it's 18 and 12 and 24 and 18. With parking standards, we have
a whole list of parking standards and that probably was probably good in 1992. Some
jurisdictions are going away from minimums or so our thought is either A, that might be
research that, and look at what that means. We're going to look at should we have a
range, right? Or condensing the number of things, Residential units will have just one
thing and then for commercial and office, we'll just simplify the list and so it will be a lot
smaller and then potentially have a range of between 1.1 and 1.5, because currently,
multifamily, you have two spaces per apartment. Doesn't matter if it's a one bedroom,
two bedroom, or three bedroom, it's two parking spots. So when you're building
structured parking, that number has a monetary impact on whether a development can
be built or not be built. Or if you have a limited height limitation, then there's all of those
back to the yield of how many units you can actually build, especially if you're then
putting structure parking in. And so again, they kind of all kind of go together. With
signage, we're going to look at the mall. It's a unique animal, how we generate the
numbers for signage, right? So it has frontage on Rt. 220, Rt. 419, and Ogden. So the
way we calculate for a typical, let's say, it's Panera, you have the main road, and then
you have a side road. You only get credit for 50% of the side road to count towards
because signage is based on your road. So we're only basing the 100% along 419, but
the other frontage is they only get 50%. So we're going to research that, how should we
deal with the shopping center? Obviously, you're putting out parcel development.
Potentially you could say there's access roads in between the mall. So that's one of the
issues we're going to look at and see what adjustments we need to make for that.
Supervisor Mahoney is correct, multi-family residential allowance in commercial
districts. Right now, it's 50%. So relevant to the Fallowater project. They could do the
second floor by right. They would need a special use permit to do the third floor. That is
something we're going to look at as well in not only 419, but County-wide and again, in
these places that we have, because that picture of what he's doing is what we want. So
why don't we make that by right? Mr. O’Donnell stated well that and the parking. You
want to encourage diverse housing types to get more different types of people to move
into the community. So all of that makes a lot of sense. Mr. Thompson stated so there's
all that we're going to be working on between January and June. So for Fallowater,
they're going to show the first two floors. If we make those adjustments, they'll come in
to do the third floor, revise their site plan, so forth. So then with what he calls the town
center standards, we had made CIP requests in the past to do transportation and
planning studies and we've gotten funded and then obviously with the pandemic, all that
money went away. So we do have a request to look at that in CIP and it's recommended
currently. We kind of held off somewhat because the Office of Intermodal Planning and
January 30, 2021
75
Investment has technical assistance grants and the Town of Vinton had used them
twice. So we were under the impression that we were going to get, they had talked
about having another set of funding available and then that went away. So just recently,
there is money available and we applied for a $100,000 grant to get that, to look at how
do we make the town center happen? Then we're also looking at other localities, and
this will deal with how Hollins Center and Oak Grove and what other places that have
similar types of development, similar to what we're looking for, what are they
employing? Another point that needs to be made is it's not only the standards that go
with that, we're also looking at how did that project come about in these other localities?
What was the financial incentives, right? This is where it gets tricky and at some point,
we're going to have a very lengthy discussion because if you set very strict standards,
but nobody can build to that because financially it doesn't work, then if you can have
that standard, is there the carrot that helps them?
Mr. O’Donnell stated and that dovetails perfectly into what Ms. Loope is
getting ready to do with her strategic plan. Mr. Thompson added so there's this balance
of regulation and incentive. Going back to the parking standards, the other thing he
thinks we will look at, currently, we have a standard that says you could have shared
parking within a certain distance of your property, right? So all your property, all your
parking does not need to be on site. It could be, we have a 500-foot limit now. So one of
the things we may look at is do we make that a little bit longer. Again, public investment
at some point and again most likely that's structured parking at some point as this
moves forward. We're a long way off, but potentially does that structured parking
strategically located help development meet the requirements for parking onsite?
Supervisor Hooker added a quick comment and the comment on signage for the
shopping center and such, and she may have a unique position on this. If so, she will
just be quiet and let it go. It seems like more and more commercial businesses are
really becoming more Las Vegas in nature with the multicolored lights and all that. At
one time, there was this real strong bend towards monument that was more discreet
and when we're in these commercial areas anyway, is it really about the height? Is it
really about the visibility? Maybe it is. She would like to be really careful because we're
definitely making a statement with the character of the town center. Mr. Thompson
stated what he would say is the signage that's been put in place at the mall is a lot
better than what used to be there. The issue with the mall is if you continue to do out-
parcel development, will you run out of the amount of signage available to you.
Supervisor Hooker added we need a different formula. Mr. Thompson potentially, the
simple solution may be is we treat your road frontage one for one. There is no corner
lot; 50% reduction. If we do that, that may be satisfactory for quite a while because it
goes from maybe 4,000 square feet to maybe 6,000 or 7,000 square feet. So it is a big
difference in the number. Their concern is, and that's why we're looking at it, He does
not think anybody wants it to be Las Vegas.
January 30, 2021
76
He does think though, if you start doing out parcel development and then
you also have access ways between those buildings and there's other development on
that, eventually you could, you don't count that as part of it. He just wants to make sure
there's not a deincentive not to locate there and that's not only signage, that's all
regulations. Mr. Thompson added another good example that is something that we're
going to look at as well, drive-thru facilities. We require a bypass lane. So that means,
Panera is a good example. You can be in Panera's line and then there's another lane
that you can get around the traffic. Chick-fil-A over here at, in the City of Roanoke off of
220, they don't have a bypass lane. So the question becomes, and a lot of things have
changed, what was the purpose of the bypass lane? In essence, you're adding
additional storm water because you have other pavement because you have another
lane width. So we're looking at that as does that make sense to have a bypass lane?
So the other thing that we are also involved in and behind your agenda is a list
Obviously, with these plans and other things, there are many steps in developing a
transportation project from initial idea concept to a detailed product seeking funding.
Typically, during that process, there is either some type of technical traffic analysis or
engineering survey work that will need to be conducted. Before, with VDOT, you just
said, "Hey, I'm thinking about this." VDOT would look at it and they would go through
the process and then they would get into their six year plan. There was a lot of money in
the six year plan, and then they would design it for you and if they needed additional
money, they just added money to it over the years. That's not the process now. You
have to have a pretty detailed project scope when you're seeking funding. So whether
that's VDOT, the Regional Commission of Roanoke, somebody is going to be doing
some analysis of that project. The other thing that's going to happen is community
engagement will need to be moved and incorporated earlier in the process. Obviously,
as we go through Smart Ccale, once you have money on a project and you have a
project scope, once money has been put to it, it's hard to change that project scope. It's
pretty much set in stone. So while we have a design public hearing or VDOT will hold a
design public hearing, their latitude and how much they can do, is not there. So that
may have to be brought earlier in the process when we're trying to develop our project
scope. So there is some community engagement in that process and alternatives
looked at and then have that final project, which means potentially additional time and
additional costs associated with that. Recently, VDOT has reached out to us as we go
through this process to develop what we call a project pipeline. We have given them a
lot of projects and the intent is to start working earlier in the process with VDOT and
them helping us identify sources of funding that a particular project could be funded with
and also getting them on the radar screen a lot earlier in the process. So we're starting
to work with that. The intent with this sheet that's in your project, so kind of lists kind of
the next things coming down the pike Transportation alternatives program, pre-
application submission; lot of these programs now are that if you're having a project,
you need to get it into the pre-application. You always have the ability to not apply for
that project. But if it's not in when the pre-application deadline is, you can't add it later.
January 30, 2021
77
So a lot of times, you need to feed these projects into the pre-application portal, VDOT
will start looking again at working on it. When you submit the project, it's a lot later, but
when you say submit. So again, we have to factor that into this process. September of
this year, the surface transportation block grant applications are due to the Regional
Commission. October, November is when we have transportation alternatives and
revenue sharing submissions that are due. Supervisor North was talking about Smart
Scale. Well, it's not next August. It's next March.
Supervisor North stated Smart Scale, every two years, but the process
should use every day of the two years between round four and round five coming up
Mr. Thompson added August is when they are following through. So if the funding stays
the way it is, or as recommended by the Commonwealth Transportation Board, we
submitted between us and the Regional Commission, there were seven products that
were in Roanoke County, five got funding. The two that didn't, were the I-581, Exit two,
and the Route 460 at Alt 220 Intersection. All five of the ones that got funded had the
regional money put on them. It may score well, but if it has a high price tag it does not
get funded.
Supervisor North stated it was Rt. 221 and he was surprised that one did
not score high on safety and pass because there have been many accidents there. Let
me just let the rest of the Board know we are talking about the STBG grants. The
Transportation Planning Organization only get $5 million a year. It is good that we get
$5 million, but we are competing with other people for that $5 million in this region like
Botetourt, who is getting active with improvements, although they partnered with us on
the Rt. 460, Rt. 220 project that did get funding. Roanoke City also has got new
members on this transportation planning organization board, that we don't know how
they're going to view future projects. So we're competing with only a pot of $5 million.
Then we have smart scale with $875 million every year. Now there's a bill in the general
assembly that addresses transportation authorities. Most every population and area of
the state has the transportation authority except us. If this bill passes then Roanoke
County or any County can partner with an adjacent County to develop an authority
where funds can be derived to help leverage future projects. Then you would have an
authorities' revenue, federal money from the STBG source, which is $5 million a year
and then you'd also perhaps have Smart Scale and one of the things with Smart Scale
that helps in leveraging is the more money you put down on a project, Smart Scale likes
that and you score higher when you compete with people.
January 30, 2021
78
Supervisor Peters stated if he is not mistaken, some of the other localities
in Northern Virginia, fund theirs through additional sales tax. Did they round those up to
6% and the additional goes into the transportation? Supervisor North stated that is
correct .So, this year we were fortunate, just as some background and get five out of
seven, we all smiled and said, "Hey, that was a great job". But, let me say to you this
about that, this round did not have the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel, big elephant in
the room, and about $66 million where they put money from their HTAC, which was
their taxing authority, onto that project and when that happened, they excused the rest
of the projects all over the state of Virginia. So we didn't have a big project competing
for these sources, but I can see right now, the writing's on the wall with the general
assembly filing this transportation authority bill, one of these days when folks in this
region are trying to compete for dollars, they're going to say, "Well, we've giving you the
ability to have a taxing authority, you got to help yourselves.” Also be mindful of this,
there's a carbon tax that Dr. Smoot has told us about, $0.34 on a gallon, that if that
happens most of that money is going to go to Northern Virginia to help Metro and those
transportation systems. So we have got to be careful of these things coming down the
road because they can make this list look minuscule compared to those challenges. So
let's keep those thoughts in mind as we move forward.
Supervisor Mahoney stated he knows its heresy, but we should think
about a transportation district for our region, that will irritate many people, but as
Supervisor North has talked about it, this is not new. There's a transportation district at
Tidewater and Northern Virginia, when they can put dollars in to these projects to
improve their scoring, we lose. He thinks we have a lot of needs, whether it's that
intersection, at Peter's Creek Road, that is critical to Woodhaven, no matter what goes
into Woodhaven, let alone talking about I81. In addition to all the others that we have
here, and he knows that will be a tough mountain to climb. He can remember when he
was sitting in that seat and suggested that, and Mr. McNamara was sitting over here, he
about threw me out of the room for suggesting that. But again, he thinks particularly with
how the rules of the game have changed in that if the locality, or localities, put money in
that gives you a higher score. He thinks we have to, we have to wrestle with that. He
knows this Board for many years has always been approached to expand Valley Metro
to various employers, whether it's west of Salem or Hollins plantation, just like in
Northern Virginia and Tidewater some of those dollars that come out of the
transportation district sweetened the pot for some of the cities to participate, because it
can go to their Metro systems. And who knows, it might be good for CORTRAN.
January 30, 2021
79
Mr. Caywood stated if he could just add to that thought, because in a way
we're already a little bit down this road. Were it not for the investment we make in
County cash, into planning and doing some of the early work on these projects, we
would not have the program we have today. So we're already spending some local
dollars to help these projects along. Then in some sense, there's a debate at the
regional level about the best use of that $5 million a year. We as a County have been
strong advocates for using that to leverage additional dollars at the State level, instead
of just doing projects we can do just with that money alone He does think that it's,
without question that projects that are just completely out funded are extremely hard to
get. So most of the projects we have, if you look closely enough, there's a lot of County
man hours into them. Many of them have some County expenditure, even if they don't
show up. So for example, the money we spent to do the transportation work on the 419
plan went straight into the application for the interchange. That's not really counted as a
match because it wasn't money we put on the table, but we spent money to do the work.
So, he does think as we continue to go forward, that project funding is going to continue
to get more and more blended, and there's a variety of ways to do that blending, but I
completely agree that the days are over, where you just asked for something and it
materializes with a hundred percent of beat up money, the way they would look at it. He
thinks that it's really been the leadership of Roanoke County's representatives at the
regional level have really changed a lot of this which you really see in the results that
you saw. So it's a team effort, but most of it started three or four years ago with the
planning efforts, is really what's led to it. So it's a continuum. And from the first time we
think about something to when it's actually constructed, it may be 6 or 8 or 10 years, but
that's the whole pipeline. So we keep doing that and we'll have continuous activity, but
we've always got to be working on the next ones or else we'll get four or five years out
and that'll dry up. But so far, I think we've been doing a good job.
Supervisor North stated future funding favors project-ready projects. In
other words, if you get funds from Smart Scales, around four (4) or five (5) years down
the road, they can happen sooner because VDOT is taking dollars that in the out years
and saying, “If you're ready to go, we'll move them up in the next couple of years.” So
that helps as well. But more on this later on.
January 30, 2021
80
Mr. Thompson stated as you look at the sheet, the main point, and Mr.
Caywood made the point to some degree, is that the first kind of project is ready to be
resubmitted for funding, projects being developed, whether that's by consultants, read
out or Roanoke County. Those are projects that are probably potentially ready to submit
for STBG. The ones that say they need traffic analysis or review by VDOT or Regional
Commission, or that need surveying or conceptual design work, or projects that need
further work. So he is not going to be VDOT, but some of that needs to be, and that's
the point, from County funds to do the initial surveying and design work. You can see
those projects, some of that are implementing Hollins Center plans or Oak Grove and
the last one, and there's one for the next phase of 419. Is there a dedicated revenue
source to do that, or funding source not revenue, funding source? We continually go
through the CIP process. So should it be a CIP process? Should it be an operational
budgeting issue? But like Mr. Caywood was saying, if we want to get projects funded
five years from now, some of that work needs to start now. So not only do we need to
be thinking about the next set of smart scale projects, we need to think about the next
one after that, that's where we need to be from the planning perspective. Unfortunately,
those parameters change. So sometimes that changes midstream too. My
understanding, there were something introduced regarding having a real resilience. Is
that correct? That you had to have a factor that dealt with real resiliency. Mr. Caywood
stated he thinks that's on the list Mr. Lubeck and he has and that is something else to
be very cautious or wary of, but depending on how it's applied. So we'll talk more about
that though, at the end. Mr. Thompson added that kind of lays out where we are from a
scheduling standpoint on these current planning efforts. In last year's CIP, there was
money; $100,000 between 2018 and '2020 and $20,000 last year to look at Rt. 460
Challenger Avenue. Then after we gave the presentation, COVID hit and that money
kind of went away. So it is back in the CIP. Again, it builds on the operational
improvement study that VDOT did, which we got funded. A lot of those projects got
funded, both in the City and in the County, I think a total of five projects total. But we'd
be looking more at the land use and development issues associated with that. We
looked at Williamson road, along Rt. 460, there's a lot of the meetings. So STBG match
was a little over almost $2.5 million, total project that was awarded was almost $19
million along the Rt. 460 corridor. But if you total all those projects up they total $66
million. So other planning studies, its part of the conversation as well, whether that's
quarter area, community plans, community planning areas, activity center, studies. We
currently, with all that we have on our board that we're working on, that might be part of
the conversation, but we would then have to figure out how that fits in.
Another future item is once the comp plan is done, our zoning goes back to 1992 and
28 years is a long time, would you like to rely on the technology from 1992 today? So
again, he does think that's something that we would have to look at that point, is do we
do an overhaul of the zoning ordinance at that point, which would probably have staff
and maybe a consultant to assist with that. Rt. 460 is shown in there it's in the CIP, you
still have to take action on the CIP, so that's why it's a future. And are there other
January 30, 2021
81
planning studies or ordinance updates, where would that fall into play as future planning
efforts?
Supervisor Mahoney stated he feels like he is pushing part of this in terms
of the zoning ordinance update. To him, it seemed that what we had done in the
nineties was an effort by the Board to better control the location and pace of
development and thinks the world has changed, it's a 180 degree philosophical change.
Are we willing to change that approach and allow more kinds of uses by right, as
opposed to requiring a special use permit? Are we willing to address topics like density,
parking and signage. He can remember sitting on the Planning Commission and all the
discussions with respect to the Rt. 419 plan about mixed use development, but he also
remembers we had a proposal for mixed use development out on Rt. 24, I think in 2018,
maybe when all the neighbors opposed it violently. So, he thinks that it's more than just
us talking here in terms of conceptual ideas, would citizens necessarily approve that? I
know Supervisor Radford from his perspective, and issue all of us have heard the
complaints from the development community. He takes a lot of those complaints with a
grain of salt, any kind of regulation that slows up a builder is going to be a complaint,
but at the same time, we all have heard those complaints and thinks we're trying to
address many of them. But again, that is a philosophical change of trying to reduce
those regulations, allow more uses by right, and allow more mixed uses. He thinks that
the Rt. 419 plan illustrated to us, or at least to him, what kind of changes could occur if
we want to jumpstart that kind of development. What he fears and does not mean to
minimize the difficulty of the work that's involved in amending plans and amending
ordinances, but as we start receiving applications, what do we do? Our plan says one
thing, but our rules say something else and fears how many projects we lose out on that
we may never see. A developer may come to us or come to Philip and his staff. We tell
them what the rules and regulations are, and they say, "I can't do that", and they walk
away. So we never see, and we're never able to take advantage of that potentiality. But
at the same time, he realizes that is truly a 180 degree change as to where Roanoke
County was in 1992.
Supervisor Hooker stated we were afraid of development at that point.
Supervisor Mahoney stated we were, but thinks he could make an
argument that ties into some of the issues we're having with the erosion of average daily
membership in our schools. Well, why is that? If he can't put a multifamily apartment
building more than 45 feet in the air, he is not going to have those families coming. In
and those families that have two children or three children that then feed into our school
system, for example.
January 30, 2021
82
We're making it so tight that it's hard, and we have no more flat land. You can only go
up, we can't go out anymore, and it's hard to say, "Oh, you got to have two or three or
four parking spaces per bedroom or apartment, or however many hundred square feet"
in this commercial office building. That adds to storm water runoff, and adds to all sorts
of environmental issues. It ties together in so many facets, but it's also going to be
painful. I think as Supervisor Radford pointed out, he remembers when his family were
doing the development down near what used to be the old County library on 419, it's a
beautiful development, but it would have been nice if it were a couple of stories taller.
So it's a hard issue for us and we have to struggle with that, but could see that if we can
catch up and try to give some direction to staff in terms of willingness to be more uses
by right. I think that hopefully could be a positive for us. Ms. Loope stated she would
like to add to that. Complexity is not just a planning issue, it is also an engineering issue
and stormwater issue with regard to the County's regulatory environment. Because the
complexities of stormwater and the cost of development and the requirements have all
been occasionally cost prohibitive for projects, and have somewhat limited our ability to
be more progressive there.
Supervisors Hooker asked are those State regulations or are they local?
Supervisor Peters stated that is what he was going to add, people leave
here and go do it somewhere else. So are we more restrictive than what we're required
by State?
Supervisor Radford responded not if we're talking stormwater, we all have
to abide by the same rules, which is Federal. It's from the Clean Water Act that was
developed in 1971, and then all that stuff just kind of rolled down to us. So it is tough. All
the localities that he built in, we now have to do stormwater quality and that's, another
hurdle.
Supervisor Peters are we more restrictive than we need to be. He thinks,
especially on larger projects; and it that what is holding back some of these projects.
Mr. O’Donnell responded he thinks you have to look at, whether the MS4
and NPDES requirements for urban areas are different than rural areas. So we probably
do have some more, when you look at urban to rural, but that's not our decision, that is
the State's. Mr. Caywood added the one discretionary one that he familiar with that
does make us different is the 10,000 foot versus 2,500 square foot for land disturbance
and requiring a permit and applying E & S and that was a decision, again it dates back a
number of years. Due to concerns about erosion on steeper slope development. That's
the one thing that he can think of off the cuff that's remaining that is something we have
discretion over. It goes going back to what Mr. O’Donnell said that there is a potential
downside to changing that, there are some potential benefits to changing that, but that's
the one thing that he know of in the whole sort of stormwater E & S arena that we do
have a local requirement on.
January 30, 2021
83
It just requires more permits for smaller sites than you would have if you just went with
the base State regulation. But the other thing, and again just to echo Mr. O’Donnell,
being in an MS4, we have a whole another layer of State requirements that you don't
have outside of one. So there's parts of Botetourt that are developing that are outside of
that, for example. So that is a mandated difference that makes us much more like the
City of Roanoke or the city of Salem. He does think in the future, we could have a work
session with the Board to talk through some of those issues. The Board would like to
revisit them. There's some history, but we've been working really hard since he has
been here to try to make us marry up with the State minimum, anywhere we were
different. We're very close to that with that one exception.
Ms. Loope added the only control we have is over the process itself,
maybe there is a way to simplify processes, but regulations are what they are.
Mr. Caywood stated the number one thing he hears from developers is "do
I have to go through a rezoning or not", or "through the Planning Commission Board
process"? He thinks most developers are much more amenable to things that may be
regulatory and that we have standards that they can apply by a formula, but that's very
different than a little bit more subjective public involvement process that's in terms of
time, cost and uncertainty. But if we told them that there's some additional streetscape
features and things like that, and we wanted in 419, that's just a straight cost but doesn't
require a lot of time or it doesn't have the uncertainty. So those are things that he hears
the most.
Supervisor Mahoney he looks at how he feels how successful Roanoke
City was with revitalizing their downtown. Again, a lot of that is mixed use development
and the City had to change their local ordinances to accommodate that because he can
remember when that area down around the market was a dead zone. You look at it now
and what is occurring and how successful the City is that's a very positive step that
they've been able to take. He would like to copy that.
Supervisor Peters asked a couple of questions and clarifications, when
we're passing these community plans, they are being incorporated into the
comprehensive plan with Mr. Thompson advising in the affirmative. Okay. So going
back to the Rt. 419 problems of growth, why are we not taking care of the zoning issues
at the time, if we've approved the plan that we're wanting builders to buy into and the
general public, why are we not making those things easier at that time? He is not
pushing back against the comprehensive plan, but he is also looking at, we're passing
these plans and we should be allowing those things by right, kind of like in the City. If
we're creating this community plan and we want this type of development to happen,
why are we not making it happen through the zoning ordinances rather than two or
three years later that we're still having this discussion?
January 30, 2021
84
Mr. Thompson responded resources. Typically, you do the plan, so it's
kind of a chicken and egg thing, right? So the first thing is to adopt the plan, because
you're kind of doing that. If you just want to come right after that, then there needs to be
funding available to do that, depending on what that is. Mr. O’Donnell stated you have
to have standards first and that's what the next step is, to develop the guide design
standards, which is what's in the CIP. It's really hard to go from a conceptual plan to
regulations without another layer of study and that's what the design standards does to
see exactly what you're contemplating. Supervisor Peters stated he is thinking about
Fallowater, you're saying at this point they've got to come through a rezoning. We're
hearing that developers should add the third layer with Mr. Thompson responding that is
in our current ordinance. Supervisor Peters stated what he is saying is, if we're hearing
that developers, they don't want to go through that process, and if we're saying, this is
what we want this to look like, why are we not making sure we're getting that pieces
streamlined? So this development can take place with minimal impact to our
developers. Because to him, he thinks the message that, that I've heard from
Supervisor Mahoney and probably from others is we want to send the message we're
open for business. We don't want the red tape. That's why we've addressed things like
stormwater. As things have been brought up to us as Board members, we've came back
to staff and ask, can we make this easier? Can we make sure that we're cutting that red
tape? He kind of feels the same way about the community plans. Staff has done a
beautiful job of putting these things together, but now he is looking at that next step of
what is hindering us from making this happen, and from the development community
what do they see as the stumbling blocks? Mr. Thompson responded he understands
that. Its resources having enough staff to do it at the time. What I would say is when we
adopt this, it's a long range plan, right? So part of the implementation is that regulatory
piece. So I don't know what plan you're wanting to start with. As we talked about 419,
we did put requests in the CIP and those got cut back. The pandemic put that back. Mr.
O’Donnell clarified the pandemic put that back. Mr. Thompson added originally our
requests in 2020 and 2021 was a $100,000, which got cut to $80,000. The second year
got cut to $20,000. Then all went away with the pandemic. So, there is a funding
mechanism. The other thought, with the grants were available, they were funding them
through the State. Our intent was to go through and get this technical assistance grant
to help with 419. Well, then that didn't reappear until just right now. So we are moving
forward with that. So you talk about the existing things that we could take about that
we're looking at now, a lot of times it comes through just practical work as Supervisor
Mahoney clearly talked about is, the first example of that, mixed use. Didn't go
anywhere. It wasn't looked on as favorable. Now we had the one that just went in on
McVitty that was a hundred percent, so that got the special use permit and got
approved. So this is really the first outreach, of somebody's willing to do this, right? A lot
of times that's how it comes about. Let's talk about potential projects on Fallowater Lane
not necessarily the Fallowater Square project. Having conversations with developers,
about what they're trying to do. So, it's real world people who are actually in the field
January 30, 2021
85
and getting that feedback. So, the structured parking becomes an issue of if they have
to build it as surface parking, you're going to destroy a lot of land, making a surface
parking lot, right? But their concern is the height restriction. So we are looking at that.
The other part of that is, and even when we went through 419, is having the height
issue, and it's not just the height in R3 or R4, but height in general, that extra floor or
second floor could make the difference between the project being that they can make it
financially or not; that came out and was part of that. Even when we started this whole
thing with 419, and we talked about whole activity centers, we were introducing issues
that the County had never faced, right? Taller buildings, which in the past has been an
issue, potentially structure parking to make this happen, at some point that needs to be
addressed. Transit, right? There are issues that make this happen, incentives to make it
happen, and more of a different code, form-based or something, to make that happen.
So all those things never experienced in Roanoke County that takes time to get in.
Again, this is the long range planning thing that we're working on. So it takes not only
us, but you all, as part of that process to be willing to go, to take those steps as well.
We're moving forward with those regulatory things that we know that can make an
immediate impact in the near future. Mr. O’Donnell stated so to him, it's a two-step
thing. There are some probably immediate things you could look at to do, without
getting into detailed design standards. So, he thinks you could do the low hanging fruit
kind of changes, but it's a two-step. You can go down two paths at the same time.
Supervisor Peters stated. He understands its a long-range plan and
appreciates that, but also understand that people are looking today. He could say that
my wife being in the real estate business, the last three houses she's put on the market,
the first people to call were from Northern Virginia. So I know that we're having a lot of
movement, migration, he knows it is happening and he is seeing it in real time.
But if we're going to look at these areas and thinks about 419, we actually started that
kickoff in 2016. He is concerned that while real estate is hot and people are looking to
move, are we doing what we can, and he is speaking for the Board, maybe he shouldn't,
but he is willing to do whatever, put resources where we need to, to make these things
move. Because, 419 to him is our downtown area. So, he does not want to see any
stumbling blocks when it comes to that and as far as moving this forward, if there are
simple things we can do, let's do it because he think that, as Supervisor Mahoney has
brought up a number of times, the zoning ordinances that we're having issues with, I
think we need to address sooner than later. Well, the ones that we can.
Mr. O’Donnell stated with regard to 419 in particular, we do have a
hundred thousand programmed for the study. His question would be, is there a way to
expedite some of the more obvious changes we've just talked about parking and height
prior to implementing a detailed study, I would suggest to move down that path. Mr.
Thompson stated those are in our January to June amendments process. So that's
getting wrapped into that process. The other thing he would say is, let's get away from
419 a little bit, let's talk about Oak Grove, for example. All right. County/City. So that is a
little bit more complicated. We will start that process of understanding development
January 30, 2021
86
design as part of that, and we'll start working with the City talking about that, but that's a
little bit trickier because it is two different jurisdictions and who does what, but there is
some type of analysis that needs to be done of looking at their regulations, our
regulations, and what the hindrances are to making that happen. So again, it's going to
take a little while to get there. Hollins Center, not so much. In our research that we're
doing for 419, about how some of this development is taking place, we are looking at
other things as well, that could be applied to Hollins that could be applied to Oak Grove.
As far as from a regulatory standpoint. He does believe in all of these cases of
regulatory is one thing, and then looking at how do we make some of the other
investments that are not transportation to help make those developments happen?
Whatever incentive package to make that happen will be a much more detailed and a
lot of work, to bring that to you all as well. Because again, there's multiple things that
happen. Part of the thing with the mall, we'll use the mall, but there's other properties
and lease obligations that make it difficult as well. If you look at the plan and, we talk
about this in the plan, is that the outparcel development is the first phase of that, and
that is moving forward. So, I do think this year you will see a lot of activity happening at
the mall; either 2021 and into 2022. He thinks there's going to be a lot of things
happening, part of was also some of the transportation funding that got approved. So,
you see you're investing in an are, that generates interest and probably development
interest as well. So, there is a multifaceted approach to this, and thinks it's similar to
when Vinton put the library downtown. There is a synergy and you build on that
synergy. For example, with Falllowater, once Fallowater's constructed, and then if there
are apartments built, that continues that synergy. So, but maybe there is more
development that takes place. The other thing is we can't control the national economy.
Supervisor Hooker stated she echoes Supervisor Mahoney’s sentiment
and thinks what you're saying, too, is that this Board wants to do whatever it takes to
help Ms. Loope and to help the process for economic development. When she looks at
page 73, you have some items with question marks, and wondering if you need a
consensus? Because you're asking about other planning studies and you're saying
zoning ordinance update. She agrees with Supervisor Mahoney, we need to go ahead
and make that a priority.
Mr. Thompson indicated we are in the comp plan process. There was the
thought that last year, and I thought that was part of the discussion potentially for this
meeting is, do you want us hold off on the comp plan and put something else ahead of
it? That's why there's question marks on that. With regard to the zoning ordinance, Ihe
would say, is something that happens after the comp plan's adopted. Mr. O’Donnell
stated other that tweaks. Mr. Thompson responded in the affirmative and stated
also maybe, do we look at a comprehensive rezoning at the time, too? So, to him that's
contemplated as part of that process and happens once that's done is basically looking
at the entire County at that point.
Supervisor Peters stated he knows you feel invest and the County is very
invested in this. For example Explore Park, as you noted a moment ago with
January 30, 2021
87
transportation, we're always looking for five years down the road. His concern is that,
as we're looking at Explore Park and the growth it's going to have, we've got $1.4 million
invested in 2023, and he is very concerned about not planning for that growth. He
brought it up a year ago, just basically a conversation at the end of our Board meeting.
But as the time is moving on, he is very concerned that, as we're looking at growth
areas, while it may not be a 419 where it's commercial, but we're looking at Explore
Park and how it's going to continue to grow in that area and he does not see growth, I
don't see growth. This is a concern of his and thinks even the Tow of Vinton brought it
up. Mr. Thompson stated there's a couple things going on. Obviously, we coordinate
with Parks and Rec on a lot of things. We have, through our meetings, looked at access
to Hardy Road and the Bedford County side that Brian Epperly (VDOT) has done some
schematics. We're going to share them at some point. As part of that project pipeline
that we talked about with VDOT, Hardy Road widening was part of that many years ago.
It was in the six-year plan and then it was taken out. So that's back into the project
pipeline list of looking at where does that stay in of taking it four lanes, at least, to the
park, Vinton Business Center and then probably would have to taper down, too. So,
Hardy Road is in there. So, I would say we're looking at that, especially if you have that
connection to the Parkway. So, there are some activities others are looking at, for that,
maybe with Bedford County and those folks. To some degree, as we go through the
comp plan process, that will come up as well and we will look at that and put those
recommendations and update those recommendations, both from Mount Pleasant and
from the Vinton area, the corridor plan, into the comp plan update.
Supervisor Peters noted as Mr. Blount and he have talked, and he has
actually heard it from multiple people, not just the one. I know Ms. Loope and he had
talked probably a year ago as you're looking at the Vinton Business Park. He does not
know the sites that are there, he doesn’t know if it's going to be a good fit over time for
businesses to go in there. At some point, do you look at that as being the connector to
the Explore Park to the Parkway, going through the Vinton Business Park and maybe
that redevelopment on the other side of Carter Glass looks differently than it does today.
This is my concern that as we continue to bring overnight accomodations and we
continue to grow at that park, he does not want it to just be stuck there. It’s going to
bleed over and thinsk no different than 419 or Collins or Oak Grove, are we planning for
what that growth's going to look like and make it inviting to those people that are going
to come and experience the Explore Adventure Plan, that we've proposed and adopted.
That's my concern.
Supervisor North stated just let me add some color to that. Terry Austin is
going to engage a tour of Explore Park. He wants to work, the Bedford sign, but that not
withstanding he could be a good ally for us because he's on the transportation
committee in the House. He has great relationship with Secretary Valentine and also
has indicated that after he meets with us and engages with us and understands things
better, he had some ideas recently when we met with him that, after session, he would
be willing to talk to Stephen Moret, Ms. Loope’s friend in Richmond, to see what
January 30, 2021
88
economic dollars might be out there or transportation dollars. If we need federal help,
there's Delegate Cline, who's also in Botetourt. So, he thinks in the future, we need to
include Terry as one of our allies in our legislative agenda, because someone on
transportation can be very valuable to us.
Supervisor Peters stated he has been very impressed, going back to Mr.
Blount and his team. He is just in awe of how well Explore Park has done. Whether it be
Illuminights or just the park in general. As he continues to see that growth in what it's
doing and what we're planning to do, it's moving at a much, much faster pace than he
expected and he is very, very pleased with that. But he is also very concerned of what
that's going to look like moving forward, how that's going to bleed into the rest of the
community, which he hopes we can embrace and make it a very positive thing.
Supervisor Mahoney stated he had a question for Supervisor Peters. His
view of the County is we have four commercial corridors: 419, West 460,
Plantation/Hollins and he always thought of 24. Do you see, and maybe he should ask
Mr. Thompson and Mr. Blount and you, with respect to Explore, because he thinks
Explore is one of our key priorities. We have put our money where our mouth is with
respect to Explore. Do you see the development more on Hardy Road, or do you see it
on 24 that would feed off of a successful Explore?
Supervisor Peters responded it depends on, again, the conversations that
are out there now. If we use the Vinton Business Park, then he would see a probably
greater development down that Hardy Road bleeding into the corridor, which is going to
where Kroger and all that is there in Vinton, where his office is. If we were to use that,
he thinks, one: we'd have more land to develop if we used part of the business park and
an easier connection to the Parkway. I think 24 in front of William Byrd High School is
going to be a bit more challenging because there's not as much land to develop there
until you get closer into the Town of Vinton.
Supervisor Mahoney stated he had viewed 24 just in a way, similar to
West 460 as an area that would be ripe for some revitalization.
Supervisor Peters stated, “It is,” but there are several pieces of property
right there next to the Parkway on 24. But as you come back towards Vinton, most of
that's residential and then you have the Food Lion parking lot, or Food Lion there on the
right-hand side. But he thinks there's a greater development once you came to 24 into
the Town of Vinton, probably where the Valley Bingo Hall is and all that area, right
through there would probably where you say it is “ripe for the picking” as far as
redevelopment and he guesses that goes back to his concern is where do we want that
growth to go? We're going to have that ability to kind of shape that, do we go in and
take it through the Vinton Business Park and redevelop that with a, who knows, a hotel,
he does not know. Do we encourage the development that way or are we just going to
let it go, however it happens, as it would be today? We really don't have a plan. If it
starts to grow, it's just going to grow wherever. As we look at the 419 plan, Hollins Road
growth, we're trying to encourage the growth a certain way. Again, that's his concern is
January 30, 2021
89
I've seen that, he is very, very pleased at how well Explore Park's doing, but now I think
we're sitting here looking at another set of challenges and how do we address them?
Mr. Thompson stated we did go through the process of updating the
Explore Park ordinance. He does believe he wants to meet with Mr. Blount and we're
going to talk about the zoning of, not only County property that's owned to get to
Explore Park, but also the Authorities' property. The question about access or what the
Vinton Business Center looks like, that's a master-planned community. We have
amended that master plan previously. So, there's been some conversation. Should we
go back and look at that? If you're thinking about access and/or uses. Because the
master plan on that property limits the type of uses you could put there. Again, this
would be part of the conversation if, moving forward, if you want to look at that. It is
limited in what can go in there. Again, but those are things we could do if that's the
direction that we are given.
Supervisor Peters stated that is his concern. We are now into the fork in
the road that we've got to make some decisions based on what's taking place and
Supervisor North is right. He ran into Delegate Austin at Cracker barrel a couple of
weeks ago and we had a lengthy discussion about Explore Park then. So, it's definitely
on his radar. He was there for Illuminights, was immensely impressed with what took
place there and he's definitely been on board. So, you strike while the iron is hot.
Ms. Loope stated we need to assess the feasibility of providing
connectivity and access points there if possible and that is an engineering question.
Supervisor Mahoney asked if staff needed anything from the Board with
respect to the working draft? He knows you started talking about it and then we hijacked
you. Do you need anything from us on this or is this information only?
Mr. Thompson stated the purpose of the document is, one: we have some
projects that we can move forward on. Others, or requests, are going to need additional
work, either by the County, the Regional Commission or us. As we move forward, what
is the source of funding from a locality stand point that we have on a yearly basis? So
do we have a $100,000 every year to look at surveying and engineering work to start
moving projects forward? Because currently we don't have that.
Mr. O’Donnell stated the only thing in the CIP is $200,000 for area specific
studies. There's nothing saying, maybe and he just thought of the sitting here, we can
go back and look at some of the other capital projects and see if there's some unspent
funds. We did that last year. Supervisor Peters stated we also have year-end surplus.
Mr. O’Donnell stated he thinks we can find some funds either that way or possibly even
from these upcoming year-end funds to help. But it's, right now, not in the CIP. Once
again, it's a question of competition for public safety and broadband and everything
else. So we're trying to figure out how to do as much as we can, but he hit on it. It's a
matter of resources.
Mr. Thompson stated so the question is, is it in the CIP every year? Is it an
operational budget issue? Do you have a line item that's dedicated to that every year?"
He would say probably the minimum right around $100,000? That's probably going to
January 30, 2021
90
get you two, maybe three projects surveyed and engineered. Potentially, we even need
to get to the point, even further; if we have to build in community engagement into that
process, that's going to lengthen the process and increase the cost. Where does the
public have a say. In a plan, it's a concept. Once it's funded, you can't change it. Well,
before you ask for money, you probably have to have that community engagement if
people don't like what you're proposing; that's going to add time and money to the
project.
Mr. Caywood stated just to add to that, because I think sometimes the
amount of man-hours that goes into this whole program is sometimes hard to see and
he will use the example of Lindsay Webb over there in Doug Blount’s shops, spends a
good portion of her time working on VDOT-funded projects that tend to exist more in the
form of greenways. You've got David Henderson doing field delivery. He works in there
for Tarek Moneir. Megan and her staff and I spend a lot of our time on the delivery of
these things. So, it's kind of spread through the organization, but, in some ways, we're a
little bit of a victim of our own success and that we do have a large portfolio of projects
we are working on, but some of the very people that are working on delivering the active
projects are also have the same skill sets that Mr. Thompson needs to do some of the
work to generate the next ones and do other planning activities. So, we are in a very
resource-constrained environment, but just looking forward into the future, that is going
to be something we'll have to address, because we've kind of been as diligent as we
can to take all those out of existing hives, so to speak, so far. But we will get to a point
where, over the long haul, as we continue to grow that program, which is a really good
thing, we probably are going to have to look at how we staff it and how we manage it
because, using David Henderson as an example, he's got many, many important
responsibilities for the County, but he has also our field project deliverer for these
projects that we're talking about, the ones that we have a hand in. But he's also heading
up our engineering operations in a lot of other ways. Those are just things we'll have to
think about going forward. He thinks we're going to be able to do some things in the
very short run, but I think, long-term, we're probably, whether it's inside or outside
resources, are going to have to be in addition to what we're doing now, to do all the
things that the Board has just talked about and that's just something we'll have to
recognize. But it's a good problem to have, because we're at that point because we are
getting so many things going on that are all positive things.
Supervisor Peters stated he thinks we may have to look at reprogram the
year-end surplus to address some of these things instead of kicking them down the
road.
Mr. Thompson stated when he started here there was probably about two
people involved in transportation. It's probably 10-plus, now and probably five different
departments: County admin, it's Planning, it's Development Services, it's Parks and
Rec, it's Economic Development. You're talking about the SED study. A lot of our stuff
feeds into that for funding, as well. So, it is a multi-department and a lot of people
involved in that process and it will probably continue to grow.
January 30, 2021
91
Mr. Caywood noted it is successful.
Supervisor North stated he has enjoyed working on the transportation
projects and Supervisor Radford is also on there. We've gotten regular attendance to
these. We hadn't had that in the past, from what he was told, so that doesn't hurt neither
and hopes to be around the transportation a long, long time.
3. Economic Development Strategic Plan – Jill Loope, Director of
Economic Development
(a) Discussion of details of the Economic Development
Strategic Plan Process
Ms. Loope provided a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file
in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. There was no discussion.
Upda
4. Rural Broadband Update – Bill Hunter, Director of
Communications and Information Technology
(a) VATI Grant status
(b) Funding Update
(c) Future Strategy
Mr. Hunter provided a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is one file
in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. O’Donnell commented with regard to the franchise agreement with
Cox, it only applies to RVTV, not internet, but when they've already got the
infrastructure because of cable TV, how do you get other internet providers to compete
with that, because of that capital investment? So that's the problem. Mr. O’Donnell then
asked Mr. Hunter to explain the scheduling for the VATI grants, because we want to talk
about what has been submitted and the timeline changes. Mr. Hunter explained their
promise is, over the next, and I was shocked to see, February the 8th, is the deadline to
get your rescope projects submitted. Ours is already in. We work directly with Dr.
Holmes at DHCD, who runs this whole program, to make sure we've had all the i's
dotted and the t's crossed. But then the DHCD announcement was that over the next
several months, these other announcements will be made. He felt like they were going
to come out in February, but we still don't know what the date may be for the
announcement.
Supervisor Mahoney asked how many homes were we able to accomplish
in reference to Slide 100. Mr. Hunter responded because of the wireless, pinning down
January 30, 2021
92
a hard number, he does not have that right now, potentially 200 homes with this
wireless service.
Supervisor Mahoney asked with regard to Slide 96 the VATI Grant status,
300 homes, $3 million, it's $10 grand a home. He is just trying to get a sense of how
much per house is this costing. He understands even though there's a potential for
serving 300, not everybody is going to sign up, so you're going to get even, but that's a
different issue. As long as it's available, then the citizen can choose or not choose and
that's their personal financial decision.
Mr. O’Donnell indicated there is also a difference in quality.
Supervisor Mahoney advised he understands
Supervisor North stated he wonders if those citizens want to bend the ears
of our legislators instead of bending your ear all the time, because at the end of the day
that's they're in Richmond, we're not, the money comes from Richmond.
Mr. O’Donnell commented he thinks we all know this is a national problem
and the pandemic has just exacerbated this issue and there is really no great federal
strategy to deal with this. This is just like rural electrification or the interstate system or
any of those large infrastructure problems and to try to have local governments with
some state assistance is not an efficient way to do it.
Supervisor North stated If it hadn't been for the pandemic and the tele-
medicine challenges and the education challenges, that VATI Grant Fund wouldn't have
gone for $35 to $50 million in my mind and so we're thankful for that. The question is,
for this next upcoming year, it's only going to be another $50 million instead of going up
to maybe say $75 million. We need to lobby Richmond for next year, because at the
end of the day, even the Governor will tell you that there's 500,000 folks that are at a
disadvantage that don't have this service in the Commonwealth, and Mr. O’Donnell and
I one day on the back of an envelope calculated that Roanoke County's cost was $50
million to do 90 something percent. Supervisor North then stated the point is, if we
continue to step along with VATI, it is going to take us year; 10-15 years.
Mr. O’Donnell stated that is his point, he does not even think states can
handle this. This should be a federal effort.
Mr. O’Donnell commented so as we start planning next year, we need to
think about how to use these, is it a VATI grant we want to do? If we have a big match
like that we'd probably have a good chance to get another big grant, but that's the
planning we need to do over the next few months.
Supervisor North stated he would have in his hip pocket, a press release
ready to go, in case we don't get that VATI grant, with some plan to keep the public
apprised. It can just be locked up in your desk drawer.
Mr. O’Donnell state if we don't get the VATI grant, the choice might be to
use what we have to do as much as we can in that rural area that has the highest
number of homes; probably Bradshaw Road
Mr. Hunter stated he has approached Cox Communication on that very
thing as the winning bidder of this. It's mapped out, they have plans laid out, so now
January 30, 2021
93
they want to wait until the announcement before they formulate their plan. But in his
mind, he would like to see them pony up more money than they promised right now for
a direct partnership with us and see what can we do with what you're willing to offer,
and what we have to go ahead and begin some type of work. The other thing is, and he
was surprised to learn during the course of all this, that several years back B2X
communication proposed a combination of a wireless and fiber solution for Bradshaw
road. I had the opportunity to go out and meet Warren Kane, the president of B2X, and
he pulled out a map from that proposal that had that laid out. He would like to ask him to
refresh a proposal as part of a plan that we could possibly use going forward and
provide us with a timeline. This again, is a combination of fiber optic link and wireless
mesh.
Supervisor Hooker added we need to go back and talk to the community
fund people. Mr. Hunter stated maybe they could kick in some too. Supervisor Hooker
stated we need to do that probably here soon; maybe even before we hear back just to
have. Mr. Hunter responded that would be excellent.
Supervisor Radford ask how far down Bradshaw Road does B2X plan go?
Mr. Hunter responded at the bottom of Bradshaw Comcast comes up Bradshaw to the
fire station may be slightly past that, but then the school's backbone is Cox because we
work with Cox to put a hotspot out at the school on Bradshaw Road. So they're both
there.
Supervisor Radford stated he is at the opposite end with a client; how far
out does it go. Supervisor Hooker indicated not that far. Mr. Hunter indicated B2
actually attends to the landfill right now.
5. Legislative Update – Peter Lubeck, County Attorney; Richard
Caywood, Assistant County Administrator
Mr. Lubeck provided a powerpoint presentation, a copy of which is on file
in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors with Mr. Caywood providing
commentary as well.
6. Board goal setting for calendar year 2021
Mr. O’Donnell provided a list of last year’s goals: 1) Work to develop a
multi-year operating budget with increased reliance on economic forecasting, 2)
Improve employee engagement by implementing recommendations from the Employee
Engagement Survey, 3) Complete Employee Compensation and Classification Study
and implement changes to Classification System to ensure market comparability and
internal equity, 4) Determine the best long-term solid waste transportation option with
the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority and develop and plan for implementation and 5)
Review building and development permit processes to streamline service delivery and
January 30, 2021
94
improve efficiency. He indicated, we were going to develop multi-year budgeting
instead four separate one year budgets. We're working through those things, especially
with the public safety departments now. So those two things are in progress, two and
three. Solid waste transportation option, as you know, is moving forward with
conversion to, from rail to road. Ms. Owens and I would like to have some discussions
with Board members to bring you up to speed on where we are with that. That's well
underway and the decision's been made, now we're working on the implementation and
Mr. Caywood might be able to comment on this more. We talked about reviewing the
building and development permit process to streamline service delivery. We didn't really
do that in a comprehensive fashion, but I know Mr. Caywood worked with Supervisor
Radford and Mr. Moneir, especially on the sediment erosion control kind of permit and
how do we process? He doesn’t know if the Board want to touch on this. Some other
things have been done that hopefully will help streamline some of that.
Mr. Caywood stated he thought that was really good process where we
worked with people who we do regulate. So folks from the industry and just to identify
things that they see as being problematic that were changes we might make, might
have the most benefits. So, one simple example now that we're working on is how we
take electronic signatures versus, what forms have to be signed, and it may sound
minor, but when you do these in mass, it makes a difference. He thought E & S was a
really good process and would like to work with any interested Board members or folks
from the outside that have specific, tangible things. Because that's the way to chip
away; because it's not always the things we think. Most of our industry partners do
work in multiple localities and they can say, "Well, when I work over here, they've got a
really good way to do this and your way takes longer." We can look at that and make
changes and then also make recommendations to the Board for more policy level
decisions where the Board actually has to change. For example, the one we used
earlier is the, what square footage do you need a permit at E & S? Where there's some
discretion or are there other more policy driven changes that we would recommend out
of that. He added that he thought working with the industry is a good way to start that.
Or if there's particular issue that a Board member's heard about, we could look at. My
goal would be, this time next year, we have three or four things we have examined that
we could point out to say, specifically, we have made this better, or we had made that
better or simpler for folks that want to make investments in the County.
Mr. O’Donnell stated does City Works have some impact. Mr. Caywood
responded in the affirmative stating we could do a whole presentation on the things
we've implemented in the past year. City Works itself is now adding a Mr. Efforts,
helping us pilot, the getting information in and out of a City Works by text message and
then the signature piece will all lay on top of that. His long-term goal is to have it to
where a developer only has to come in this building to make routine submittals if they
want to. So, he does not want to get rid of the counter for the people that like it, but he
does not want to make people have to do that. He thinks each one of those efforts to
streamline pays dividends. Quite frankly, every form that a developer has to fill out,
January 30, 2021
95
there's cost to that and we want to make sure that we're getting exactly what we need
and not doing it in a way that's onerous.
Supervisor Radford stated he would like to keep that one on as a goal
because it's continuing and like Mr. Caywood said, it hasn't fully got to the point where I
we define what streamline, how do we measure streamline compared to other
localities? So he agrees with everything Mr. Caywood said so far. He does not mind
trying to help get involved because he is a user of the system, so he sees it firsthand.
He would recommend we leave that number five item on the goals.
Mr. O’Donnell stated the back page is basically everything we just talked
about today. When we had this meeting last year and not decided whether we wanted
to do an economic strategic plan or work to the comp plan or continue to do the
community plans. We're kind of doing them all, but they're not really prioritized anymore.
We're just trying to move down the path to get them all done. So he thinks we're on the
road for that one as well.
Supervisor Peters stated he thinks the first for probably most of use is
make sure we get everything squared away in public safety; that needs to be our
number one. Secondly, we can leave on number five that Supervisor Radford has
suggested. Thirdly, he guesses the concerns he heard today about the zoning issues in
the community plans.
Supervisor Hooker stated broadband needed to be included.
Supervisor Radford stated he would like to detail broadband just a little bit,
but needs somebody to pull up a couple of websites so he can explain some stuff He
asked bring our website up to show you guys a couple of things that he thinks we need
to target on our website, our GSI website and then asked to bring up
broadbandnow.com. He then added if you'll notice our GIS system. We're looking at the
tax parcel viewer and go to Old Mill Plantation. Down at the bottom, there's a tab that
says broadband. Click that. So that's great information for that site. When we are trying
to determine where our coverage is. See where it says broadband providers, Cox
Communication, maximum 200 megabits. Well, Cox is a gig megabit. Who's updating
our GIS broadband? Mr. Caywood advised he would find out. He understands the
question. One thing about this that we've had as a challenge in the past. One of the
reasons that we did the broadband survey is to try to identify the addresses that had
service and didn't have service, is that the address by address data as a provider is
normally considered that to be proprietary. So it's hard to guess. You get these
generalized maps. He does not know if today, we have a reliable data source that tells
you exactly because you can pull up an address in Cox, and it says there's service
there, but then you try to get service there and they'll say, Oh well for this much money,
we can extend the line to you. It's just been a challenging issue, but I'll find out where
we're pulling the data from that we have and look at ways to try to fine tune that. But
that's the thing that I wish existed was a up-to-date, reliable data set that would tell you
house by house, or address point by address because a lot of time there's not a house
there yet. If you're looking at one, what's actually available in front of him at what cost.
January 30, 2021
96
Supervisor North stated if you could get a link, and click on this link and
takes you to the data survey that Bill Hunter did. That might easily be that be a good fix.
In other words, put some denotation on all this so that people aren't misled and they go
to the most recent data.
Mr. O’Donnell noted he thinks you have to be careful with the broadband
survey because that's only as good as the respondents were. It might be best to take it
completely off.
Supervisor Radford asked to take a look at a third website. Franklin
County Internet Coverage Map. Click the one in the middle that says potential coverage
maps and the Franklin County Broadband Initiatives. When you click initiative status,
there's all kinds of maps there that realtors or people that are checking Zillow and all
kinds of stuff, they can see where the potential broadband is or where it's going to be in
Franklin County and we need a targeted map like this for Roanoke County.
Mr. O’Donnell stated his question would be how accurate is this, because
if it potential it may be more of a marketing thing than reality.
Mr. Caywood stated he would look at it because again, but wants to make
it clear, he does not for one second doubt that we can't improve how we do this. It
reminds him of when you look where your cell phone is going to work and you see the
Verizon coverage map. It's probably generally accurate. The simplest example, he lives
right in front of Hidden Valley High School, and does not have cell service and a lot of
my house.
Supervisor Radford stated what we're looking at is Franklin County has a
broadband authority. We have a regional authority. They have their own. So they have
phase one, phase two, where they're going to put these towers, and that's what we're
looking at are these different towers in their plan.
Mr. O’Donnell stated they have one big plan with one big mesh network
provider, I think. Supervisor Radford stated no, they have different providers.
Mr. O’Donnell stated the bigger issue to him is our County doesn't have a
County-wide strategy. We've never done that, because we're chasing projects and
dollars. We've put an RFP up, but we've never done a complete study that says where
can you do it, how do you do it, when do you do it? Because we're chasing this one
project at a time and only for the last two years, but maybe that's something we should
work on.
Supervisor Radford stated he is just bringing this point to everybody here.
We've got to get on the ball with broadband and there's got to be a way to identify it, see
it, where those points are. I mean, for right now, realtors clicking on cannot find
broadband with accuracy unless you actually drive to the location, knock on the people's
door that lives in the neighborhood. Do you have broadband or do you have DSL?
Mr. O’Donnell stated how accurate is this map? Supervisor Radford
stated this is their future map for phase one, phase two of their towers.
Supervisor Peters stated his question would be, if he is looking at a
potential home, he can go to Cox and put in that address and it'll tell me what it has.
January 30, 2021
97
Supervisor Radford stated Franklin County does not have Cox with
Supervisor Peters stating, but we do; pretty much all of Roanoke County other than few
areas.
Mr. O’Donnell stated he thinks the message is if we can figure out a way
to map what our areas are and make it more usable on GIS, that's a great idea. He just
does not if this is doing what they it does.
Mr. Caywood stated this looks like is just every tower location, draw a
circle, a certain diameter around it. If we've got a way to get the data, we can map
anything with our GIS folks, they're great. It's just from where do we get the data and
then how conservative or liberal do we want to be on what we think we're showing
people, because it's a double-edged sword, but will work on it with staff and we'll get
back to you on what we think is doable.
Supervisor Peters stated the question he would have is fix our broadband
piece of our GIS, why are we given the 200 megabits or whatever it is? Why don't we
just say that, that's the provider for that area and then it'd be up to the person. Mr.
Caywood responded you could look at certain address points on Timber View Road and
both Cox and Comcast on their systems would tell you they serve that address, and
neither one of them did. So it gets to be a dilemma, where do I get accuracy. He wants
to do what Supervisor Radford wants, because he agrees completely with his question.
It's just in the real world, how do we populate it? If Franklin County is kind of managing
a series of projects, they probably got a little more control over that because they've got
more ownership of the data, just like we will for the projects we're doing, because we'll
know more about them. But since most of our service is your cable companies and
other people that have done that privately, it's a lot harder to know what they really
have. Because what you ideally want is a map of every address Cox served or every
address Comcast serves. But they won't give us that.
Supervisor Peters stated this not fiber that is being run in the ground with
Mr. O’Donnell stating this is all a mesh network. Mr. Caywood added with mesh, even
quite frankly, the amount of trees your neighbor has can be a factor or the hill, just over
there. But we'll work on it and see what we can do. But it could be too that our data is
dated and it could just be we need to update what we have as best we can.
Supervisor Radford stated he is thinking of economic development and
the people that are calling me to buy land, they want to know if it's served by broadband
or DSL. I'm looking at Montgomery County, Roanoke County, Franklin County, and
Bedford. So, he is having to go through four or five websites to try to put it together; it is
a mess and needs three or four monitors to figure f out when I'm talking to them.
Supervisor Peters stated unless he is wrong, he thinks the majority of
what's been spoken today is we want to keep pressing on the economic development
and the zoning. He made his concerns about Explore Park known. Whether the board
would join me on that, but thinks that the focus of 2021 is we got blindsided in 2020 and
we see the lot of potential for 2021 and thinks economic development is where we want
to be and focusing on those areas.
January 30, 2021
98
Supervisor Mahoney stated to kind of repeat, in part what Supervisor
Peters indicated, if you're going to link or list priorities, the compensation study in public
safety. We want to carry over item number five from last year that is streamlining our
building and community development process, and continue to work on that. That's an
ongoing process. He thinks we delivered a message to Mr. Thompson about we want
to begin addressing our zoning ordinance amendments to have them better mesh and
be consistent with those reimagined plans that we're doing under the comp plan. He
thinks we have to put, or continue to put money into broadband one way or the other.
He thinks the economic development piece is critical because that has always been our
priority. Maybe I'm wrong, but he views what we talked about earlier, Mr. Thompson
talked about earlier, and what Supervisor North talked about earlier in terms of putting
money, he calls it seed money into these various highway projects. To him, for local
governments, what's economic development? We have to do infrastructure. What's
infrastructure? It's broadband, it's water and sewer, it's roads, it's natural gas, it's three
phase power. It's all that “stuff” and that's what local governments can do. We have to
somehow find money to do that. He is just worried that with all of these items, we don't
have enough money to do all of that. Somehow we as a Board are going to have to
make a tough decision. He could see the compensation study in public safety taking all
our available resources. But for long-term, we need to build that tax base. We build a
tax base through economic development. Economic development ties into our zoning
ordinances. Our reimagined plans, everything we do with highways. he just doesn’t see
having enough money to do it all. While it's nice to have a list of priorities. At some
point in time, and thinks that point in time is March, April. When we do budget, we figure
out what resources we have. Tuesday night he talked about redistricting, because Mr.
Thompson had given me some information about maybe some preliminary census data,
but then Wednesday or Thursday, he read in the newspaper that we're not going to get
the numbers till July, maybe. He is glad he is not running for reelection. That's three of
you are because your boundaries in your districts are going to change. But it may not be
changing for the November elections. So maybe that's no longer a priority. That's a
small dollar item, but that's something if we want to do it in house, Mr. Lubeck is going
to have to do that and is not sure how we handle that. We've talked about a lot of good,
tough issues and high priority issues. He just does not think we have enough money to
do it all. Now long range, maybe Supervisor North and he can talk about how we put
together a transportation district. We'll see if there's courage to walk down that path.
Supervisor North added.right now, we're crawling because of General
Assembly’s got to pass the bill and then we have to understand the bill and see how
that fits. But yes that's a dialogue for the future. We won't know that until the end of the
special session, which we don't even know when that will be.
Supervisor Mahoney commented that Northern Virginia and Tidewater are
stealing our lunch on transportation.
Mr. O’Donnell in terms of the budget we're putting together, he doesn’t
think we're that far off. We've already told you what it's going to cost to do the public
January 30, 2021
99
safety compensation and the reasonable rates for everybody else. We've got that
figured out, and a lot of the planning stuff is ongoing what we're doing, but now kind of
tuning in on the zoning piece from the town plans and continue on with the long-term
comprehensive plans. Broadband, you just saw we have funds in broadband. We just
have to wait for the VATI grants to determine how to program those. We're planning on
300,000 newer. Streamlining permit is more of a work project, not a cost item. The only
thing that's really not in the budget is the seed money for the transportation planning.
You have the CIP and other thing he just talked to Mr. Caywood about, we can go back
and comb through the CIP projects like we did a year ago when we had to cut things. If
we can come up with a $100,000 for that, that's enough to get us through one year. We
also have year end money coming up July 1st. So once we know what that year end is
in July or August. So, it not that big a problem to fix short-term. We don't have a
recurring way to do that.
Supervisor Hooker commented to follow up to what Supervisor Mahoney
said, she thinks he is correct. If we look at solving these problems, there's no way we
have enough money. But if we're looking at these issues as issues we want to really
hone in on, and come up with plans to eventually get there, that's the way she thinks
that we should be spending our time.
Supervisor Peters stated put a priority list together for when the money is
available, we were going to attack those. But we need to have a priority list, not only for
us, but for staff as well to know what our priorities are.
Supervisor Hooker added even though we can't solve all the broadband
issues in Roanoke County, we can have a plan B and we can say after those spots are
taken care of what happens next? She thinks that we do need a plan like that to see
where are our most dense places without this utility that we need to be thinking of next.
Mr. O’Donnell stated we have never done a comprehensive strategy for it
necessarily. It makes sense to do a mesh and over here. Because all we've done is an
RFP to see who responded and then chased the VATI grant. He added maybe the
Broadband Authority can do that with us.
Supervisor Peters stated his concern is, and I'm hearing it from not only
my spouse, but others in the community, It's really nothing different than the whole time
he has been on the Board regarding Economic Development. It's something near and
dear to me. He believes that we're going to start to see a migration from some of these
cities. It goes back to everything we've talked about. Are we preparing ourselves for
that influx? Are we prepared for the housing? Are we preparing for that expansion.
There's part of me that still believes that we're talking about having a shortage of police
officers, but he has a feeling that some of these police officers from other areas, if we
can get our compensation right, they're going to say, “You know what, I'm tired of this. I
want to go over here where I can have a better life for me and my family.” It's all
connected.
Mr. O’Donnell stated number one on most people’s list is a safe
community.
January 30, 2021
100
Supervisor North stated let's wrap this up so we're on the same page on
the goals and making sure Mr. O’Donnell is comfortable with those broadband,
economic development strategic plan, review, comprehensive plan, zoning ordinances.
And Compensation. The compensation studies, wouldn't you say that's already about
done? Do you want to carry that over to the next year? Mr. O’Donnell stated it is gong
going to be part of this year's budget. Supervisor North indicated, it's a carry-over from
last year. Then you have the Explore Park subject, which has come up. He thinks
certainly we've put a lot of money in that. We should keep that on the radar, on the front
burner. Maybe somebody would be coming our way one day from other sources. But
that ties in with the transportation piece, if you know, because we might be able to
improve that product to get in a lake entrance, perhaps.
Supervisor Peters stated his concern is feeding wherever that
development it's going to be. Whether it comes off Hardy road, whether it comes in off
24. We may not have to drill down to exactly what it's going to look like, but guesses
that's my concern is as Explore Park continues to build out, where are we going to plan
for how it's going to bleed out into the community? Which ties back into the
transportation, because we need to put that money into Hardy Road if we can.
Supervisor North stated he would not object to taking some money and
setting it aside for our Transportation Project Fund and we can define that later. But it
seems to him that the projects that are the lower cost projects, whatever that might be
compared to the $28 million ones, they usually get approved pretty easily. The Green
Ways, the Blue Ways, the byways. Mr. O’Donnell stated he thinks Mr. Thompson and
Mr. Caywood are talking about preliminary study money to be able to get ready to apply
for the big projects. Mr. Caywood stated as an example if we wanted to look at some
intersection on 419 that we hadn't looked at yet and we might spend $30,000 working
with a consultant to do survey and early design work to build the application that we
have to put in today. Ms. Cronise had worked with Mr. Caywood to develop a list of the
projects that they want to pursue in the upcoming cycles and then what each one would
cost in external funds.
Mr. O’Donnell stated in terms of the concept of this though he would to
work on a draft memo to send you. But I think rather than saying find $100, for
transportation studies, try expanding transportation opportunities and increasing
projects is the big goal. That's the kind of level he thinks our goal should be versus Let
me kind of work on some language.
Supervisor North stated these smart scale projects are five years down
the road, so they're not to happen in the next couple of years.
It was the consensus of the Board for Mr. O’Donnell to work on a draft and
provide back to the Board.
January 30, 2021
101
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Peters adjourned the meeting at 2:17 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
________________________ ___________________________________
Deborah C. Jacks P. Jason Peters
Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman
January 30, 2021
102
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY