Feb 24, 2026 Regular Meeting

[A. Call to Order (6:00 pm)]

[00:00:06]

I'D LIKE TO CALL THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING FOR TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24TH TO ORDER. WE DON'T HAVE A NEED FOR ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION.

ROLL CALL, MS. KNOTT. MR. COX? HERE. MR. PHILLIP PUGH? HERE. MR. HAMILL? HERE. MR. FORD PUGH? HERE. MR. WEBB? HERE. WITH THAT, I'LL MOVE TO THE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA. DO I HAVE ANY ADDITIONS, DELETIONS? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. MR. CHAIR, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. I HAVE A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ROLL CALL, PLEASE. MR. PHILLIP PUGH? YES. MR. HAMILL? YES.

MR. FORD PUGH? YES. MR. WEBB? YES. MR. COX? YES. OKAY,

[B. Closed Session]

PURSUANT TO VIRGINIA CODE 2.2-3711A.1 FOR THE DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN APPOINTMENT TO THE SOCIAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD. PURSUANT TO VIRGINIA CODE 2.23773711A3 FOR THE DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION OF THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY. A WATER PUMP STATION FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE OR OF THE DISPOSITION OF PUBLICLY HELD REAL PROPERTY, WHERE DISCUSSIONS IN AN OPEN MEETING WHEN ADVERSELY AFFECT THE BARGAINING POSITION OR NEGOTIATING STRATEGY OF THE PUBLIC BODY. OKAY, YOU'VE HEARD THE MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND, BY MR. WEBB. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

MR. HAMILL? YES. MR. FORD-PUGH? YES. MR. WEBB? YES. MR. COX? YES. MR. PHILLIP-PUGH? YES. OKAY, WE'LL BE IN CLOSED SESSION FOR A SHORT. OKAY, I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING BACK INTO ORDER. I NEED A MOTION TO CERTIFY CLOSED SESSION, PLEASE. MR. CHAIR, I MAKE A MOTION TO RECONVENE AN OPEN SESSION AND CERTIFY, PURSUANT TO VIRGINIA CODE 2.2-3712D, THAT ONLY PUBLIC BUSINESS MATTERS LAWFULLY EXEMPTED FROM OPEN MEETING REQUIREMENTS AND IDENTIFIED IN THE MOTION BY WHICH THE CLOSED MEETING WAS CONVENED, WERE HEARD, DISCUSSED, OR CONSIDERED. HAVE YOU HEARD A MOTION? DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ROLL CALL. MR. FORD PUGH? YES. MR. WEBB? YES. MR. COX? YES. MR. PHILLIP PUGH? YES. MR. HAMILL? YES. OKAY,

[C. Business Meeting]

MR. HAMILL WILL LEAD US IN THE INVOCATION, AND MR. FORD PUGH WILL LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

HEAVENLY FATHER, WE GATHER TOGETHER IN THY NAME, GRATEFUL FOR THE MANY MERCIES AND BLESSINGS THOU HAS CONFERRED ON US. WE ASK THAT YOU GRANT OUR BOARD FOCUS AND CLARITY THIS EVENING. MAY YOU GUIDE US IN CARRYING OUT THE PLAN YOU HAVE FOR THE PEOPLE OF OUR GREAT COUNTY. LORD, WE THANK YOU FOR LIFTING UP OUR COMMUNITY.

PLEASE WATCH AFTER OUR FIRST RESPONDERS AND OUR SERVICE MEMBERS. MAY THEY BE KEPT SAFE, SURROUNDED BY YOUR ALL-KNOWING GUIDANCE.

MAY WE EVER LABOR IN THE LIGHT OF THY DIVINE COUNTENANCE.

IN YOUR HOLY NAME, WE PRAY.

AMEN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ALL RIGHT, BEFORE WE MOVE INTO PUBLIC COMMENTS, WE HAVE A NEW FACE UP HERE WITH US TONIGHT. I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE OUR NEW COUNTY ATTORNEY, HASSAN KINGSBERRY.

WELCOME, SIR. ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE INTO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. I NEED TO REMIND YOU, YOUR PUBLIC COMMENTS, PLEASE DO NOT MAKE ANY COMMENTS DURING THIS PERIOD ON PUBLIC HEARINGS. SAVE THOSE COMMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING, OKAY? SO, IF ANYBODY WANTS TO COME UP AND SPEAK ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE OTHER THAN THE TWO PUBLIC OR THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS, PLEASE FEEL SO. JUST COME UP TO THE DAIS OR PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND YOU'VE GOT THREE MINUTES.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JOHN BUKOWSKI. I LIVE AT 18890 HALIFAX ROAD IN CARSON. I'M HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE NORMALLY I'M NOT VERY INVOLVED, BUT I'VE GOTTEN KIND OF UPSET WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING IN RICHMOND. THE ILLEGAL REFERENDUM THAT'S COMING BEFORE US, I BELIEVE, NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BY YOUR BOARD. WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S AGAINST OUR CONSTITUTION. OUR CONSTITUTION STATES,

[00:05:01]

OKAY, ANYONE ELSE? THANKS, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. AND, SIR, ACTUALLY, THIS YOU NEED TO HOLD UNTIL THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS? ALL I'M DOING IS PROVIDING THE INFORMATION. I HAVE TO PASS IT ON TO PEOPLE HERE IF THEY HAVE A HARD COPY, AND I WILL POST IT ON THE WEB. OKAY. MY NAME IS RONALD G. SMITH. I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT SINCE 1976 IN PRINCE GEORGE. SERVED OVER 20 YEARS OF ACTIVE ARMY SERVICE, HONORABLY. WITH 12 YEARS IN EUROPE, A YEAR IN VIETNAM, WHERE 58,000 OF OUR MEN AND WOMEN WERE DRAPED IN THE AMERICAN FLAG, WHICH, IN MANY CASES, TODAY IS BEING DAMAGED AND DESTROYED BY THESE RADICALS IN OUR COUNTRY. WE NEED A CONGRESSIONAL LAW TO PROTECT OUR FLAG. I'M HERE TO ADDRESS THESE PROPOSALS OF HOMES BEING BUILT. I'M ON WATCH ONE DRIVE. I'M GOING TO STOP YOU AGAIN, SIR. YOU HAVE TO HOLD THAT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, OKAY? SO, IF YOU'LL GRAB A SEAT, AND ONCE WE GET TO THIS, THEN YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP AND SPEAK. OKAY, I'LL LIVE BY YOUR PROTOCOL.

THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE? GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, BILL STEELE, 9921 COUNTY LINE ROAD. MR. CHAIRMAN, AT THE LAST BOS MEETING, A COUNTY RESIDENT BROUGHT TO THIS BOARD'S ATTENTION A CONCERN ABOUT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. NOW, I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE RESULTS OF WHAT THIS BOARD DID, BUT I AM CONCERNED WHEN ANY CITIZEN OF OUR COUNTY COMES BEFORE YOU AND SAYS, HEY, I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH TRANSPARENCY. WE'RE JUST COMING OUT OF, WE HAVE A NEW BOARD HERE, AND WE KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEMS WE'VE HAD WITH LACK OF TRANSPARENCY IN THE PAST. I'M HOPING THIS BOARD WILL NOT FALL BACK INTO THAT. REGARDING THAT ISSUE, I WAS RELIABLY INFORMED THAT SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD WERE NOT GIVEN FULL INFORMATION REGARDING THE HIRING OF THIS ATTORNEY. LATER ON, HOWEVER, DURING THE COMMENTS, MR. FORD AND MR. SCOTT BOTH INDICATED, HEY, WE KNOW THERE WERE MISTAKES WERE MADE AND WE'RE GOING TO CLARIFY THAT, SO I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO THAT. BUT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I AM STILL WAITING FOR THAT LETTER ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT I SENT TO YOU, AND I KNOW IT'S FORTHCOMING.

SECONDLY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO THANK MR. WEBB. MR. WEBB MADE COMMENTS AT THE LAST MEETING THAT WE ALL NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT. HE MADE US FULLY AWARE OF THE, HOW CAN I SAY IT POLITELY, ISSUES COMING OUT OF RICHMOND. NOW, MR. WEBB ALSO STATED THAT HIS BOARD HAS SENT LETTERS TO RICHMOND AND TO OUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE. MR. COX, I'M ASKING THAT WE POST THESE LETTERS ON THE COUNTY WEBSITE SO WE TAXPAYERS CAN SEE THEM. WE WANT TO SUPPORT YOUR LETTERS, AND WE WANT TO ADD TO YOUR LETTERS AND SEND THEM UP, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO DO THIS.

WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. SO, IF YOU WOULD CONSIDER, PLEASE PUTTING THOSE ON SO WE CAN FOLLOW UP WITH IT. CITIZENS IN THIS COUNTY MUST RESPOND TO OUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES.

YOU CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH, AND AS MR. WEBB SO WISELY ANNOUNCED, WE'RE GOING TO GET SCREWED HERE FROM WHAT'S HAPPENING UP IN RICHMOND. CITIZENS NEED TO SUPPORT YOU. PLEASE GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.

FINALLY, AGAIN, MR. WEBB MADE EXCELLENT COMMENTS AT THE JOINT

[00:10:02]

MR. WEBB MADE INDICATION THAT PG IS A RURAL COUNTY. IF CITIZENS COMING INTO THIS COUNTY, OR NEW CITIZENS, EXPECT A COP ON EVERY CORNER, EXPECT AN EMS ON EVERY BLOCK, EXPECT A GROCERY STORE EVERYWHERE, THAT IS NOT WHAT RURAL VIRGINIA IS. SO, MR. WEBB, AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS, AND I HOPE THE BOARD WILL TAKE THOSE INTENTS AS WE GO THROUGH THE BUDGET. WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT, HEY, WE'RE RURAL, WE DO NOT HAVE THINGS THAT ARE URBAN. WE DON'T WANT THINGS THAT ARE URBAN. WE DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR THINGS THAT ARE URBAN.

LET'S KEEP THAT IN MIND. AND I'M AFRAID THAT WE HAVE SOME DEPARTMENT HEADS ON THIS COUNTY WHO ARE NOT FROM RURAL VIRGINIA AND WHO THINK, OH, WE'VE GOT TO DO URBAN THINGS BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT TO COP ON EVERY CORNER.

SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, AS WE GO INTO THE BUDGET SESSION, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WATCHING THIS.

PLEASE, LET'S REMEMBER PG COUNTY IS A RURAL COUNTY. AND MR. WEBB, THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS THAT WERE VERY APROPOS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT, ANYONE ELSE? YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE YOUR PHONE, MR. GOODMAN. THAT'S WHAT'S CAUSING THE STATIC IN THE MIC. RIGHT NOW, THERE'S STATIC. IS THERE? NO, COOL. GIVE ME JUST ONE SECOND. I'M SORRY. I APPRECIATE JUST A FEW EXTRA SECONDS. I DO LOVE THAT WE HAVE THE TIMER FIXED, SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT. JUSTIN GOODMAN, 15201, JAMES RIVER DRIVE.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, I WANT TO THANK MY LORD AND SAVIOR, JESUS CHRIST, FOR ALLOWING ME THE GRACIOUS OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT SOME UNSPOKEN PEOPLE WHEN I COME HERE. ALSO, I WANT TO THANK HIM FOR ALLOWING YOU TO BE PUT INTO THIS POSITION OF POWER. WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY, AND THAT IS JUST TRUTH, OKAY? SO GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. I STAND BEFORE YOU TONIGHT TO ADDRESS A GROWING CONCERN THAT EXTENDS FAR BEHIND, FAR BEYOND ZONING MAPS AND REVENUE PROJECTIONS.

ACROSS THE COUNTRY, LOCALITIES ARE EXPERIENCING RAPID EXPANSION OF UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE, HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES, SUBSTATIONS, DATA CENTERS, DISTRIBUTED ENERGY PROJECTS, OFTEN INCREMENTALLY, PROJECT BY PROJECT, WITHOUT COMPREHENSIVE LONG-TERM HEALTH IMPACT ANALYSIS. THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER ELECTRICITY IS NECESSARY, IT IS WE CAN'T GET AROUND IT. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER GROWTH IS OCCURRING FASTER THAN OVERSIGHT, FASTER THAN UPDATED PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEW, AND FASTER THAN MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT. MANY COMMUNITIES ARE NOW SURROUNDED BY EXPANDING ELECTRICAL CORRIDORS, INCREASED LOAD DEMANDS, AND HIGHER CUMULATIVE ELECTROMAGNETIC EXPOSURE LEVELS THAN EXISTED 20 YEARS AGO. YET PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE OFTEN FOCUSED PRIMARILY ON TAX REVENUE. OF COURSE, ENVIRONMENTAL STRESSORS, OR, I'M SORRY, TAX REVENUE, GRID RELIABILITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

WITH FAR LESS DISCUSSION ABOUT CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE, ENVIRONMENTAL STRESSORS OR PRECAUTIONARY SETBACKS FROM HOMES. WHETHER ONE BELIEVES THE RISKS ARE HIGH, LOW OR STILL SCIENTIFICALLY DEBATED, ONE FACT IS CLEAR LARGE, LARGE-SCALE INFRASTRUCTURE EXPANSION IS ACCELERATING NATIONWIDE, AND LONG-TERM INDEPENDENT HEALTH MONITORING HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE.

WHEN INFRASTRUCTURE GROWTH OUTPACES OVERSIGHT, TRUST ERODES. COMMUNITIES BEGIN TO ASK, WHERE'S THE INDEPENDENT HEALTH REVIEW? WHERE ARE THE UPDATED CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE MAPS? WHERE ARE THE BUFFER STANDARDS THAT REFLECT MODERN LOAD LEVELS RATHER THAN DECADES-OLD ASSUMPTIONS? WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR TRACKING THAT STUFF? CAN'T RELY ON THE COMPANY, YOU KNOW, AARON BROCKOVICH. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE OFTEN TOLD THAT REGULATION RESTS WITH FOREIGN AGENCIES OR STATE COMMISSIONS, BUT IT'S... YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING CARE OF US.

ACROSS THE NATION, WE ARE SEEING A PATTERN. RAPID ENERGY EXPANSION, MINIMAL CUMULATIVE HEALTH REVIEW, AND COMMUNITIES LEFT TO CONNECT THE DOTS THEMSELVES AND FIGURE IT OUT. THAT IS NOT A SUSTAINABLE MODEL FOR PUBLIC TRUST. I AM NOT HERE TO SPREAD FEAR. I AM HERE TO CALL FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNANCE.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH SHOULD NOT BE OPPOSING FORCES. THEY CAN, IN FACT, COEXIST, OKAY? BUT ONLY WHEN GROWTH IS PAIRED WITH TRANSPARENCY, THANK YOU.

ACCOUNTABILITY AND PRECAUTION.

IF WE FAIL TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS NOW, WE RISK LOOKING BACK YEARS FROM NOW, ASKING WHY WE DID NOT. AND THAT'S REALLY BECAUSE OUR FATHERS DIDN'T TAKE CARE OF THIS ISSUE AND ASK THE TOUGH QUESTIONS. THEY JUST SIGNED IT AWAY. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH. THANK YOU SO MUCH. GOD BLESS AMERICA. I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU TREMENDOUSLY. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. AND I DO HAVE A COPY OF THIS. THERE'S ONLY ONE PART THAT I DIDN'T SPEAK TO. THANKS, SIR. FEEL FREE TO EMAIL US. SO, I'M JUST

[00:15:02]

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? OH, I GOT IT. WE'RE GOOD. THANKS, MAN.

ALL RIGHT. I DON'T SEE ANYBODY ELSE MOVING TOWARDS THE PODIUM, SO I'M GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT,

[D. Consent Agenda]

MR. COX? YES. MR. HAMILL? YES. MR. PHILLIP PUGH? YES.

MR. FORD PUGH? YES. OKAY,

[E. Comments]

SOMETHING I'M GOING TO COMMENT ON. I'VE GOT A STACK OF PUBLIC COMMENT FORMS UP HERE, WHICH IS TREMENDOUS. AND THIS, I DON'T EVEN THINK THIS TOUCHES NEARLY WHAT I'D RECEIVE VIA EMAIL, PHONE CALLS, TEXT MESSAGES, FACEBOOK INPUT. I THINK WE'VE GOT SOME TOPICS FOLKS ARE INTERESTED IN TONIGHT, BY VIEW OF EVERYBODY THAT'S HERE THIS EVENING. THANK YOU. I KNOW SOMETIMES WE'RE PROBABLY TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT AREN'T SUPER INTERESTING TO SOME FOLKS, BUT IT APPEARS WE DO HAVE SOME THINGS. AND I JUST APPRECIATE THE TIME, THE EFFORT, THE PHONE CALLS, THE MESSAGES, ALL THE FOLKS THAT HAVE REACHED OUT. THIS ALLOWS US TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ALL EXPECT, WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE.

I THINK THERE'S SOMETIMES... A BOARD CAN BE UP HERE AND HAVE NO FEEDBACK, AND IT CAN BE KIND OF WEIRD TO BE MAKING DECISIONS WITH NO FEEDBACK. AND SO, THIS IS DEFINITELY THE BETTER WAY. I HOPE WE CAN CONTINUE TO SEE THIS SORT OF INPUT, AND JUST THANK YOU. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE THIS EVENING, SIR.

THANK YOU, SIR. MR. FORD, IF YOU. SURE. AGAIN, THANKS, EVERYBODY, FOR COMING OUT. I KIND OF ECHO, MR. HAMILL'S SENTIMENT ON THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT. I'VE ALSO RECEIVED A LOT OF E-MAILS AND PHONE CALLS ABOUT A FEW OF THE THINGS THAT ARE UP FOR DISCUSSION TONIGHT. SO, THANK YOU.

TO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, I THINK THOSE WERE SOME GOOD OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT FOR US. SO, WE'LL TAKE THOSE AND SEE IF WE CAN DO SOMETHING WITH THEM. WE APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK. THANKS A LOT. MR. WEBB? GREAT TO SEE EVERYBODY TURN OUT, ESPECIALLY AS COLD AS IT IS, BUT AT LEAST IT'S NOT RAINING.

THERE'S ALWAYS DECISIONS THAT HAVE TO BE MADE. IT'S GREAT TO HAVE TRANSPARENCY, GREAT TO HAVE CITIZENS' INPUT. YOU CAN'T EXPECT IT. ALSO NEED TO EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED. I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE, AIR DECISIONS ONLY GO SO FAR.

THERE ARE DECISIONS BEING DISCUSSED RIGHT NOW AND THEY HAVE GONE BOTH WAYS IN THE HOUSES UP THERE AND THERE'S SIMILAR BILLS. ODDS ARE ONE OF THEM MAY PASS. AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IN THE LEGISLATION IS IF A GOVERNOR DOESN'T STEP IN AND SEND IT BACK FOR CHANGES OR QUESTIONS. OR VETO IT, IT WILL AUTOMATICALLY BECOME LAW. AND I'LL REST WITH THAT BECAUSE I'M REALLY CONCERNED WITH SOME OF THE STUFF THEY'RE COMING UP WITH.

IT COULD HAVE A HUGE IMPACT ON THIS COUNTY. OUT OF OUR CONTROL. YEAH. THAT'S IT. MR. PHILIP PUGH. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. I WANT TO ECHO ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS' COMMENTS BEFORE ME. GOT A LOT OF REACH OUT ON TODAY'S AGENDA. KEEP UP THE ENGAGEMENT. THAT'S ALL I ASK. GET INVOLVED. GET INVOLVED IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT. AND WHILE I'M UP HERE, I ALSO WANT TO SAY A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO THE STAFF WHO HAVE GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND TO WORK ON THIS BUDGET AND PUT IN THE EXTRA TIME THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON, AND I WANT TO THANK THEM.

THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT AT THIS TIME. ALL RIGHT, NOW I'M GOING TO ECHO THE SAME COMMENTS.

IT'S GREAT WHEN WE SEE A ROOM FULL OF PEOPLE. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHAT YOU ALL WANT TO BE HERE FOR, BUT IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL INVOLVED. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR E-MAILS.

THANK YOU FOR THE PHONE CALLS. AND ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, JUST LIKE MR. PHILIP, YOU DID THANKFUL TO OUR STAFF. THIS IS A INCREDIBLY HARD BUDGET SEASON AND THEY ARE WORKING DILIGENTLY ON IT. LONG HOURS. AND HOPEFULLY, THOUGH, THE FINISH LINE WILL BE COMING AND WE'LL GET THERE. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE. COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS. LET'S PUT A LOOK.

EVENING CHAIRMAN COX, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF THINGS FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS.

ON FEBRUARY 26TH, WE DO HAVE A PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK

[00:20:01]

MARCH 4TH, WE DO HAVE A BOARD OF EQUALIZATION ADMINISTRATIVE MEETING THAT'S IN THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE ON THE SECOND FLOOR AT 930 A.M.

ON MARCH 10TH, WE HAVE A PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING. EXCUSE ME, I MISSED. ON MARCH, MARCH 3RD, WE HAVE A PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PRE-BUDGET WORK SESSION, AND THAT'S AT 6 P.M. ON MARCH 3RD. MARCH 18TH WE HAVE AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BOARD MEETING. WE ALSO HAVE ON THE 20TH, EXCUSE ME, ON THE 24TH. THIS IS A HIGHLIGHT. PLEASE KNOW ALL OF THESE DATES AND MORE ARE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE AS WELL. MARCH 24TH WE ALSO HAVE A BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING. WE DO HAVE THREE RFPS OR OUT FOR BID INVITATIONS FOR PROPOSALS, THAT'S FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A JEJ MORE MIDDLE SCHOOL PAVILION. THAT DEADLINES FOR THOSE ARE MARCH 4TH, WE HAVE A RFP, OR, EXCUSE ME, AN INVITATIONS FOR BID.

PAINTING FOR PAINTING AND INTERIOR EXTERIOR. THOSE BIDS ARE DUE MARCH 6TH, AND THEN WE HAVE A WALTON SCHOOL DEMOLITION. THIS IS NEWER SINCE THE LAST TIME I'VE MADE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS AND THOSE BIDS ARE DUE MARCH 11TH.

I ALSO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT SCOTT PARK CONCESSION STAND.

SERVPRO IS DOING SOME CLEANING, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REVIEWING THE FOUNDATION AND WALLS TO SEE IF WE CAN USE THOSE IN THE RECONSTRUCTION. AND THEN WE'VE GOT OTHER PROJECTS IN THE COUNTY GOING ON. I DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE HARD WORK. WE'VE GOT A LOT OF HARDWORKING TEAM MEMBERS HERE IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, BUT OUR UTILITIES CREWS HAVE WORKED HARD THIS WINTER. THEY WORKED IN BELOW-FREEZING, WINDCHILL WEATHER.

DURING THE EMERGENCY, AND I BELIEVE I MENTIONED THAT.

BUT AGAIN, THIS PAST WEEKEND THEY WERE OUT WORKING UNTIL 1 30 A.M.

AND SO, WE JUST HAVE A HARD-WORKING CREW. AND I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT AND THANK ALL OF THEM FOR WHAT THEY DO FOR PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU, MA'AM.

[F. Public Hearings]

BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, I HAVE, THIS IS A PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT. THIS IS BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY REGIONAL HERITAGE CENTER INCORPORATED.

THIS IS A LEASE. THIS IS A RENEWAL OF A LEASE. THE TERMS ARE FOR FIVE YEARS AT A TIME.

THIS IS OUR HERITAGE CENTER, THAT WE, AGAIN, WE LEASE CERTAIN PROPERTY TO THEM. THAT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON A SMALLER PORTION OF OUR GOVERNMENT COMPLEX. I'VE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD A COPY OF THE PROPOSAL PROPOSED LEASE.

THERE'S NO CHANGES MADE, BUT I'M CERTAINLY HAPPY TO DISCUSS THE TERMS. AND IF THERE'S ANY CHANGES THAT THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO MAKE OR CONSIDER THIS EVENING. AND I DO HAVE, I BELIEVE, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION. IS MS. CAROL BOWMAN HERE? RIGHT BEHIND YOU. I'M SORRY. MS. BOWMAN HAD ANTICIPATED BEING HERE THIS EVENING. AGAIN, THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF RENEWING THE LEASE AND MOVING FORWARD WITH HAVING THEIR... THEIR OPERATION, WHICH IS A NON-PROFIT, CONTINUE IN THAT BUILDING. SO, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS OR ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS THAT THE BOARD MAY HAVE. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW? OKAY. ALL RIGHT, WE WILL MOVE AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IF ANYONE SIGNED UP ELECTRONICALLY, MR. YOUNG, TO SPEAK. IS NOT ANYBODY SIGNED UP EARLY? NO, SIR, MR. CHAIRMAN. ALL RIGHT, WELL, I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR ANYBODY THAT IS WILLING TO SPEAK. IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING. YOU CAN APPROACH AND TELL US WHAT YOU WANT TO TELL US. SIR, THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE PROPERTY THERE. THIS IS A HERITAGE CENTER, OKAY? I'LL GET YOU IN JUST A MINUTE, OKAY? ALRIGHT, MR. STEELE IS MOVING THIS WAY, SO I'M GOING TO HOLD FOR A SECOND. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN, BILL STEELE, 9921 COUNTY LINE ROAD. MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE THE GREAT OPPORTUNITY AND PRIVILEGE TO BE A PART OF THE CITIZENS ACADEMY. ONE OF THE CLASSES IN THE CITIZENS ACADEMY WENT TO THE HERITAGE CENTER. A FANTASTIC PLACE. SHAME ON ANY CITIZEN HERE IN P.G COUNTY THAT HAS NOT TAKEN A MOMENT TO GO VISIT THAT WONDERFUL LOCATION. SO, I AM IN SUPPORT OF ANYTHING TO SUPPORT THAT HERITAGE, CENTER. WE SPEND A LOT OF TAX DOLLARS. YOU KNOW THAT I AM ANTI-TAX IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. FORM, BUT EVEN I. PUT A DOLLAR INTO THEIR BOX, SO JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WE NEED TO SUPPORT THEM. IT'S A GREAT CENTER ABOUT THERE AND I

[00:25:01]

THANK YOU, THANK YOU SIR, THANK YOU SIR. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? ALL RIGHT? SEEING NO MOVEMENT, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND RETURN IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ACTION. JUST A MINUTE. WE'RE CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION ON THE HERITAGE CENTER. OKAY, I'LL GIVE YOU A THUMBS UP WHEN WE'RE ON THE ONE YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON. OKAY, ALL RIGHT.

BOARD MEMBERS COMMENTS, CONCERNS? JUST COMMENT. I THINK IT'S A GREAT ORGANIZATION AND YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE DIFFERENT MONTHS WHERE THEY SHOWCASE DIFFERENT HISTORY IN THAT MUSEUM. AND I IMPLORE EVERYBODY, IF YOU GET A CHANCE TO TAKE GO, TAKE YOUR KIDS, TAKE YOUR GRANDCHILDREN, WHAT HAVE YOU, IT'S A GREAT, GREAT COMMUNITY BUILDING. MR. CHAIR, I ECHO, MR. PUGH'S COMMENTS AS WELL. IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR EXACTLY WITH THE PARCEL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, IF YOU'VE BEEN TO THE CZECH SLOVAK FESTIVAL, THAT'S WHERE THIS TAKES PLACE, JUST OUTSIDE OF THOSE BUILDINGS. FANTASTIC GROUP OF FOLKS. I THINK THEY'D LOVE TO HAVE VOLUNTEERS AS WELL, IF HISTORY IS YOUR THING. SO, MR. SHERRILL, YOU HAVE THE TIME. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT. ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

SO, MOVED. MR. WEBB, MAKE THE MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND BY MR. FORD-PUGH. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR CONCERNS? HEARING NONE, ROLL CALL, PLEASE. MR. WEBB? YES. MR. FORD-PUGH? YES. MR. HAMILL? YES. MR. PHILLIP-PUGH? YES. MR. COX? YES. THANK YOU, EVERYONE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE TO THE SECOND ONE. THIS IS GOING TO BE ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. NOT YET. MR. GRAVES. GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN COX AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MS. PUDLOW AND MR. KINGSBERRY. MY NAME IS TIM GRAVES. I'M THE PROJECT MMANAGER FOR THE COUNTY STAFF.

ON THIS CONFERENCE OF PLAN UPDATE, WHICH HAS BEEN CALLED PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY 2045. THE 2045 REPRESENTS THE PLANNING HORIZON LOOKING TO THE FUTURE 20 YEARS. IT'S NOT SAYING, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO JUST TELEPORT TO 20 YEARS FROM NOW. IT'S A PLAN FOR THE WHOLE TIME PERIOD IN BETWEEN. THE BERKELEY GROUP IS NOT WITH US TONIGHT DUE TO A SCHEDULING CONFLICT AFTER THE PREVIOUS HEARING DATE WAS POSTPONED. SO, I'LL BE GIVEN THIS PRESENTATION, WHICH IS IS VERY SIMILAR BASED ON THE ONE THAT THEY DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THERE'S A LOT TO COVER, BUT I'LL TRY TO KEEP IT AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. THIS IS A OVERVIEW OF THE TOPICS THAT WE'RE GOING TO COVER. FIRST OFF, WE HAVE.

WHAT IS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, OR A COMP PLAN IS THE COMMUNITY'S ROADMAP FOR THE FUTURE. IT'S AN OFFICIAL ADOPTED PUBLIC POLICY DOCUMENT THAT PROVIDES LONG-RANGE POLICY DIRECTION FOR LAND USE, DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE OVER A LONG TIME PERIOD. EVERY LOCALITY IN VIRGINIA IS REQUIRED TO HAVE ONE OF THESE, AND IS REQUIRED TO REVIEW IT AT LEAST EVERY FIVE YEARS.

THE CODE OF VIRGINIA MANDATES MUCH OF WHAT GOES INTO A PLAN, INCLUDING HOW IT IS ADOPTED AND WHEN THE PLAN MUST BE REVIEWED AND UPDATED. A COMP PLAN DESCRIBES THE FUTURE VISION OF THE COUNTY, AND IT SERVES AS A DECISION-MAKING AID FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS. AND IT HELPS EVERYONE HAVE A COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF THAT VISION AND ANY ACTIONABLE STEPS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED TO HELP YOU GET TO THAT, YOU KNOW, ACHIEVE THAT VISION. IT IS NOT REGULATION LIKE A ZONING ORDINANCE, BUT IT DOES PROVIDE DIRECTION AND GUIDANCE FOR UPDATING YOUR ORDINANCES.

BESIDES REGULATORY TOOLS, IT SHOULD BE COORDINATED WITH PLANS AND DOCUMENTS, OTHER PLANS AND DOCUMENTS AND POLICIES OF THE COUNTY. SUCH AS A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND A UTILITY MASTER PLAN, I COULD GO ON. AGAIN, A COMP PLAN IS MEANT TO BE USED TO GUIDE DECISION-MAKING, BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE RULES FOR DEVELOPING LAND, AND IT DOES NOT COMPEL THE STAFF OR THE BOARD TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE COUNTY'S REGULATIONS.

YOU MIGHT SAY THIS DOES SUGGEST SOME THINGS FOR US TO WORK ON, BUT THE POWER TO CHANGE ANY REGULATION RESTS WITH THE BOARD. EACH COMP PLAN IS UNIQUE AND SPECIFIC TO ITS LOCALITY. COMP PLANS SUCH AS PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY 2045 CONTAIN AN ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS AND A VISION AND GOALS, ALL OF WHICH ARE BASED ON DATA ANALYSIS AND COMMUNITY INPUT.

[00:30:01]

THE BOARD USES THE PLAN TO ESTABLISH POLICY AND GUIDE DECISIONS ON MATTERS SUCH AS LAND USE, PUBLIC FACILITIES, BUDGET PRIORITIES AND CAPITAL PROJECTS, AND AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTY CODE. REGIONAL PARTNERS USE THE PLAN TO UNDERSTAND THE COUNTY'S PRIORITIES, ADVOCATE FOR GRANT FUNDING ON THE COUNTY'S BEHALF, AND PREPARE REPORTS AND STUDIES.

THE COMP PLAN PROVIDES AN OVERARCHING FRAMEWORK TO COORDINATE THE COUNTY'S OTHER VARIOUS PLANS AND POLICIES AND ORDINANCES. IF IMPLEMENTED EFFECTIVELY, IT SETS THE STAGE FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

IDEALLY, YOUR ANNUAL BUDGET, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, COUNTY ORDINANCES, AND OTHER RELATED PLANS AND POLICIES SHOULD ALL BE ALIGNED WITH ONE ANOTHER. NO MATTER WHICH ONE COMES FIRST OR IS UPDATED LAST, THEY ALL AFFECT ONE ANOTHER.

FINALLY, WE MUST REMEMBER THAT THE PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY IS NOT STATIC, AND SO NEITHER SHOULD BE ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

PRIORITIES AND PHYSICAL LANDSCAPE CHANGE STRATEGIES ARE CHECKED OFF WHEN ACCOMPLISHED, OR OTHERWISE THEY SHOULD BE ADJUSTED TO REFLECT CHANGING CONDITIONS OVER TIME. THE STATE CODE SAYS PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED EVERY FIVE YEARS.

BUT THE BEST PRACTICE IS TO LOOK AT YOUR PLAN ANNUALLY.

TO ALLOW FOR ANY COURSE CORRECTION AND TO MEASURE PROGRESS OR LACK OF PROGRESS. EVEN. THE DRAFT PLAN INCLUDES AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS CONSISTENT PROGRESS AND REGULAR EVALUATION. NEXT, WE'LL GO OVER THE UPDATE PROCESS THAT WE WENT THROUGH OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS. AFTER THE INITIAL KICKOFF PERIOD, THERE WAS A DATA GATHERING PHASE IN SPRING OF 2024. HERE WE GO, THERE'S A WHOLE SLIDE ON THIS. THIS WAS FOLLOWED BY EXTENSIVE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN THE SPRING AND INTO THE SUMMER OF 2024. THAT WAS FOLLOWED BY ABOUT A YEAR OF DRAFTING THE PLAN, DURING WHICH THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWED PARTS OF THE PLAN AS IT WAS DEVELOPED. IN THE FALL OF 2025, THE FOCUS WAS ON COMMUNITY FEEDBACK ON THE DRAFT PLAN, WHICH INCLUDED AN ONLINE DRAFT REVIEW, COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, STATE AGENCIES, AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS ALSO COMMENTED ON THE PLAN, AND THERE WERE PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES. THEN, IN THE FALL AND WINTER OF 2025, THAT WAS WHERE THE REFINEMENT AND ADOPTION PHASE MOSTLY OCCURRED. SO, IN OCTOBER, THE BOARD AND THE COMMISSION HAD A JOINT WORK SESSION TO REVIEW THE PLAN, AND THAT JOINT WORK SESSION DID NOT RESULT IN ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO THE PLAN. AND THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON NOVEMBER 20TH, 2025. THE BOARD'S PUBLIC HEARING WAS ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 9TH.

HOWEVER, THAT HEARING COULD NOT OCCUR ON THAT DATE DUE TO THE NEED TO UPDATE THE PLAN FROM WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID ON NOVEMBER 20TH. AND THERE WAS ALSO SOME OTHER WEATHER CHALLENGES THAT WE EXPERIENCED, SO THAT RESULTED IN ANOTHER POSTPONEMENT. THUS TONIGHT, WE ARE STILL IN THAT REFINEMENT AND ADOPTION PHASE.

TO RECAP, THE PROCESS HAS INVOLVED AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE AND AS MUCH REVIEW AS POSSIBLE. GIVEN THE SCHEDULE AND THE BUDGET THAT WAS DECIDED ON BEFORE THE PROCESS BEGAN.

THE COUNTY USED THE CONSULTANT BERKELEY GROUP TO FACILITATE THE PROCESS. AND DO THE HEAVY LIFTING OF THE DRAFTING AND DOING THE PUBLIC INPUT MEETINGS. THEN THERE'S HEAVY INPUT FROM THE COUNTY STAFF AND THE PUBLIC INTO THIS DRAFT DOCUMENT ON THE NEXT SLIDE, AND THAT'S KIND OF I'M TALKING THROUGH THAT RIGHT THERE. HE'S THE BERKELEY GROUP AND ENGAGED EVERYONE, BUT THIS IS, THIS IS EVERYONE'S PLAN, ULTIMATELY ON THE NEXT SLIDE. I WILL BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE THE

[00:35:01]

INFORMATION COLLECTED DURING THIS PHASE WAS USED FOR FEEDBACK AND REFINEMENT OF THE DRAFT PLAN. NOW WE'LL GET INTO WHAT'S IN THE PLAN.

IN CHAPTER 1, AND THIS IS GOING TO BE JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF EACH CHAPTER AND WHAT IT DOES, CHAPTER 1 IS AN INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN GENERAL. AND THIS SPECIFIC ONE. IT EXPLAINS THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THE PLAN, THE TIME HORIZON, THE RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS, AND EXPLAINS THE PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP. THE PLAN DOCUMENT.

BASICALLY, THESE ARE THE TOPICS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SO FAR TONIGHT. CHAPTER TWO CONTAINS THE VISION OF THE PLAN AND EXPLAINS HOW THE PIECES OF THE PLAN FIT TOGETHER. AND IDENTIFIES CATALYST INITIATIVES, WHICH ARE ESSENTIALLY A SUMMARY OF THE HIGHEST PRIORITY STRATEGIES ON ONE PAGE. IT MIGHT BE TWO PAGES. THE VISION OF THE PLAN, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, IS ABOUT PRESERVING ROYAL CHARACTER. PROTECTING AND ENHANCING COMMUNITY ASSETS, LEVERAGING ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES OR DRIVERS, AND ACCOMMODATING STRATEGIC GROWTH.

AS WE WILL SEE IN LATER CHAPTERS, I'M GOING TO DISCUSS IN A MINUTE, THE RURAL PRESERVATION ENERGY IS DIRECTED TO THE PART OF THE COUNTY THAT IS CALLED THE RURAL CONSERVATION AREA. AND THE STRATEGIC GROWTH THAT IS REFERENCED IN THIS VISION IS DIRECTED TO THE PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING AREA, WHICH IS THE DESIGNATED PART OF THE COUNTY FOR GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT.

CHAPTER 3 IS CALLED NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES. IT PROVIDES A GREAT DEAL OF INFORMATION ABOUT THIS TOPIC, AND IT FOCUSES ON WHAT ARE THESE RESOURCES IN THE COUNTY AND HOW CAN THEY BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED.

CHAPTER 4 IS COMMUNITY RESOURCES, AND THAT ONE IS ABOUT PLANNING FOR COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE SCHOOLS, FIRE, AND EMS. UTILITIES, ETC. A KEY RECOMMENDATION IS TO PREPARE A COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN AND ENSURE THAT IT IS ALIGNED WITH THE COUNTY'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN.

THIS WILL HELP WITH THOSE DIFFICULT DECISIONS AROUND FUNDING CAPITAL FACILITIES. CHAPTER 5 IS THE COUNTY'S TRANSPORTATION AND CONNECTIVITY CHAPTER. IT'S ABOUT THE COUNTY'S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, WHICH IS NOT LIMITED TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC. UPDATING THIS PART OF THE PLAN IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE COMPETING FOR THE LIMITED FUNDING THAT THE STATE HAS AVAILABLE FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS.

YOU NEED TO HAVE PROJECTS NAMED OR REFERENCED SOMEHOW IN THE PLAN IN ORDER TO SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, A GRANT APPLICATION OR A SMART SCALE APPLICATION, WHICH IS BASICALLY FUNDING APPLICATIONS. BESIDES PROVIDING A LOT OF THE REQUIRED INFORMATION IN THIS CHAPTER ABOUT EXISTING CONDITIONS, THIS CHAPTER IDENTIFIES PROJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE PROCESS FOR STATE FUNDING, AND IT RECOMMENDS CONDUCTING AN ADDITIONAL PROCESS TO IDENTIFY NEW TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS TO ENTER INTO THE COUNTY'S PIPELINE.

FOR EXAMPLE, SAFETY PROJECTS ON ROUTE 460 SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN PARTNERSHIP WITH OTHER LOCALITIES ON THE CORRIDOR. THE 460 CORRIDOR CONNECTS SEVERAL DIFFERENT COUNTIES, SO PRINCE GEORGE CAN'T DO IT ALONE.

CHAPTER 6 IS ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. YOU HAVE A SEPARATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND STRATEGIC PLAN, BUT THIS CHAPTER HAS UPDATED INFORMATION AND IT IDENTIFIES STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITIES. SUCH AS CONDUCTING AN RFP PROCESS TO GET THE BEST POSSIBLE PROJECTS FOR SITES THAT THE COUNTY ALREADY OWNS. AND IT ALSO RECOMMENDS PREPARING SPECIAL AREA PLANS OR SMALL AREA PLANS FOR SPECIFIC AREAS, SUCH AS THE COUNTY'S COURTHOUSE AREA WHERE WE ARE NOW AROUND HERE, AS WELL AS SPECIFIC INTERSTATE INTERCHANGES. CHAPTER 7 PROVIDES INFORMATION ON HOUSING AND DIRECTING WHATEVER HOUSING GROWTH DOES OCCUR. TO GO TO DESIGNATED AREAS AND PREVENTING IT FROM OCCURRING IN THE RURAL CONSERVATION AREA AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. CHAPTER 8 ON LAND USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE IS THE BIGGEST CHAPTER. IT BRINGS TOGETHER CONCEPTS INTRODUCED IN THE OTHER CHAPTERS TO PROVIDE STRATEGIES FOR DIRECTING GROWTH TO CERTAIN AREAS AND NOT TO OTHERS, ADDRESSING EMERGING LAND USES.

THAT WOULD BE THINGS LIKE DATA CENTERS, POWER GENERATION, AND IT ALSO IS ABOUT USING INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND REGULATION

[00:40:01]

OTHERWISE, NO CHANGES WOULD TAKE PLACE IN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS THAT YOU'RE ALREADY EXPERIENCING.

YOU CAN EXPECT THOSE TO CONTINUE IF NO CHANGES ARE MADE. ANOTHER PART OF CHAPTER 8 IS ABOUT DIRECTING, AGAIN, DIRECTING RESIDENTIAL GROWTH TO DESIGNATED AREAS. IT WOULD REQUIRE REGULATORY CHANGES, AS I MENTIONED. PG 2045 ENVISIONS THAT THE PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING AREA THAT YOU HAVE NOW COULD BE SPLIT INTO TWO SMALLER AREAS AND REDUCED IN SIZE. THOSE TWO SMALLER PLANNING AREAS ARE FOCUSED ON UTILITY, WATER AND SEWER PLANNING. SO, THE AREA COVERED BY EXISTING PUBLIC WATER AND WASTEWATER LINES WOULD BE CALLED THE UTILITY SERVICE AREA. THAT'S THE GRAY AREA ON THE MAP. THAT WOULD BE WHERE PUBLIC UTILITY CONNECTIONS WOULD CONTINUE TO BE REQUIRED. FOR ANY NEW RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY PROPOSED IN THAT AREA. THAT'S ALREADY, THAT'S THE SAME AS THE RULE THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT, YOU KNOW, NEW SUBDIVISION IN THE PLANNING AREA MUST CONNECT.

THE AREA IN PURPLE OR PINK WOULD BE THE UTILITY TRANSITION AREA. AND THAT WOULD BE WHERE DEVELOPMENT MAY OCCUR ON A SHARED PRIVATE SYSTEM, AS LONG AS IT IS DESIGNED FOR FUTURE CONNECTION TO THE PUBLIC SYSTEM. THIS DIFFERS FROM THE CURRENT FRAMEWORK THAT EXISTS IN THE COUNTY'S CODE.

IN THE CURRENT FRAMEWORK, DEVELOPMENT IN THAT TRANSITION AREA IS REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO PUBLIC UTILITIES, WATER AND SEWER, REGARDLESS OF HOW FAR AWAY THE SERVICE LINES ARE, AND REGARDLESS OF THE CAPACITY IN THE COUNTY'S SYSTEM. THE GREEN AREA IS THE RURAL CONSERVATION AREA THAT THE NAME ISN'T PROPOSED TO CHANGE. THAT WOULD ONLY ALLOW PRIVATE, WELL AND SEPTIC. AND FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH NO PUBLIC UTILITIES PLANNED TO EVER GO INTO THIS AREA. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS FRAMEWORK DOES NOT, THIS FRAMEWORK THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE, AND I JUST COVERED, THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT HARDER TO DEVELOP IN THE RURAL CONSERVATION AREA.

SO OTHER REGULATORY CHANGES WOULD BE NECESSARY IF YOU WANT TO LIMIT SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY IN THE RURAL CONSERVATION AREA.

THE NEXT PART, ABOUT LAND USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE. THIS CHAPTER ALSO CONTAINS AN UPDATED LAND USE MAP WITH UPDATED LAND USE CATEGORIES.

THE MAJOR CHANGES IN THESE CATEGORIES VERSUS THE CURRENT ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INCLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF TWO DIFFERENT RESIDENTIAL CATEGORIES, THE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND THE MARKET RESIDENTIAL, AND THEN COMBINING THE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES INTO ONE COMMERCIAL SLASH INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY. THOSE CHANGES ARE INTENDED TO PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY FOR WHERE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES CAN OCCUR, WHILE PROVIDING ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE ON DENSITY OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO THE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL IS WHERE LOWER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT IS PLANNED, AND THE MARKET RESIDENTIAL IS WHERE HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT IS PLANNED.

ULTIMATELY, THOUGH, ON THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ON ANY RESIGNING DECISION, DISCRETION TO GRANT. OR DENY A REZONING RESTS WITH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. AND THE BOARD CAN CONSIDER ADDITIONAL FACTORS BEYOND WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE LAND USE MAP. EXAMPLES OF OTHER FACTORS THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED DURING AN INDIVIDUAL REZONING CASE INCLUDE PUBLIC FACILITY READINESS AND THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF AN INDIVIDUAL PROJECT. AS WAS MENTIONED BEFORE, THIS WOULD BE A GUIDE FOR FUTURE DECISION MAKING.

AND NO REGULATORY CHANGES CAN OCCUR TO THE COUNTY CODE UNTIL AFTER PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION PROCESS OCCURS FOR EACH PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. FINALLY, CHAPTER NINE, THAT'S THE LAST CHAPTER IN THE PLAN, THAT IS THE IMPLEMENTATION CHAPTER, AND IT TIES. IT STILL SAYS, LAND USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE TOP, BUT THERE'S A CHAPTER CALLED IMPLEMENTATION.

AND THAT CHAPTER TIES EVERYTHING TOGETHER. THE GOALS AND THE STRATEGIES CONTAINED IN EACH CHAPTER ARE RELISTED.

SO YOU HAVE GOALS AND STRATEGIES IN EACH CHAPTER.

AND THEN, IN CHAPTER 9, THEY'RE ALL PUT TOGETHER INTO ONE TABLE. AND IN THERE, THERE'S ADDITIONAL DETAILS, SUCH AS WHO IS RESPONSIBLE AND THE RELATIVE PRIORITY OF WHEN THOSE ACTION ON THOSE STRATEGIES SHOULD OCCUR.

AFTER THIS CHAPTER, THE REST OF THE DOCUMENT IS THE APPENDICES.

SO YOU HAVE THE GLOSSARY OF TERMS. YOU HAVE A PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY, WHICH GOES INTO GREATER DETAIL ABOUT THE PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS. A COMMUNITY PROFILE, WHICH IS A BUNCH OF DEMOGRAPHIC AND DATA INFORMATION THAT WENT INTO AT THE BEGINNING

[00:45:02]

SO SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THOSE.

SO THAT COMPLETES AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT IS IN THE PLAN. I BRIEFLY WILL GO THROUGH THE CHANGES THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE TO YOUR DRAFT PLAN AFTER THEIR, OR AS A RESULT OF THEIR PUBLIC HEARING ON NOVEMBER 20TH. THE FIRST CHANGE THAT THEY VOTED ON, AND JUST TO RECAP, THE VERSION OF THE PLAN THAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT WAS CHANGED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THE THREE CHANGES. THE VERSION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LOOKED AT BEFORE THEY CHANGED, IT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING THAT THE BOARD LOOKED AT ON OCTOBER 22ND AT THAT JOINT WORK SESSION. SO WHAT DID THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHANGE? NUMBER ONE, THEY VOTED TO CHANGE THE WORDING ABOUT THE RURAL FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY, AS IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN. SO IT CROSSED OUT SOME TEXT THAT WAS JUST FOCUSED ON LOT SIZE.

AND IT MADE THE TEXT MORE EXPANSIVE IN HOW IT DESCRIBES DENSITY TO BE IMAGINED IN THAT AREA.

SO YOU CAN SEE THE TEXT ON THERE. THIS LANGUAGE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT DENSITY CAN BE CONTROLLED IN REGULATIONS NOT ONLY BY MINIMUM LOT SIZE, BUT BY OTHER STANDARDS AS WELL, SUCH AS A CLUSTER SUBDIVISION DESIGN. A CLUSTER SUBDIVISION DESIGN IS WHERE YOU HAVE A SMALL LOT FOR A HOUSE, AS LONG, AND THERE'S AN SEPARATE PIECE OF AREA DESIGNATED AS CONSERVATION. KEEP IN MIND, THE COUNTY ORDINANCES WOULD WOULD NEED TO BE UPDATED TO MAKE ANY CHANGE TO THE REGULATIONS THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE. NUMBER TWO, THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHANGED THE PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY AROUND DISPUTANA TO TAKE THAT DISPUTANA AREA OUT OF THE PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING AREA AND PUT IT BACK INTO THE RURAL CONSERVATION AREA. IT'S CURRENTLY IN THE ADOPTED COMP PLAN, IT'S IN THE RURAL CONSERVATION AREA.

THE EXCEPTION TO THAT IS THAT THE PORTION OF ROUTE 460 WOULD REMAIN IN THE PLANNING AREA, JUST THE AREA ALONG THE CORRIDOR. THE LAND USE BOUNDARIES, LAND USE CATEGORIES WOULD CHANGE, CHANGED AS WELL, SO ON THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE IF YOU JUST FOCUS ON THAT RIGHT SIDE, THAT'S YOUR DRAFT PLAN AS PRESENTED TO YOU TONIGHT. YOU CAN SEE THERE'S ONE COLOR FOR RURAL, AND THE AREA AROUND DISPUTANA IS NOT SHOWN IN THE PLANNING AREA. AND THAT BRINGS ME TO THIS LAST CHANGE, WHICH IS THE BIGGEST ONE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID, WAS TO COMBINE THE TWO RURAL CATEGORIES. THERE WERE TWO BEFORE, SO THEY WENT BACK TO JUST HAVING ONE CATEGORY, AND THAT'S THE SAME AS YOU HAVE IN YOUR DRAFT. I'M SORRY, YOUR CURRENT ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS JUST ONE RURAL CATEGORY. SO THEY RECOMMENDED KIND OF KEEPING THAT FRAMEWORK FOR RURAL. KEEP IN MIND, YOU STILL HAVE THE OPTION TO AMEND YOUR REGULATIONS. IF YOU ADOPT IT WITH THAT ONE CATEGORY, YOU STILL HAVE THE OPTION TO AMEND YOUR REGULATIONS AT A LATER TIME. IF YOU WISH TO STRENGTHEN THE RURAL PROTECTIONS OVER WHAT THEY ALREADY ARE TODAY. SO I'VE REACHED THE END OF MY PRESENTATION. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE YOU HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING.

AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, YOU'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACT ON THE DRAFT PLAN, AND I REMIND YOU THAT THE BOARD PACKET HAS SAMPLE MOTIONS ABOUT VARIOUS OPTIONS, BECAUSE YOU HAVE MANY OPTIONS ON WHAT YOU CAN DO. ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS ON MR. GRAVES? OKAY. ALL RIGHT, MR. GRAVES, THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL ASK MR. YOUNG, ANYBODY ELECTRONICALLY? NO, SIR. IF IT'S NOT, ANYBODY SIGNED UP? NO, SIR, MR. CHAIRMAN. ALL RIGHT, THAT MEANS IT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. ANYBODY WANT TO COME UP AND SPEAK ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? GOOD EVENING MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, BILL STEELE, 9921 COUNTY LINE ROAD, DIXIE, BUCHANAN. MR. CHAIRMAN, WE FOLLOWED THIS CLOSELY FOR TWO YEARS. AND I HAVE TO ADMIT, OF MY 30 YEARS OF BEING IN THIS COUNTY, I REALLY HAVEN'T SEEN SO MUCH CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT AS WE DID ON THIS ONE. WE HAD OPEN MEETINGS, A LOT OF CITIZENS GOT INVOLVED. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE IF WE HAD MORE, BUT A LOT OF CITIZENS DID GET INVOLVED WITH IT. SO VERY OPEN AND I APPRECIATE THE BOARD FOR DOING THAT. SECONDLY, THEN MR. CHAIRMAN, WE DO AGREE WITH THE THREE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE MADE. ESPECIALLY THE ONE WITH DISBY COUNTY. YOU TOOK THE LEAD ON THAT ONE TO REMOVE DISBY COUNTY FROM THE PLANNING AREA.

OUTSTANDING. WE THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT. SO WE KIND OF SUPPORT THAT. WHAT I FEAR, MR. CHAIRMAN, ABOUT ALL THIS IS, THIS COUNTY HAS A HISTORY,

[00:50:02]

WE JUST SAY, HEY, WE WANT AN EXCEPTION. OKAY, GIVE THEM AN EXCEPTION BECAUSE THEY WANT AN EXCEPTION. SO I ASK THE BOARD AS WE GET TO THIS, AND YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO AMEND POLICY AND UPDATE THE ORDINANCE. A LITTLE BIT, WE NEED TO STRESS THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW. IF YOU WANT AN EXCEPTION TO THE POLICY, YOU BETTER HAVE A DAMN GOOD REASON TO DO THAT. AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. OVERALL, MR. CHAIRMAN, I PARTICULARLY WOULDN'T VOTE YES FOR THIS, ONLY BECAUSE I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN THE PLANNING AREA SHRUNK. AGAIN, PG COUNTY IS A RURAL COUNTY. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU HEARD, HAVE YOU EVEN HEARD ONE PERSON SAY, YES, I WANT TO TURN PG INTO CHESTERFIELD? NO, IT'S 100% THE OTHER WAY AROUND. AND IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE COULD SHRINK IT. UNDERSTANDING, OF COURSE. WE'RE GOING TO GROW. I'M AN OLD MAN NOW, AND I'M NOT GOING TO BE HERE IN 30 YEARS, BUT HOPEFULLY MY KIDS WILL BE, AND I WOULD LIKE THEM TO REMAIN, STAY IN THE COUNTY, PART OF THE COUNTY THAT IS RURAL. PG IS A RURAL COUNTY, AND WE NEED TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, HOW THE BOARD VOTES IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S ON YOU. I DO HOPE THAT WE DO PUT POLICIES OVER TO START REDUCING AND MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO DO SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. SO WE CAN KEEP THE PLAN AND CAN KEEP PG COUNTY, RURAL.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR THIS.

THANK YOU ALL RIGHT, ANYONE ELSE? I'M CHRIS STEVENSON. MOVE ON JAMES RIVER DRIVE. I SUBMITTED, I SUBMITTED MY COMMENTS ONLINE, AND THEY'RE SUMMARIZED THERE. I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF BRIEFLY GO OVER, GO OVER JUST ONE OR TWO COUPLE, ONE OR TWO POINTS. AND IN READING THE PLAN, I NOTICED THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THIS CONCEPT OF SUSTAINABILITY, WHICH IS REALLY IMPORTANT HERE, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE CONSERVATION AREA IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY. AND IN LOOKING AT THE VISION STATEMENT, WE'RE REALLY, IN MY OPINION, WE'RE REALLY NOT ANSWERING THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION. FIRST, AND THAT IS, HOW ARE WE GOING TO ACHIEVE SUSTAINABILITY? HOW ARE WE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF RESOURCES HERE IN TERMS OF OUR LAND AND WATER? AND HABITAT, HOW ARE WE GOING TO MAINTAIN THOSE? AND THE VISION STATEMENT RIGHT NOW DOESN'T PROVIDE CRITERIA FOR THE MAINTENANCE OR FOR THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THOSE GOALS.

SUSTAINABILITY, IF YOU SET OUT CRITERIA TO MAINTAIN SUSTAINABILITY, AS THEY HAVE IN PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, THEY HAVE THE CONCEPT OF SUSTAINABILITY THAT'S DISCUSSED UP FRONT.

IT'S DISCUSSED WHAT IT MEANS AND HOW IT'S USED IN THE MANAGEMENT OF ALL THESE DIFFERENT RESOURCES. THEN IT BECOMES CLEAR EXACTLY HOW MANAGEMENT CAN MOVE FORWARD.

WITH THIS KIND OF SOMEWHAT VAGUE VISION STATEMENT, IT'S OPEN-ENDED, AND THERE IS NO END GOAL, REALLY SOLID END GOAL THAT IS STATED DIRECTLY. SO I WOULD URGE THE DEVELOPERS, THE CONSULTANTS, TO LOOK AT SOME OUTSIDE MATERIAL WHERE THIS CONCEPT IS DEVELOPED. AND ACTUALLY BACK UP WHAT THEY SAY IN THE MANAGEMENT PLAN, IN THE IN THE PLAN FOR THE COUNTY.

THANKS, VERY MUCH. THANK YOU SIR. THANKS, SIR. ALL RIGHT.

ANYONE ELSE OKAY? SEEING NO ONE ELSE APPROACHING THE PODIUM? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND RETURN IT TO THE BOARD FOR ACTION. ALL RIGHT, BOARD DISCUSSION, COMMENTS MR. SHERIFF. YES, SIR, GOT SOME. I'VE GOT SOME CONCERNS WITH THE PLAN AS IT IS PRESENTED. MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT CALL ME ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE RURAL CHARACTER. AND THEY DID NOT APPRECIATE THE REMOVAL OF THE RURAL PRESERVATION, PART OF THE RURAL CONSERVATION AREA.

IF PART OF THE VISION IS, YOU KNOW, PRINCE GEORGE IS A RURAL AREA AND IT'S GOING TO MAINTAIN THAT CHARACTER, THEN I DON'T THINK REMOVING RURAL PRESERVATION AS A USE SUPPORTS THAT. I KNOW THERE WERE THINGS THAT THE LAST BOARD BROUGHT UP ABOUT CHANGING THE MINIMUM ACREAGE IN THE RURAL CONSERVATION AREA.

WE'RE DOING A SEPARATE PROJECT ON CHAPTER 6, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. I'D LIKE

[00:55:02]

BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. ANYTHING ELSE? I DON'T THINK SO. ANYONE ELSE? MR. HAMMOND? YES, MR. MR. CHAIR, I KNOW WE'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF DIFFERENT FEEDBACK, AND I APPRECIATE THOSE THAT SPOKE THIS EVENING. THE COMMENT EARLIER ABOUT MEASUREMENT, I KNOW WE'VE HEARD COMMENTS IN THE PAST ABOUT HOW YOU MEASURE, LIKE, WHAT IS RURAL? HOW DO YOU MEASURE RURAL? AND I LIKE THE COMMENT EARLIER BY MR. STEVENSON THAT, YOU KNOW, HOW DO YOU MEASURE SUSTAINABILITY? IT'S SOMETHING I FEEL LIKE IS. KIND OF MISSING FROM THIS DOCUMENT CURRENTLY. I THINK, AND MS. PUDLOW, I KNOW, COULD DEFINITELY SPEAK TO THIS, BUT THE STRATEGIC PLAN THAT I THINK ENABLED US TO GO AFTER UPDATING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REALLY HEARKENED ON THE RURAL PART OF THIS. AND I FEEL LIKE WE MIGHT STILL NEED A LITTLE BIT OF LANGUAGE IN THIS DOCUMENT THAT HELPS SUPPORT WHAT THE STRATEGIC PLAN'S AIMS WERE FOR US. TOUCHING THIS. I KNOW THERE'S SOME OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES THAT MAY HAVE DEFINED RURAL IN VARIOUS WAYS, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S PEOPLE PER SQUARE MILE OR HOUSEHOLDS PER SQUARE MILE.

AND SO I KNOW WE'VE GOTTEN SOME FEEDBACK ABOUT FOLKS BEING IN THE PLANNING AREA AND DIDN'T NECESSARILY THINK THEY SHOULD BE IN THE PLANNING AREA. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHERE THOSE PARCELS ARE, BUT OVERALL, I KIND OF ECHO MR. PUGH'S SENTIMENT THAT I'D LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO MAYBE TAKE A LOOK AT THIS, WORK WITH STAFF, MAYBE GET A LITTLE BIT MORE PUBLIC FEEDBACK, AND TO COME BACK WITH SOME ADJUSTMENTS, POSSIBLY. OTHER COMMENTS? I GUESS THE ONE THING THAT WAS THROWN OUT THERE THAT NEEDS SOME CLARITY AROUND IT IS, NUMBER ONE, IF WE HAVE MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL AND HOUSING, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE HOUSES FOR PEOPLE, FOR THE WORKFORCE. THE OTHER THING THAT PROBABLY NEEDS SOME CLARITY IS IT WAS THROWN OUT THERE THAT YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE 10 OR 20 ACRES TO BE IN THE RURAL AREA. I'M NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT FOR A COUPLE REASONS. I'VE GOTTEN PLENTY OF INPUT FROM CITIZENS. YOU'RE HURTING THE LANDOWNER, NUMBER ONE.

YOU'RE ALSO NOT HELPING OUR LOCAL BUILDERS, BECAUSE NOWADAYS, WHO CAN AFFORD 10 ACRES AND BUILD A HALFWAY, DECENT HOUSE ON IT, ESPECIALLY NOT A YOUNG COUPLE. THAT'S TRYING TO COME HERE. MAYBE NOT EVEN RETIREES IF YOU'RE TRYING TO RETIRE AND COME TO PRINCE GEORGE. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IN HERE, WHERE'D TIM GO? SAID SOMETHING ABOUT A MINIMUM OF FIVE PLUS THAT WAS IN RED.

WHAT DOES THAT PLUS MEAN? BEHIND THAT FIVE? IS IT FIVE? AND IT CAN BE MORE THAN THAT IF SOMEBODY PURCHASES THAT AND THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT. OR IS THAT? YEAH, THAT GENERAL GUIDANCE, AS IT'S DRAFTED IN THERE IS JUST BASICALLY SAYING YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GO BELOW.

WHERE YOU'RE ALREADY AT YOUR MINIMUM. IN THOSE RURAL AREAS IS ALREADY FIVE ACRES.

SO THAT GUIDANCE IS SAYING, CERTAINLY NOT LESS THAN THAT.

YOU DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT ANY SMALLER THAN THAT.

BUT IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT BIGGER, THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE BOARD TO, I MEAN, THE COUNTY, TO DECIDE AT A LATER TIME. THIS COMPLAINT IS JUST SAYING FIVE PLUS TO GIVE YOU LATITUDE.

FOR CLARITY, I DID NOT SEE ANYTHING, AND I'VE READ THIS THING TWICE, THAT SAID, ANYTHING ABOUT ANY PROPOSAL TO MAKE IT PERMANENT? AS FAR AS HAVING TO HAVE 10 OR 20 ACRES TO BUILD IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY. YEAH, THAT. THAT THAT PART WAS TAKEN OUT WELL, SO EXACTLY IT NEVER IT NEVER ACTUALLY SAID THAT. IT DID HAVE SOME SUGGESTING TO CONSIDER RAISING A MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN RURAL AREAS TO NUMBERS SUCH AS 10 OR 20.

AND THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON THAT AND THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON. I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED TO CHANGE THE TEXT IN THAT ONE SECTION TO MAKE IT BROADER AND GIVE YOU SOME MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR WHEN YOU CHANGE THE ORDINANCE. IF YOU DO, CHANGE THE ORDINANCE AT A LATER TIME. OKAY, JUST FOR CLARITY, THAT DID NOT COME FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THAT CAME FROM OTHERS THAT GAVE INPUT. I'VE GOT SEVERAL EMAILS RIGHT HERE THAT STATED IT.

ANYWAY, YOU ANSWERED MY

[01:00:01]

ON THE CHANGE NUMBER TWO, WHERE IT REMOVES THE BOUNDARY LINE YELLOW. OUTSIDE OF DISPOTANA, I NOTICED ON THE NEXT MAP THAT IT'S STILL CIRCLED FOR A VILLAGE AREA. YEAH, THAT TERM, THE PLAN IDENTIFIES TWO VILLAGE AREAS BY NAME. IT JUST SAYS, HEY, THINK ABOUT DOING A FOCUSED SMALL AREA PLAN FOR THESE SPECIAL AREAS. ONE BEING THE AREA AROUND THIS COURTHOUSE AND ANOTHER BEING THE DISPUTANA AREA, RIGHT ON 460, WHERE IT'S KIND OF THAT DENSE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN JUST IN A SMALL AREA.

THAT HAS A UNIQUE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND MAKES IT A GOOD TARGET FOR SOME SPECIAL PLANNING, IF YOU SO WANT TO. IT'S NOT SAYING THAT THAT AREA NEEDS TO BE ANYTHING PARTICULAR.

IT'S JUST SAYING THAT'S A FOCUS AREA FOR SOME COMMUNITY-DRIVEN PLANNING IN THE FUTURE. I GUESS I'M CONFUSED THAT IF WE'RE PUTTING IT BACK RULE, WHY WOULD YOU HAVE A VISION, A VILLAGE OVERLAY OF THAT? YOU MIGHT HAVE A RURAL VISION THAT JUST KEEPS IT JUST LIKE IT IS.

BUT UNTIL THERE'S SOME KIND OF PLANNING PROCESS GONE THROUGH, YOU HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING, REALLY. OKAY. AND THEN THE NEXT THING, AND I GUESS WHEN WE HAD OUR JOINT WORK SESSION, I THOUGHT WE HAD A CONSENSUS OF WHAT WE WANTED TO SEE ON THE ACREAGE. AND THEN THAT.

CHANGED? AM I MISTAKEN IN THAT? YEAH. SO WHAT WE GOT FROM THE THE STAFF GOT FROM THE WORK SESSION IS THAT THERE WAS NOT A CONSENSUS. THERE WERE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THAT ISSUE. AND THERE WAS NOT A CLEAR DIRECTION TO STAFF TO DO A PARTICULAR CHANGE.

OKAY, SO THEN THE, YOU KNOW, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, HAD THAT TO CONSIDER WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY MADE THEIR DECISION.

GOTCHA, ALL RIGHT, THAT'S ALL I GOT RIGHT NOW, MR. COX, ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT. I HAVE SOMEBODY WHO WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION, MAKE A DECISION. SORRY. I THINK THE GENERAL GUIDANCE ON THIS IS THAT OUR FIVE-YEAR UPDATE COMES AROUND APRIL 19TH. IF BOARD MEMBERS WERE ABLE TO WORK WITH STAFF TO MAKE SOME POINTED AMENDMENTS TO THIS, DO YOU THINK WE COULD BRING IT BACK WITH A PUBLIC HEARING PRIOR TO THE APRIL 19TH DATE? I THINK THAT WE WILL NEED SOME TIME TO WORK WITH YOU ON WHAT YOU WANT US TO LOOK AT EXACTLY. I THINK YOU'VE GIVEN US SOME GOOD FEEDBACK TONIGHT THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH THAT WE COULD START THAT PROCESS AND LOOK. I THINK APRIL 19TH OR WHATEVER MEETING IS BEFORE OR AFTER THAT IS TOO AGGRESSIVE.

NOW, I WILL SAY THAT THAT APRIL 19TH DEADLINE, IF YOU TAKE ANY ACTION TONIGHT, YOU'RE STILL IN COMPLIANCE.

YOU'VE BASICALLY MET THE DEADLINE. IF YOU TAKE ANY ACTION AT ALL TONIGHT, EVEN IF IT'S WORK ON X, Y, Z, AND COME BACK TO US WHEN YOU'RE READY.

OKAY. AND I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE ANY ACTION ON THE PLAN UNTIL THE MAY 26 BOARD MEETING.

TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL TIME FOR THE BOARD TO REVIEW THE DRAFT PLAN AND WORK WITH STAFF TO MAKE THOSE AMENDMENTS. YOU CAN WORK WITH THAT. ALL RIGHT, I HAVE A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ROLL CALL. MR. FORD PUGH? YES. MR. HAMILL? YES. MR. PHILLIP PUGH? YES.

MR. COX? YES. MR. WEBB? YES.

OKAY, WITH THAT, THANK YOU, MR. GRAVES. WE'LL MOVE INTO THE NEXT ONE, MR. GREENSTEIN. ALL RIGHT, GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN COX, VICE CHAIRMAN PUGH, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MS. PUDLOW, MR. KINGSBERRY. THIS EVENING, I'M PRESENTING, REZONING CASE RZ-250007, WHICH WAS SCHEDULED LAST MONTH BUT POSTPONED DUE TO INCLEMENT WEATHER. THE APPLICANT IS BRIAN ROWE OF D.R. HORTON AND PROPERTY OWNER IS DANIEL SUBDIVISION, LLC.

THIS REQUEST IS TO CONDITIONALLY REZONE 46.73 ACRES FROM RA, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, TO R3,

[01:05:01]

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF TACKETT ROAD. AND IS IDENTIFIED AS THE TAX MAP NUMBERS LISTED ON THE SCREEN. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INDICATES THE PROPERTY IS PLANNED FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. THIS SLIDE IS JUST SHOWING A LOCATION MAP. IT'S MULTIPLE PARCELS, I THINK, SEVEN PARCELS, AND THEY'RE ALL HIGHLIGHTED IN THAT BLUE COLOR. THIS IS ADJACENT TO THE BRANCHESTER LAKES SUBDIVISION. AND IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER IS A ZOOMED OUT VIEW OF THE COUNTY, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT RED DOT IS WHERE THIS PROPOSAL IS LOCATED. AND HERE'S A MORE ZOOMED IN SATELLITE VIEW OF THE CURRENT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH. AND THIS IS THE ZONING MAP CURRENTLY, WHICH SHOWS THAT THESE PARCELS ARE CURRENTLY RA AND SURROUNDING LOTS ARE RA, R3, R2, AND R1. AND THIS IS THE CURRENT ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLANS FUTURE LAND USE MAP, WHICH SHOWS THE SUBJECT PARCELS ARE PLANNED FOR RESIDENTIAL AND SURROUNDING PARCELS ARE ALSO PLANNED FOR RESIDENTIAL.

SUMMARIZE THE REQUEST AGAIN, REZONING OF 46.7 ACRES FROM RA TO R3 IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A 106 LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. AND SOME KEY DETAILS ARE THAT THERE'S TWO ENTRANCES OFF OF TECHICH ROAD AND IT'S LOCATED ADJACENT TO AND WEST OF THE BRANCHESTER LAKE SUBDIVISION AND VOLUNTARY PROFFERS WERE SUBMITTED. THIS IS THE CONCEPTUAL MAP SHOWING THE PLANNED LAYOUT OF THE DEVELOPMENT. SO I'LL JUST LEAVE THAT UP FOR A COUPLE SECONDS. AND THEN SUMMARIZING THE PROFFERS. ONE OF THE PROFFERS IS CONFORMANCE WITH THAT CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT WAS JUST SHOWN. ANOTHER IS TO EXCLUDE. TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS OR DUPLEXES. ANOTHER IS LIMITING THE NUMBER OF LOTS TO 106 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. A CASH PROFFER IS PROPOSED OF $3,544 PER UNIT. THERE'S A PROFFER THAT THE MINIMUM FLOOR AREA SHALL BE 1,400 SQUARE FEET FOR ONE STORY AND 1,600 FOR MORE THAN ONE STORY, EXCLUDING ANY GARAGE. THERE'S A PROFFER THAT THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SHALL OWN THE COMMON ELEMENTS, THAT THE OPEN SPACE IS NOT REQUIRED TO CONFORM TO DIMENSIONAL ZONING REQUIREMENTS. THERE'S A PROFFER THAT WOULD REQUIRE INSTALLATION OF SIGNAGE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA, WHICH IS PRESENT ON PARTS OF THESE LOTS. AND THEN THERE'S A PROFFER. THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RIGHT 100 FOOT RIGHT TURN LANE TAPER AT THE INTERSECTION OF TAKACHIN MIDDLE ROAD. SO, TO SUMMARIZE WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS? THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE PROFFERS DATED DECEMBER 10TH.

AND AND JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT THOSE PROFFERS THAT THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF. ADDRESSED VDOT'S CONCERNS ABOUT OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, AS NOTED ON THE ISSUE ANALYSIS. THAT VOTE WAS 4-3 FOLLOWING A PUBLIC HEARING ON DECEMBER 18TH, AND THE REASON THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROVIDED WAS THAT IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SURROUNDING USES IN ZONING DISTRICTS. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND WAS ADVERTISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS. A SIGN WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE PROPERTY. ONE WRITTEN COMMENT IN OPPOSITION WAS

[01:10:01]

AFTER THE PUBLICATION OF THE STAFF REPORT, FOUR WRITTEN COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION WERE RECEIVED.

AND ONE WRITTEN COMMENT IN SUPPORT WAS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE PUBLICATION AND IS INCLUDED WITH YOUR STAFF REPORT PACKET.

SO THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. IF YOU WOULD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME FOR STAFF OR WOULD LIKE TO INVITE THE APPLICANT, I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO INVITE THEM UP TO SPEAK.

BEFORE WE DO THAT, ANYBODY GOT ANY QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW? OKAY, YOU HAVE TO, THE APPLICANT IS HERE. YOU CAN COME FORWARD. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS ANN MILLER. I'M A PLANNER WITH BALZER & ASSOCIATES, A WESTWOOD COMPANY. OUR FIRM HAS BEEN ASSISTING D.R. HORTON, BRIAN ROWE, AND HIS TEAM THROUGHOUT THIS REZONING PROCESS WITH LAND PLANNING AND ENGINEERING SERVICES. SO I'M JUST GOING TO TOUCH ON A FEW TECHNICAL ITEMS THAT STAFF SORT OF ALREADY WENT OVER AND THEN HANDED OVER TO BRIAN. I DO WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR THEIR PRESENTATION AND ALL THE WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE PUT INTO THE STAFF REPORT. WE ARE VERY PLEASED TO BRING IT FORWARD WITH BOTH THEIR RECOMMENDATION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

AS NOTED BY STAFF, THE PROPOSAL IS FOR 106 DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON 106 INDIVIDUAL LOTS ON ABOUT 47 ACRES. THE LOTS WOULD MEET THE R3 DISTRICT STANDARDS, WHICH INCLUDE A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET. AS NOTED, THE PROPOSAL IS IN RESPONSE TO THE COUNTY'S CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH DESIGNATES THESE AREAS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES, AND THE PROPERTIES ARE WITHIN THE CURRENT COUNTY PLANNING AREA. AND WOULD CONNECT TO PUBLIC UTILITIES. THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION, INCLUDING THE LOT SIZES AND THE ZONING DISTRICT, AS MENTIONED, NOT ONLY MEETS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BUT THE SURROUNDING AREA, WITH GRANTCHESTER LAKES AS AN ADJACENT SUBDIVISION. JUST TO THE EAST. SO WE ARE NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY ANY MEANS, BUT JUST RATHER BRING SOMETHING THAT FITS WITH THE BROADER PLAN AND THE PLANNING DISTRICT FOR THIS AREA. AND GIVE MORE OPTIONS FOR PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO DO NOT WANT TO MAINTAIN OR HAVE MULTIPLE ACRES OR EVEN ONE ACRE LOTS, BUT DO WANT TO BE IN THIS COUNTY AND IN THIS AREA AND LIVE IN THE SUBDIVISION. SO, THE PROPOSED INTERNAL ROAD NETWORK WILL BE STATE MAINTAINED. SO, THEREFORE, AS NOTED BY VDOT IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE SUBDIVISION WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL SSAR REQUIREMENTS, WHICH ARE THE SECONDARY STREET EXCEPT. REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED BY VDOT. TO COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS, THE PROJECT DOES PROPOSE TWO ENTRANCES ALONG TACKAGE ROAD, AS WELL AS A STUB OUT STREET CONNECTION TO THE ADJACENT PARCEL ALONG TACKAGE ROAD. A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WAS COMPLETED FOR THE PROJECT. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT TURN LANES WERE NOT WARRANTED BY VDOT STANDARDS ALONG TACKAGE ROAD AT THOSE PROPOSED ENTRANCE LOCATIONS. BUT THAT A RIGHT TURN LANE TAPER IS NEEDED AT THE INTERSECTION OF CHACKAGE ROAD AND MIDDLE ROAD, WHICH IS WHY THAT HAS BEEN PROFFERED TO KIND OF ADDRESS THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS BASED ON THAT TIA. SO, SPEAKING OF THE PROFFER STATEMENT, AS MENTIONED BY STAFF, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE INCLUDED EIGHT VOLUNTARY PROFFERS, INCLUDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, THE MAXIMUM DENSITY, THE VOLUNTARY CASH PROFFER, A MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE. THE HOA. THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ESTABLISHED FOR THE COMMUNITY, OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AND THE RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA SIGNAGE, AS WELL AS THAT OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT. THE DESIGN OF THE SUBDIVISION DOES CONSIDER MANY FACTORS, INCLUDING PRESERVATION AND EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ON THE PROPERTY. THIS PROVIDES FOR NATURAL WILDLIFE HABITATS AND NATURAL SEPARATION FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

THE DESIGN PROTECTS THE WETLANDS AND THE PERENNIAL STREAM THAT'S ALONG THE NORTH. EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, THERE IS A STREAM THAT RUNS RUNS ON THAT AREA. SO THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE 100 FOOT RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA BUFFER AND THEN THE SUBSEQUENT SIGNAGE TO PROTECT THAT BUFFER. AND SO PEOPLE COULD NOT DISTURB IT.

AS REQUIRED BY THE COUNTY ORDINANCE, SIDEWALKS WOULD BE PROVIDED ON BOTH SIDES OF ALL THE INTERNAL PUBLIC ROADS, CREATING CONNECTIVITY THROUGHOUT. AND TWO OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES WOULD BE ACCOMMODATED ON THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS, EITHER

[01:15:01]

SO, AS A RESULT, THE NEW HOMES WOULD NOT RELY ON THE SAME KIND OF GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES THAT ARE USING PRIVATE WELLS AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS. BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE TO CONNECT TO THE GRAVITY SEWER LINE AND ALSO EXTEND THE WATER LINE FROM MIDDLE ROAD DOWN TACKAGE ROAD, WHICH ALSO WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FIRE HYDRANTS.

ALONG THAT WATER LINE ON TACKAGE ROAD, THAT COULD SERVE THE GREATER AREA. AND THEN, AS YOU ALL KNOW, IF THE RESIDING IS APPROVED AND IT GOES TO THE SUBDIVISION PLAN PROCESS THAT HAS TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY ALL COUNTY AND STATE AGENCIES TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE RULES AND REGULATIONS. NOT IN JUST THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BUT ALSO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THE AND THE STATE CODE. SO WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE NUMBER OF ANTICIPATED STUDENTS HAS COME UP PER HOUSEHOLD. SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE STAFF REPORT DOES ADDRESS THIS. SO IT SAYS THAT 106 PROPOSED DWELLING UNITS ARE ANTICIPATED TO GENERATE APPROXIMATELY 55 STUDENTS. THAT'S BASED ON THE ESTIMATED 0.5 STUDENTS PER HOUSEHOLD, WHICH IS HOW THE COUNTY CALCULATES IT BASED ON THEIR EXISTING POPULATION.

THIS TOTAL IS SPREAD ACROSS ALL THREE SCHOOLS. IT WOULDN'T BE CONCENTRATED ON JUST ONE SCHOOL. IT'S LOOKING AT ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE, AND HIGH SCHOOL. AND IT REFLECTS THE FULL BUILD-OUT OF THE PROJECT. SO IT'S NOT ALL AT ONCE. THAT WOULD BE KIND OF GRADUALLY, OVER TIME AS THE PROJECT PROGRESSES. SO WITH THAT, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT WE BELIEVE THIS IS GOING TO BE AN ASSET TO THE COUNTY.

IT'S BRINGING A NEW HOUSING CHOICE TO THE AREA, IN AN AREA THAT IS PLANNED FOR RESIDENTIAL USES AND PLAN FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES. SO THAT I'M GOING TO PASS IT OVER TO BRIAN ROWE WITH DR. HORTON, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, ANN, AND GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN COX AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT. I'M BRIAN ROWE. I'M THE SOUTHERN VIRGINIA DIVISION VICE PRESIDENT FOR DR. HORTON OFFICE AT 2820 WATERFORD LAKE DRIVE IN RICHMOND, VIRGINIA.

THANK YOU FOR MEETING. TONIGHT TO CONSIDER AND STRATEGIZE WITH US ON OUR SOUTHERLY RUN PROJECT AND OUR REZONING APPLICATION HERE IN BEAUTIFUL RURAL PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY. I'D LIKE TO TAKE JUST A MOMENT IF I COULD INTRODUCE A FEW OF OUR D.L.

HORTON TEAM MEMBERS WHO JOINED US TONIGHT. ONE TRAVELED FROM AFAR, MR. BRAD BRUNDAGE, WHO IS OUR REGION PRESIDENT, FROM SOUTH CAROLINA. BRAD, THANK YOU FOR COMING. WE ALSO HAVE OUR DIVISION PRESIDENT, KYLE SCHNAUFER, HERE AS WELL, AND SOME OF OUR LAND TEAM MEMBERS, PATRICK KEARNEY.

ANDREW COSTNER AND DYLAN SHIVLA, THANKS TO ALL YOU BEING HERE TO SUPPORT. YOU KNOW, AS WE CONTEMPLATED, AS I SPOKE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION A FEW MONTHS BACK, YOU KNOW, D.R. HORTON, AS WE CONTEMPLATE DEVELOPING IN AREAS LIKE PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, WE DO THIS IN ALL MUNICIPALITIES WE CONSIDER, AND WE ALWAYS START WITH WHERE. THE COUNTY AND THE LEADERSHIP HAS ALREADY PREDETERMINED STRATEGIC GROWTH AREAS WITHIN THE COUNTY, ALREADY IDENTIFIED FOR RESIDENTIAL HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE WITH SOUTHERLY RUN. I'M HERE TONIGHT AND EXCITED TO STATE THAT SOUTHERLY RUN SITS PERFECTLY WITHIN YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA. IT'S RIGHT THERE, WHERE YOU WANTED IT TO BE. AND IT'S A BEAUTIFUL SINGLE-FAMILY LOT SUBDIVISION WITH JUST OVER TWO UNITS PER ACRE. IT CHECKS EVERY BOX FOR ADHERING TO ALL COUNTY REQUIREMENTS FOR A NEW SUBDIVISION IN PRINCE GEORGE. THIS POINT IS FURTHER EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT OUR TEAM HAS WORKED CLOSELY WITH YOUR CAPABLE PLANNING STAFF. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR WORKING WITH US.

AND GAIN THEIR SUPPORT BY MAKING A FEW TWEAKS HERE AND THERE. SAME THING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WE LISTEN.

WE'RE ALWAYS OPEN FOR SUGGESTIONS, AND I ENCOURAGE YOU, SUPERVISORS AND YOUR BOARD TONIGHT, AS YOU TALK WITH US, AS YOU WORK WITH US TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO WORK WITH YOU TO ADJUST AS WE CAN.

WE'RE VERY EXCITED. D.R.

HORTON IS VERY EXCITED TO STRATEGICALLY ALIGN.

WITH THE BOARD. WE'RE NOT JUST AN APPLICANT HERE. WE'RE NOT HERE JUST TO TRY TO GET SOMETHING DONE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. WE WANT TO ACTUALLY STRATEGICALLY ALIGN AND WORK WITH PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY IN THE RURAL NATURE THAT THIS COUNTY POSSESSES AND BEAUTIFULLY DOES. AND PROVIDE HIGH QUALITY, ACCESSIBLE PRICE HOUSING FOR ALL YOUR FIRST RESPONDERS, POLICE OFFICERS, FIRE DEPARTMENT, NURSES, EVERYBODY THAT WORKS WITHIN THE COUNTY. DR. HORTON IS ALREADY BUILDING QUALITY HOMES IN CHAPEL CREEK AND LAKEWOOD VILLAGE WITHIN PRINCE GEORGE. WE HAVE MANY, MANY SATISFIED HOMEOWNERS.

MR. HORTON HIMSELF, WHO PASSED AWAY JUST OVER A YEAR AGO, DR. WAS ALWAYS THE ONE WHO TOLD ALL OF US,

[01:20:01]

TO STAY HERE, LIVE HERE, WORK HERE, SHOP HERE, WORSHIP HERE, EAT HERE, WHILE RAISING THEIR FAMILIES WITHIN THE COUNTY. AS OPPOSED TO WORKING IN THE COUNTY AND GOING TO OTHER PARTS OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTY TO LIVE. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE BOARD TO GAIN YOUR SUPPORT OF A SOUTHERLY RUN. AND I'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? AT THIS TIME? THANK YOU, SIR.

OKAY, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I WILL OPEN AS SUCH. MR. YOUNG, ANYBODY SIGNED UP ELECTRONICALLY? NO, SIR. MS. KNOTT, ANYBODY SIGNED UP IN ADVANCE? NO, SIR, MR. CHAIRMAN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THEN FLOOR IS OPEN. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK, PLEASE COME UP, STATE YOUR NAME, YOUR ADDRESS, AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO TALK. EXCUSE ME, MR. CHAIRMAN, BOARD MEMBERS. MY NAME IS MOSES WILLIAMS. I LIVE AT 4500 MEGAN COURT, AND THAT'S ON THE BRANCHESTER SIDE, NEAR THE WATER. AND I SUBMITTED MINE ONLINE, AND I'LL ALSO READ IT. DEAR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND PLANNING STAFF, I AM WRITING A RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE REGARDING REZONING CASE NUMBER RZ-25-0007 SUBMITTED BY D.R.

HORTON FOR THE SOUTHERLY RUN PROJECT. THE REQUEST PROPOSED REZONING APPROXIMATELY 46 ACRES FROM R.A. RESIDENTIAL TO R3 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF UP TO ONE OF THE SIX LOTS. I AM A HOMEOWNER AND LANDOWNER IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY.

IN MY PROPERTY DIRECTLY, ABUTS PROPOSED SOUTHERNLY RUN DEVELOPMENT.

AFTER REVIEWING THE REQUEST, I WOULD LIKE TO FORMALLY EXPRESS MY SUPPORT FOR THE REZONING AS WRITTEN.

AS A RETIRED U.S. ARMY VETERAN AND RETIRED FEDERAL EMPLOYEE, I HAVE PERSONAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE HOUSING CHALLENGES FACED BY MILITARY FAMILIES.

IN THE REGION. WHEN I WAS STATIONED NEARBY FORT LEE, VIRGINIA, TWO TIMES, I WAS A NEWLY ASSIGNED SEARCHING FOR SUITABLE AND AFFORDABLE OFF-POST HOUSING FOR MY FAMILY. AT THAT TIME, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO FIND AVAILABLE HOMES CLOSE TO FORT LEE, AND MANY SOLDIERS IN MY UNIT WERE FORCED TO COMMUTE LONG DISTANCES DUE TO LIMITED HOUSING OPTIONS.

ALTHOUGH I WANTED TO LIVE CLOSE TO WHERE I WORK, MY FAMILY, ULTIMATELY. SETTLED IN PETERSBURG DUE TO UNAVAILABILITY OF AFFORDABILITY CONSTRAINTS.

MORE RECENTLY, I RETIRED FROM DEFENSE AND LOGISTICS AGENCY IN RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, WHERE I WORKED ALONGSIDE MILITARY MEMBERS AND CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES.

DURING MY TIME THERE, I FREQUENTLY HEARD SIMILAR CONCERNS REGARDING LIMITED AVAILABILITY OF HOMES FOR PURCHASE NEAR FORT LEE AND SURROUNDING MILITARY INSTALLATIONS. THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL WELL-PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS AREA CONTINUE TO BE SIGNIFICANT.

FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AS AN ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER, I BELIEVE THE PROPOSED SOUTHERLY-RUN DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTS A REASONABLE AND COMPATIBLE USE FOR THE LAND.

THE PROJECT WOULD HELP ADDRESS ONGOING HOUSING DEMAND IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, PARTICULARLY FOR MILITARY FAMILIES WORKING PROFESSIONALLY, SEEKING TO LIVE CLOSER TO THEIR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE REZONING OF DEVELOPMENT WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT MY PROPERTY. INSTEAD, I SEE THIS PROJECT AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR RESPONSIBLE GROWTH THAT SUPPORTS THE COUNTY'S LONG-TERM PLANNING GOALS AND OVERALL COMMUNITY SUITABILITY.

FOR THIS REASON, I RESPECTFULLY ENCOURAGE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO APPROVE THE REZONING AS SUBMITTED.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. ALL

[01:25:02]

NUMBER ONE, ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. NUMBER TWO, MOST PEOPLE MOVE TO PRINCE GEORGE TO GET OUT OF THE URBAN AREAS. SO I DISAGREE OR CONTRADICT THE YOUNG LADY'S CONCERN THAT PEOPLE WANT TO MOVE OUT IN THE COUNTY TO GET OUT OF THE URBAN AREAS. FOR SMALLER PLACES. I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. MOST OF THE LOT SIZES THAT I SEE ARE MINIMUM 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZES.

THAT'S LESS THAN A QUARTER ACRE. I MOVED OUT OF HOPEWELL OVER 20 YEARS AGO AND I HAD DOUBLE THAT SIZE LOT BECAUSE I WANTED TO GET AWAY FROM IT.

INFRASTRUCTURE. I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE BETTER INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE END OF TACKUS ROAD OTHER THAN ONE TURN LANE. WE HAVE A HARD ENOUGH TIME GETTING MIDDLE ROAD TOOK CARE OF BECAUSE IT'S A PATCHWORK OF POTHOLES RIGHT NOW. AND PLUS, EVERYBODY OUT THERE IS ON WELL WATER. I'M PROBABLY THE CLOSEST ONE TO THE CONSTRUCTION, AND I MEASURED IT, 57 FEET. I HAVE A SHALLOW BORE WELL, AND IT'S ABOUT 55 TO 60 FOOT DEEP. AND YES, MY WELL CAN BE DISTURBED, IF NOT IMPACTED STRUCTURALLY BY THE HEAVY EQUIPMENT. THAT'S GOING TO BE DOING THE DIGGING AND EVERYTHING. SO THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT. SO THE ONLY THING I CAN TELL THESE PEOPLE THAT HAVE WELLS ON TAKISH ROAD, BY THE ADVICE GIVEN TO ME, TEST YOUR WATER BEFORE CONSTRUCTION, DURING CONSTRUCTION, AND EVEN AFTER CONSTRUCTION, BECAUSE YOUR WATER QUALITY CAN BE AFFECTED. SO I THINK, AND I? WHEN THIS FIRST CAME ABOUT OVER A YEAR AGO, I WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND I TALKED TO A YOUNG MAN. AND HE SAID THAT ANY LANDOWNER THAT'S GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY THIS, THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ANY TAP-INS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT TO THE COUNTY. BUT I HAVE YET TO FIND THAT IN WRITING. AND I'M OLD SCHOOL WHERE I BELIEVE HALF OF WHAT YOU HEAR, NOTHING THAT YOU HEAR AND HALF OF WHAT YOU SEE. I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT IN WRITING BECAUSE I AM RETIRED ON A FIXED INCOME AND I CAN'T AFFORD TO DIG A NEW WELL. AND IF MY WELL IS, IF I DO TAP IN AND YOU HAVE ALL THESE DEAD WELLS OUT TACKISH ROAD, WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR THEM TO BE FILLED? SHOULD IT REQUIRE US, THE LANDOWNER? BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT IT, TO BEGIN WITH.

THE MAJORITY OF US OUT TACKISH ROAD DON'T WANT IT. I THINK THERE'S SOME ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE THIS GOES FORWARD.

BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO USE MY WELL HAS GOT GREAT WATER AND I DON'T WANT TO LOSE THAT.

BUT IF I HAVE TO TO TAP ON COUNTY SERVICES, I DON'T THINK I SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR SOMETHING THAT I DON'T WANT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, SIR, I'M SPENCER HARRISON. I LIVE AT 6401 WATCHMAN DRIVE. I GREW UP IN PRINCE GEORGE. I MOVED MY FAMILY TO WATCHMAN DRIVE IN 1981. RAISED TWO SONS THERE.

MY SONS AND THEIR FAMILIES LIVE IN PRINCE GEORGE. THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION, 47 ACRES, 106 HOMES, WITH TWO STREETS ENTERING ON TACK WITHIN AN EIGHTH OF A MILE FROM MIDDLE ROAD, WILL CAUSE PROBLEMS. THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD HAS TWO VEHICLES. THAT WOULD BE AT LEAST 212 VEHICLES GETTING ON TO TACKETT TO GET TO MIDDLE ROAD. QUOTE, D.L.

HORTON SAYS, PLANS INCORPORATE DEDICATED OPEN SPACE TO HELP PRESERVE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES. IF YOU'RE FROM THE AREA, YOU KNOW THERE'S A CREEK. AND A RAVINE THAT WOULD COST TOO MUCH TO FILL IN. SO HOW MUCH CAN YOU PRESERVE WITH 106 HOUSES ON 47 ACRES? D.R. HORTON IS FACING A FEDERAL LAWSUIT FOR ALLEGEDLY CONCEALING TRUE HOME COSTS TO HOMEOWNERS. I HOPE, AS A RESIDENT OF THE AREA AND A TAXPAYER, THAT YOU WILL TAKE OUR CONCERNS

[01:30:02]

FIRST, TACKETT ROAD IS A NARROW, TWO-LANE TRAFFIC ROAD, AND IT HAS 24 HOMES ON WATCH, RUN AND WARWICK RIGHT NOW.

AND, YOU HAVE HOMES ON BOTH SIDES OF TACKETT ROAD, AND YOU HAVE EIGHT MORE STREETS THAT ENTER ONTO TACKETT NOW THAT WILL BE INVOLVED. PRESENTLY, YOU HAVE MIDDLE ROAD, WHICH IS NOT ONLY OF HOMES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD, BUT YOU HAVE FOUR SUBDIVISIONS ALREADY. BRICK HOUSE, YOU HAVE 76 HOMES.

CEDAR CREEK, YOU HAVE 127 HOMES. BRANCHESTER LAKE APARTMENTS IS ALREADY 120 APARTMENTS, AND THEN YOU HAVE THE WHOLE BRANCHESTER SUBDIVISION.

SECONDLY, WE HAVE THE MIDDLE ROAD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WITH 750 STUDENTS, WHICH ALMOST HALF OF THESE CHILDREN ARE DRIVEN TO SCHOOL INSTEAD OF TAKING THE BUS. THESE STUDENTS COME ACROSS THE COUNTY AS THIS SCHOOL REPLACED WALDEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

SCHOOL. SO THE PEOPLE THAT IN OUR AREA ON TACKETT AND ALL DO NOT EVEN GO TO THAT SCHOOL ON MIDDLE ROAD. THIRD, YOU HAVE. MIDDLE ROAD IS THE MAIN ROAD USED AS A CUT THROUGH FROM ALL TRAFFIC ON 156.

SOMETIMES, WHEN SCHOOL IS STARTING OR ENDING, I HAVE HAD TO WAIT AS LONG AS EIGHT TO TEN MINUTES TO TURN LEFT.

OF A TACKETT ONTO MIDDLE ROAD.

A TRAFFIC COUNT NEEDS TO BE DONE ON TACKETT, AS WELL AS MIDDLE ROAD, BEFORE THIS SUBDIVISION IS APPROVED. NO RECENT TRAFFIC COUNT FOR TACKETT ROAD HAS BEEN DONE, AND THE LAST COUNT FOR THE TRAFFIC COUNT ON MIDDLE ROAD WAS DONE IN 2023.

BEFORE THE SCHOOL WAS FULLY OPERATIONAL. THE BOARD NEEDS TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSES THAT THIS SUBDIVISION WILL CAUSE TO THE COUNTY BY HAVING TO PAY TO IMPROVE THE ROADS. AS WELL AS INCREASE THE TAXES TO THE NAIL COUNTY RESIDENTS.

IN CONCLUSION, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK EACH BOARD MEMBER TO CONSIDER, HOW WOULD YOU FEEL HAVING THIS BUILT IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MA'AM. ANYONE ELSE? HELLO, GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS CATHERINE CICERI. I LIVE AT 6328 WATCH RUN DRIVE.

I'M GOING TO SAY A BROAD STATEMENT FIRST THAT I THINK THERE'S TOO MANY DEVELOPMENTS BEING PLANNED FOR MIDDLE ROAD AS A WHOLE.

BUT TONIGHT WE'RE FOCUSED ON SOUTHERLY RUN, SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO JUST STICK TO THAT.

PULL UP MY NOTES HERE. SO, SOUTHERLY RUN, THE HOMES, IT'S ALREADY BEEN TOUCHED ON TONIGHT, BUT WE'RE ALL ON WELLS. AND IT'S BEEN SHOWN AND PROVEN THAT CONSTRUCTION, LAND CLEARING AND GRADING CAN INCREASE THE SURFACE RUNOFF, REDUCING GROUNDWATER RECHARGE.

THIS DEPLETES AQUIFERS OVER TIME, AND IF OUR WELLS GO DRY AND THE AQUIFER IS DEPLETED, IT WILL INCREASE THE NEEDS ON OUR WATER. INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH IS ALREADY STRESSED AS IT IS AND ALREADY NEEDS UPGRADES.

OUR WELLS ON WATCH RUN, ALL OF US, ARE WITHIN 100 FEET, AND THEY'RE MORE LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION. THAT'S A LOT OF HOMES. THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR WATER QUALITY AND HAVING TO REPLACE A VERY EXPENSIVE FEATURE. IF THE 106 HOMES ARE BUILT, THAT COULD ADD 55 STUDENTS. I KNOW THERE'S SOME DEBATE ON HOW MANY STUDENTS ACTUALLY COME IN

[01:35:01]

ADDITION ON THE HIGH SCHOOL BECAUSE IT'S OVER CAPACITY, IF WE ADD MORE STUDENTS, THAT NEED BECOMES EVEN MORE URGENT FOR OUR COUNTY. THE TRAFFIC HAS ALREADY BEEN TOUCHED ON AS WELL, BUT I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE TWO ENTRY ROADS THAT ARE 0.2 MILES FROM EACH OTHER. ALL ON A SKINNY BACK ROAD ON TACKICK THAT WILL ALL FUNNEL OUT ONTO MIDDLE ROAD. IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT ON LONGWOOD AND THEN THIS ONE IS ADDED ON, THAT'S AN EXTRA 02,000 CARS A DAY. THAT'S JUST TWO DEVELOPMENTS SO FAR. 2,000 CARS A DAY ON MIDDLE ROAD. IF YOU USE MIDDLE ROAD, YOU KNOW THAT THAT COULD BE A NIGHTMARE TO GET IN AND OUT OF. I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT I THINK WE NEED TO ASK MORE AS A COUNTY FROM THE DEVELOPERS THAT COME IN, ESPECIALLY THE LARGE ONES. I THINK THAT THEY COULD AFFORD TO PAY MORE FOR CASH PROFFERS. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE POSSIBLE UPGRADES OF FIRE AND EMS, OUR SCHOOL SYSTEM, OUR WATER SYSTEM, OUR ROADS, I THINK WE NEED TO ASK MORE. THEY'RE NOT OFFERING ENOUGH. I THINK PRINCE GEORGE IS THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS. IT'S A PERFECT MIX OF COUNTRY LIVING, BUT CONVENIENTLY LOCATED, ONLY A FEW MINUTES TO ALMOST ANYTHING YOU MIGHT NEED. WE GET TO ENJOY SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS AND SCHOOLS, PRESERVE NATURAL RESOURCES, AND A SLOWER WAY OF LIFE THAT IS BECOMING LESS AND LESS POSSIBLE TO FIND. I BELIEVE VOTING YES AND APPROVING YET ANOTHER HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WOULD ACTIVELY DISMANTLE THE RURAL CHARACTER OF PRINCE GEORGE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A COMPLICATED ISSUE AND THAT UPGRADES TO OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, THEY COME WITH ENORMOUS PRICE TAGS, BUT THERE'S ALSO A COST TO OVERDEVELOPMENT AND DEFORESTATION. AND IT'S ONE THAT WE AND OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL HAVE TO BEAR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? GOOD EVENING AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN. BILL STEELE, DISTRICT BOTANIC COMMUNITY ACTION GROUP. 9921 COUNTY LINE ROAD. MR. MAHER, I WANTED TO BE LAST BECAUSE I KIND OF DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THE FIGHT. I LIVE AT THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTY. I DID LIVE ON MIDDLE ROAD AND BOY, AM I GLAD I GOT OUT OF THERE JUST BECAUSE OF THE REASONS THAT YOU'RE SAYING.

THERE ARE A FEW POINTS I'D LIKE TO BRING UP, MR. CHAIRMAN. FIRST OF ALL, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT THE REZONING, HERE'S ANOTHER INSTANCE OF, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO REZONE THINGS. I WOULD HOPE THAT THE COUNTY WOULD SHOW US THE BENEFITS AND THE DETRIMENTS OF REZONING. OBVIOUSLY, THE LANDOWNER IS GOING TO TELL YOU, HEY, THIS IS THE BEST THING SINCE GOD'S BIRTH. BREATH. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT, HOW DOES THIS BENEFIT THE COUNTY? AND THE PRESENTATION DOESN'T DO THAT.

SO I'M ASKING THAT NEXT TIME WE DO THIS, TELL THE PUBLIC, WHAT ARE THE GOOD POINTS ABOUT IT? WHAT ARE THE BAD POINTS ABOUT IT? BECAUSE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE THE NEUTRAL PARTY. AND I WOULD HOPE THEY WOULD DO THAT.

SECONDLY, GOING BACK TO WHAT MR. WEBB SAID, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS AFFORDABILITY THING.

WELL, WE KNOW IT'S FAIRLY CLEAR THAT THE STATE'S GOING TO FORCE HOUSING ON US. MY QUESTION IS, DO WE THINK THAT THIS WILL ACTUALLY MEET THE AFFORDABILITY? NOW, YOU KNOW, THESE 1,500 SQUARE FEET THEY BUILT DOWN ON 460 WAS $450,000 TO $500,000. IS THAT AFFORDABLE? THESE ARE 1,500 SQUARE FEET. I'M SURPRISED WE WEREN'T GIVEN, HEY, THESE ARE WHAT THE HOUSES ARE GOING TO COST. AND THAT WAY, AT LEAST, I THINK, MR. WEBB, YOU WOULD AGREE, WE CAN KIND OF GAUGE, IS THIS GOING TO FIT IN, WHAT COMES IN? I DON'T KNOW.

SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO LOOK AT. THE OTHER POINT I WANTED TO MAKE IS THEY ALREADY TOUCHED ON WAS THE PROFFERS. SADLY, VIRGINIA DOESN'T ALLOW IMPACT FEES. THAT'S HOW, THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT WHERE WE LIVE IN FLORIDA, MARYLAND. JUST ABOUT EVERYWHERE ELSE HAS IMPACT FEES, BUT NOT FLORIDA. THE LOW AMOUNT OF PROFFERS THAT THEY WANT TO DONATE, WELL, WHEN YOU PUT IT ALL TOGETHER, HOW MUCH IS THAT REALLY GOING TO HELP US? THAT'S NOT GOING TO HELP ANYTHING. WE NEED MORE POLICE, WE NEED MORE FIRE, WE'RE GOING TO NEED THE SCHOOL. $3,500, HEY, I THINK THAT'S A SLAP IN THE FACE. IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE SERIOUS, HELP BUILD THE COUNTY. $3,500 GIVEN TO THE COUNTY PER UNIT.

IT'S NOT REALLY HELPING THE COUNTY VERY MUCH. AND THEN I THINK I JUST HAD ONE MORE WAS.

I AM KIND OF CONCERNED THAT THE COMMISSION, THEY VOTED FOUR TO THREE. WHEN YOU WANT SOMETHING LIKE THIS, I WOULD EXPECT THAT YOU WOULD WORK ON A 7-0 VOTE.

BUT IF IT'S THAT TIED UP, I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID A GOOD JOB AND BROUGHT UP SOME QUESTIONS THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT. SO BASED ON THOSE, I WOULD HOPE THAT THE COUNTY IS GOING TO VOTE NO ON THIS. WE'VE GOT TO SLOW THIS BUILDING DOWN HERE. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE. WE'VE ALL TALKED ABOUT THIS, ESPECIALLY WITH THE COMP PLAN. WE'VE GOT TO NOT TURN INTO CHESTERFIELD COUNTY. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF TURNING INTO CHESTERFIELD COUNTY. NOBODY WANTS THAT. WE DON'T NEED THAT. AND LAST IN MY EFFORT IS THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT REALLY SHOULD BE HEARD AND CONSIDERED ARE THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE NEXT DOOR

[01:40:02]

THEY KNEW WHAT THE SURROUNDING WAS WHEN THEY BOUGHT IT, AND NOW FOR SOMEBODY TO COME IN AND SAY, OH, NEVER MIND, I WANT TO MAKE A FEW DOLLARS, SO I'M GOING TO CHANGE IT. I'M GOING TO CHANGE YOUR LIFE. I'M GOING TO CHANGE YOUR WAY OF LIVING.

AND THE FACT THAT THEY'RE MOSTLY SENIOR CITIZENS ON FIXED INCOME, I THINK THEY HAVE A LEGITIMATE CONCERN. WE OUGHT TO SAY, WHAT DO YOU GUYS WANT, AND THEN VOTE ACCORDING, BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE MORE DIRECTLY IMPACTED ON THIS. SO, ALL IN ALL, MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO BRING IN MORE HOUSING, AND I ASK THE BOARD TO VOTE NO ON THIS PROPOSITION. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, SIR. EXCUSE ME.

GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'M GOING TO SPITBALL THIS. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING UP HERE.

THIS WAS GIVEN TO ME EARLIER.

MY NAME IS STEPHEN DEROCHA. I LIVE AT 6315 WATCH RUN DRIVE, WHICH IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE HOUSES THAT ARE GOING TO BE AFFECTED FROM THIS.

BUT THE WAY MY PROPERTY RUNS, ALL THE WATER RUNS OFF MY PROPERTY, UNDER TUNNELS, UNDER CHANNELS, TO THE OTHER SIDE OF WATCH RUN. DOWN TO THIS AFFECTED AREA. I PERSONALLY WENT OUT AND WALKED THAT AREA ABOUT A MONTH AGO. IT HADN'T RAINED IN ABOUT A WEEK, BUT I HAD WADERS ON AND IT WAS WET. I WENT DOWN TO THE CREEK THAT WAS THERE.

THERE'S A COUPLE OF CREEKS THAT HAVE BEEN ABANDONED THERE.

THERE'S AN OLD FIRE ROAD THAT'S THERE. TONS OF WILDLIFE, TONS OF RAPTORS THAT LIVE IN OUR YARD. LIKE I SAID, I OWN TWO ACRES ON 6315. MY WIFE'S FATHER BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AND BUILT THE HOUSE ON THERE IN 1971. WHEN SHE GOT THERE, THERE WAS APPROXIMATELY, HARRISON, I'M SORRY, ABOUT FOUR HOUSES IN WATCH RUN AND TWO HOUSES IN WARWICK COURT. HER BEST FRIEND LIVED OFF TAKISH, THE BROWN RESIDENCE, AND SHE WOULD WALK THAT WAY THROUGH THERE. WATCH RUN ROAD USED TO BE KNOWN AS MUD HOLE ROAD. IT'S VERY, IF WE COULD REPAVE IT, IT COULD. IT'S GOT A LOT OF PATCHWORK TO IT, BUT IT'S STILL HOLDING UP.

TAKISH IS HOLDING UP, BUT I JUST DROVE DOWN MIDDLE THE OTHER DAY, COMING BACK FROM THE CROSSINGS, AND THAT ROAD HAD BEEN PAVED ABOUT, I WANT TO SAY, TWO YEARS AGO IN THE SUMMERTIME. IT'S FULL OF POTHOLES. AND THEY REPAVED FROM MIDDLE ROAD ALL THE WAY DOWN TO FOOD LINE. IT'S ALL TORE UP ALREADY. IF YOU PUT ANOTHER THREE, FOUR, OR FIVE HUNDRED CARS GOING THROUGH THERE EVERY DAY, IT'S GOING TO TEAR THAT PLACE APART. MY WIFE COMMENTS THAT MIDDLE ROAD USED TO BE 55. NOW IT'S 45.

YOU KNOW, IF WE PUT MORE CARS ON THAT, THAT'S GOING TO BE CRAZY. I DO HAVE TO LOOK THAT I'VE GONE OUT OF THERE AND WAITED ON MIDDLE ROAD TO MAKE A LEFT AND A RIGHT. FOR THREE OR FOUR OR FIVE MINUTES, SOMETIMES. IN THE MORNING, FORGET IT. ALSO, I KNOW THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PROPOSE. A ROUNDABOUT ON MIDDLE ROAD AND JEFFERSON PARK, AND ANOTHER ONE IN MIDDLE ROAD AND 156. YOU KNOW, WHERE MIDDLE ROAD AND JEFFERSON PARK MEET, IT'S A NIGHTMARE. I JUST THINK THAT MIDDLE ROAD AND TAKISH ARE GOING TO BE THE SAME WAY.

ALSO, LIKE I SAID, I USE THAT FOOD LINE A LOT BECAUSE I LIVE TWO MILES FROM IT OR WHATEVER IT IS.

AND, YOU KNOW, TRAFFIC IN THE AFTERNOON IS CRAZY. I ALSO WALK A LOT ON TAKISH AND I CAN...

TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE POLICE OFFICERS THAT RUN RADAR ON THAT, THAT PEOPLE DRIVING 60, 70 MILES AND UP AND DOWN TAKISH ROAD. I KNOW THAT'S ONLY TWO-TENTHS OF A MILE FROM THE BEGINNING, BUT IT'S GOING TO SLOW EVERYTHING DOWN. I THANK EVERYBODY FOR THEIR TIME.

THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT, ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RETURN IT TO THE BOARD FOR ACTION. OKAY, BOARD MEMBERS, YOU ALL NEED MR. ROWE TO COME BACK UP, OR MR. GREENSTEIN. ANYBODY HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THEM? I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

CAN WE ASK, MR. GREENSTEIN TO COME UP, STAFF? DID YOU HAVE THE STAFF COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS ON THE REZONING CASE, SIR? LIKE THE SCHOOLS AND FIRE AND THINGS LIKE THAT? YEAH, THOSE ARE ALL INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. I CAN TELL YOU WHAT PAGE. YEAH, COULD YOU JUST COVER THOSE JUST AS A REMINDER? I THINK WE HEARD SOMEBODY ALLUDE TO THEM. I'M NOT SURE IF EVERYBODY HAD SEEN THAT. OKAY. SO IF YOU GO TO PAGE 8 OF YOUR STAFF REPORT, DO YOU WANT ME TO SUMMARIZE? YEAH, COULD YOU SUMMARIZE FOR THOSE, PLEASE? SURE.

[01:45:03]

ON THIS PROPOSAL, WE GOT COMMENTS FROM VDOT. VDOT HAD VARIOUS COMMENTS. THEY SAID THAT IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE SECONDARY STREET ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS, THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO MEET VDOT'S CONNECTIVITY REQUIREMENTS, WHICH INCLUDE TWO CONNECTIONS IN A STUB OUT STREET. AND THEY NOTED THAT THEY WANT TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY AS FAR AS MAKING SURE THAT THE STUBOUT STREET WORKS, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE TACKLED DURING THE SITE PLAN REVIEW.

THEY NOTED THAT CONNECTIONS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE ACCESS MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS. SOME OTHER TECHNICAL NOTES ABOUT CENTERLINE GEOMETRY OF THE ROAD ITSELF THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE REVIEWED DURING SITE PLAN. AND PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATIONS, LIKE SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES, IS ALSO A COUNTY REQUIREMENT AND A SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED.

AND THAT THEY RESERVE FUTURE COMMENTS FOR THAT. PLEASE TELL ME IF I'M GOING INTO TOO MUCH DETAIL. OKAY.

FIRE AND EMS NOTED THAT THERE'S SOME EXISTING CONSTRAINTS WITH THEIR STAFFING AND CURRENT STATIONS FOR BOTH FIRE AND EMS. AND THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT JUST NOTED WHAT STANDARDS THE BUILDINGS THAT WOULD BE. PROPOSED WITH THE SUBDIVISION WOULD BE SUBJECT TO, SUCH AS THE STATE'S BUILDING CODE. ENVIRONMENTAL NOTED PERMITS THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO GET FROM STATE AGENCIES, AS WELL AS LAND DISTURBANCE PERMITS FROM THE COUNTY. THE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT NOTED THAT DUE TO THE LOCATION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO PUBLIC WATER, PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER. AND THAT SUBDIVISIONS WITH 50 LOTS OR MORE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE TWO CONNECTIONS. AND THAT ALL LOTS MUST CONNECT TO PUBLIC WASTEWATER THROUGH A GRAVITY LATERAL.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS NOTED CONSTRAINTS WITH THE CURRENT CAPACITY OF THE SCHOOLS IN THE COUNTY.

AND THOSE SPECIFIC STATISTICS ARE IN THAT COMMENT. AND THAT WAS ALL THE DEPARTMENTAL AND AGENCY COMMENTS RECEIVED.

THANK YOU, SIR. AND I THINK THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I HAD, I NOTICE WHEN WE SEE THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, WHICH IS THE DRAWING, RIGHT, THE NICE ILLUSTRATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ONE OF THE THINGS I SEE REFERENCED, IT SAYS, SHALL GENERALLY CONFORM TO THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN. HOW FAR CAN THESE THINGS GENERALLY VARY FROM CONCEPTUAL PLANS? IS THERE ANY? CAN IT VARY QUITE A BIT FROM THIS GOING FORWARD? I GUESS I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND GENERALLY, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CONFORMING TO CONCEPTUAL PLANS, HOW MUCH THAT CAN IMPACT OR CHANGE.

MR. BALDWIN HAS NOTIFIED ME THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER THAT. GOOD EVENING.

GOOD EVENING. I'LL JUST MENTION, AS THE COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, THAT THIS DETERMINATION IS MINE TO MAKE. IN REGARD TO HOW CLOSE MUST IT BE? IT MUST BE VERY CLOSE. WE DO RECOGNIZE THEY MAY FIND THINGS IN THE FIELD THAT MIGHT CAUSE THEM TO SHIFT THINGS HERE OR THERE.

BUT THE END OF THE DAY, WE TYPICALLY USE A STANDARD.

THAT IF YOU LOOKED AT THAT CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND THEN SOMEBODY BUILT IT, IT SHOULD LOOK VERY CLOSE TO WHAT YOU SEE THERE. SO WE DO NOT LET PEOPLE WANDER TOO FAR FROM A CONCEPTUAL PLAN. AND WE USUALLY PRESERVE THOSE MODIFICATIONS BASED ON SOME TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT THAT MIGHT CAUSE THEM TO HAVE TO SHIFT. THEY MAY LOSE A LOT.

WE NEVER LET THEM ADD LOTS, BUT THEY MAY LOSE LOTS DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY MIGHT ENCOUNTER.

DO CONCEPTUAL PLANS CAN TYPICALLY INCLUDE, LIKE, THE ELEVATIONS, THE CONCEPTUAL DRAWINGS OF THE HOUSES? ARE THOSE PART OF THAT AS WELL? IF THEY'RE SUBMITTED. YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S TYPICALLY PROFFERED. YOU KNOW, IN A REZONING APPLICATION, IF THEY WANT TO PROFFER ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS, IF THEY DO THAT, WE WOULD DO THE SAME TREATMENT

[01:50:01]

TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT THEY'RE, THE BUILDING, LOOKS VERY SIMILAR, YOU KNOW. OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY, WHEN YOU GET A BUILDING ELEVATION, YOU MIGHT GET TWO OR THREE OR FOUR, AND THEY MIGHT BUILD 15 DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOMES, SO YOU'RE STILL LOOKING FOR THAT CONSISTENCY IN WHAT WAS SHOWN. SO IF CONCEPTUAL DRAWINGS OF THE UNITS THEMSELVES ARE PROVIDED, WE DO THE SAME TEST FOR THAT.

SO WE DO BOTH THE LAYOUT AND WE DO ANYTHING ELSE THAT WAS SUBMITTED AS A CONCEPTUAL. OUR MAIN THING IS WE TELL THEM WE'RE NOT PLAYING BAIT AND SWITCH. YOU CAN'T SHOW ONE THING. AND BUILD ANOTHER. WE WILL NOT ALLOW THAT. THANK YOU, SIR. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

ANYBODY ELSE? YEAH, I GOT A QUICK QUESTION. ON PAGE 25, IT'S GOT THE LASER AND ASSOCIATES TRIP GENERATION 10TH EDITION. IF I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, FROM MY KNOWLEDGE HERE, IT SAYS EXISTING AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC 1,400, AND THEN IN PARENTHESES, IT'S GOT VDOT 2018 NUMBER. IS THAT WHEN THAT STUDY WAS DONE? I PRESUME IT'S THE DATA THEY GOT FROM VDOT TO DO THE STUDY. OKAY.

ANYTHING ELSE? AND THEN THE OTHER THING WAS IN THE COMP PLAN, I DON'T SEE IT LISTED IN HERE, AND I CAN GO BACK AND FIND IT.

SO YOU CAN LOOK AT IT IF YOU'D LIKE. IT SAID SOMETHING ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE ON TACKISH ROAD, WITH A CREEK OR SOMETHING. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? NO. ALL RIGHT. I WILL FIND IT, AND I'LL LET SOME OTHER BOARD MEMBERS ASK QUESTIONS, AND THAT WAY I CAN. CAN I GO, MR. COX? DO MR. BALDWIN OR MR. GREENSTEIN KNOW THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF BRICKHOUSE LANDING OR CEDAR CREEK? IT'S LARGER. I KNOW FOR SURE BRICKHOUSE LANDING IS LARGER LOTS THAN THIS ONE. I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE EXACT NUMBERS. ALL RIGHT. I KNOW MS. BLUNT DIDN'T.

RECOMMEND ANYTHING OTHER THAN IT WAS GOING TO TAKE A DISTURBANCE PERMIT.

WITH THAT CREEK DOWN IN THE BOTTOM OF MIDDLE ROAD, THIS IS IN THE RPA. DO WE SEE ANY ISSUES WITH ONCE THE TREES ARE CUT ON THIS AND THE LAND'S GRADED AND THINGS LIKE THAT, DO WE SEE ISSUES WITH AN RMA DOWNSTREAM FROM THIS? DO WE SEE ANY ISSUES WITH THAT STORMWATER RUNOFF ON MIDDLE? WE'LL BACK UP THE WAY THE COUNTY HANDLES STORMWATER. STORMWATER, THE REASON I'M ON THIS? BLUNT.

RESPONSE THE WAY IT WAS, BECAUSE THE COUNTY SPLITS THE REQUIREMENTS DEALING STORMWATER INTO TWO PIECES. EROSION, SEDIMENT CONTROL THAT COUNTY DOES. THAT'S MISS BELANCE TERRITORY. ALL THE STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS ARE HANDLED THROUGH DEQ. OKAY. SO THEY WOULD BE THE DETERMINATION.

THE CHESAPEAKE BAY REQUIREMENTS ARE IN THE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE.

AND THAT AGAIN, PART OF WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF RPA AND POTENTIAL RMA IMPACTS. AND WE WOULD MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS DURING SITE PLAN REVIEW.

OKAY. FURTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH, I SEE THAT THE RIGHT TURN TAPER IS ON THERE. IS IT PART OF THAT SAME TRAFFIC STUDY FROM 2018 THAT DID NOT DETERMINE THAT A LEFT LANE CHANGE WAS NEEDED, OR ANY CHANGES TO MIDDLE? I'LL BE HONEST. I DID NOT REVIEW THE TRAFFIC IMPACT, SO WE FORWARDED ALL THAT OVER TO VDOT TO REVIEW AND COMMENT ON.

OKAY. SO WE PRETTY MUCH ACCEPT THE COMMENTS THAT COME BACK FROM VDOT. I'M SURE THE APPLICANT COULD EXPLAIN WHAT THEY'RE. WHAT THEY SUBMITTED TO VDOT FOR VDOT'S REVIEW.

OKAY. YES, SIR. IF HE'S GOT A SECOND. IT'S ON PAGE 23 OF TRANSPORTATION AND CONNECTIVITY, AND IF YOU'D LIKE, YOU CAN HAVE MY IPAD.

THAT'S RIGHT. BUT IT'S NUMBER 13. IT SAYS ROUTE 647, TACKISH ROAD, STREAM BRIDGE REPLACEMENT. I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT IS. OKAY, SO THAT'S COMING FROM OUR DRAFT CONFERENCE OF PLAN? YEAH, WE'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK. ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN, JUST SO YOU'LL KNOW, IT'S A STATE MANDATE. WE INCLUDE ALL PROJECTS THAT VDOT HAS LISTED IN THEIR SIX-YEAR PLAN. OKAY.

SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING? THERE IS SOMETHING THAT VDOT HAS LISTED IN THEIR ADOPTED SIX-YEAR PLAN FOR THE COUNTY. ALL RIGHT. SO THE ONLY CURIOSITY IS THAT NOTHING WAS LISTED IN HERE AS FAR AS AFFECTING THAT. NO. AND THAT WAS NOT MENTIONED BY VDOT IN THEIR REVIEW. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. BALDWIN, ARE WE STILL DESIGNATED AS A HIGH-GROWTH LOCALITY BASED ON THE LAST FIVE YEARS OF? CENSUS DATA. THE STATE CODE DETERMINES HIGH GROWTH EVERY DECADE, BASICALLY, AND YES, ACCOUNTING IN THE LAST DECADE WAS AROUND 20% GROWTH RATE. I CONSIDER HIGH GROWTH RATED AT 10.

OKAY. AND THAT'S BEEN CONSISTENT OVER ABOUT 30 YEARS.

A LITTLE BIT OF A GAP IN THERE DURING THE RECESSION YEARS.

YOU LOOK AT THAT TIME FRAME BETWEEN 2000-2010, YOU'LL SEE A LITTLE BIT OF A LAG IN THERE. PRETTY COMMON ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

[01:55:01]

DEVELOPMENT SLOWED DOWN. AND ALSO BECAUSE BUILDING MATERIALS WERE DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN.

THANKS. MR. WHITT. MR. BALDWIN, DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA ON WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, WHAT THEY GOT UP ON THE HILL? WITH WANTING TO INCREASE OR ENSURE THE GROWTH RATE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING MOVES FROM, I THINK IT'S 1% TO 1.5%. 1.5%. FORWARD. THREE YEARS. FIVE YEARS.

BUT THAT'S BASED ON THE COUNTY'S POPULATION.

BASED ON THE COUNTY'S HOUSING UNITS.

WHAT THE STATE HAS IS NOT A POPULATION, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE QUESTION BEFORE. WHAT THE STATE'S LOOKING FOR IS A ONE AND A HALF PERCENT INCREASE IN YOUR TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS YEAR OVER YEAR. STARTING IN 2028 GOING THROUGH 2033. AND THEY'RE LOOKING FOR ONE AND A HALF PERCENT GROWTH ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. AND YOU HAVE TO SHOW THAT THROUGH MODELING IF THAT BILL GETS ULTIMATELY SIGNED INTO LAW.

YOU HAVE TO CREATE A HOUSING STRATEGY PLAN TO ACCOMMODATE THAT GROWTH RATE, AND THEN YOU HAVE TO MODEL IT.

TO PROVE THAT YOU, IN FACT, HAVE A PLAN. THAT WOULD RESULT IN THAT NUMBER. IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR, YOU CAN IMAGINE, A LOT OF LOCALITIES ACROSS STATES CANNOT POSSIBLY MEET THAT STANDARD, BUT THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE BILL. IS IT TRUE THAT, AS PART OF THAT BILL, IF THE PRIOR FIVE YEARS HAD NOTICED THAT SAME GROWTH, THAT YOU WOULD BE SOMEWHAT EXEMPT? FROM THAT. YES, THEY SAID. YOU COULD GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR PRIOR YEARS. IF YOU'RE OPERATING, IF YOU'RE BUILDING AT THAT RATE, YOU GET SOME CREDIT FOR THAT IN THAT BILL. WE'LL SEE WHAT THE FINAL VERSION LOOKS LIKE, BUT YES, THAT WOULD BE THE FACT. THE OTHER THING THEY HAVE IN THAT BILL, YOU HAVE SOME PROVISIONS YOU MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT BILL. WHEN YOU GET THROUGH THAT FIVE-YEAR PERIOD, THEN THERE'S SOME OTHER REQUIREMENTS IN THERE. WHAT HAPPENS IF SOMEBODY COMES TO THE BOARD, SAY, WITH A REZONING FOR RESIDENTIAL, YOU TURN IT DOWN. THERE'S AN APPEAL PROCESS BUILT INTO THAT PROCESS. TO GO TO THE BOARD OF DESIGNING APPEALS WITH AN APPEAL, WHICH IS A VERY NEW PROCESS, SOMETHING I'VE NEVER SEEN BEFORE. MR. LEVY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? NO, I'M HOLDING MY THOUGHTS. MR. COX, WE HAVE ONE OF THE CITIZENS ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE STARTING PRICE OF THE HOMES. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABILITY AND ALL THAT. DOES THE APPLICANT KNOW, I MEAN, PRICE RANGE, MAYBE, ON THE $1,400 OR THE $1,600? WE'LL LET THEM ANSWER THAT QUESTION. YEAH. YES, SIR.

VICE CHAIRMAN PETER, YOUR QUESTION WAS ABOUT AVERAGE SALES PRICE RANGE. AVERAGE SALE PRICE ON THE 1400 ONE-STORY AND THE 1600 TWO-STORY, I THINK.

IT WILL RANGE FROM THE MID-300S TO MAYBE THE LOW 400S. WE DO ALLOW HOMEOWNERS TO OPTION UP AND MAYBE ADD THINGS TO THE HOME. SOMETIMES THAT INCREASES YOUR AVERAGE SALES PRICE OVERALL, BUT OUR BASE PRICING WILL BE IN THE MID-300S. THAT'S TO START MAYBE 349 TO, LET'S SAY, 369. OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NOT AT THIS TIME, MR. COX.

OKAY. WHEN ARE WE EXPECTED TO GET THOSE WELDON COOPER ESTIMATES ON POPULATION AND AVAILABLE HOUSING? THE WEBSITE ONLY SAYS LATE FEBRUARY, SIR.

THANK YOU. BALLPARK, WHEN ARE THOSE TWO ROUNDABOUTS ON EITHER END OF MIDDLE SUPPOSED TO START CONSTRUCTION? MIDDLE ROAD AND JEFFERSON PARK SHOULD BE AT 27. AND THE OTHER END OF MIDDLE, END OF 28? I DON'T KNOW THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. NEXT BAMPO MEETING, I CAN ASK. BUT I KNOW WE'VE BEEN WORKING HARD ON GETTING THE ONE AT JEFFERSON PARK AND MIDDLE ROAD EVER SINCE WE DECIDED TO PUT THE SCHOOL THERE. THAT WENT THROUGH ALL, WENT THROUGH THE SMART SCALE. THANK YOU. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, WHAT'S THE BOARD'S DECISION? I NEED A MOTION. MR. CHAIR, I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR OUR BOARD MEMBERS. IT'S BEEN IN OTHER MEETINGS. IT WAS SPECIFICALLY AROUND FIRE, ABOUT OUR SERVICE LEVELS. IS IT THE BOARD'S RECOLLECTION THAT THIS FELL INTO OUR HIGHER CALL AREA?

[02:00:02]

TO ANSWER, MR. PUGH'S QUESTION, ON OUR NEXT SLIDE, OR ONE SLIDE COMING UP, WE HAD A STUDY DONE, AND IT SAYS OUR TOTAL POPULATION IS 33,920 IN MAY. FIRE STUDY, OKAY, BUT THAT'LL BE UP IN THE NEXT SLIDE THAT WE CAN LOOK AT THAT TOO, AND THAT'S PROBABLY NOT COUNTING FORT LEE. YEAH, FORT LEE OR THE JAIL, PROBABLY. YEAH. AND THEN IT'S GOT BROKE DOWN IN YOUR AREAS. SO, LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, THE AREA OF THIS, IF YOU'RE GOING OFF OF THE TOTAL POPULATION AND, LIKE, THE RUN AREAS OF HOW THE FIREHOUSE IS SET UP, IT'S GOT 9,424 IN THAT COMPANY'S RUN AREA.

AND THAT'S FROM PUDDLE DUCK ALL THE WAY TO 156, BRANCHESTER AREA, BACK TO JEFFERSON PARK.

OKAY. I THINK THAT MR. HAMILL'S QUESTION, IF I MAY, IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO TRY TO PLAN FOR THE FUTURE, AND WE'RE BEHIND THE CURVE ON THAT, JUST LIKE WE ARE ON OTHER THINGS. WE'RE FIRING EMS, AND POLICE, FOR THAT MATTER. WE'RE FIRING EMS, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE CROSS-STAFFING AND WE'RE RUNNING SHORT-HANDED. WE RUN AN AMBULANCE, SO YOU'VE GOT TO LEAVE A FIRE TRUCK SITTING.

AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE UNLESS WE CAN MAKE SOME CHANGES HAPPEN. I GUESS THE REASON WHY I BROUGHT THAT UP IS THE CONCERN I HAVE IS SERVICE. YOU KNOW, THERE'S 106 KITCHENS THAT COULD HAVE FIRES IN THEM.

WE'VE GOT A LOT OF THAT AREA. I MEAN, IT'S SERVED, I THINK THE STAFFING MODEL IS TWO PEOPLE PER STATION. IT'S A HIGH-RUN AREA.

WE TALK ABOUT WHICH STANDARDS WE'RE KIND OF MEASURED AGAINST, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S RURAL OR SUBURBAN. THIS AREA, AND I KNOW, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW WE CALCULATE THOSE RUN AREAS, BUT THE CONCERN I HAVE IS.

THIS IS DENSITY THAT I THINK STARTS PUTTING US IN THE RURAL, OR, I'M SORRY, IN THE URBAN DESIGNATIONS. AND SO THE LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR FIRE, NOT TO MENTION THE OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED THROUGH STAFF, WITH STAFF RED AND OTHER THINGS, IT'S THE SERVICE LEVEL I'M WORRIED ABOUT. THAT'S A GOOD POINT. FORTUNATELY, WE'VE BEEN FORTUNATE, OTHER THAN BRUSH FIRES AND A FEW FIRES, OUR HIGHEST CALL RATE, AND CHIEF KARRAS CAN SPEAK TO THAT, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE DATA WE GET EVERY DAY, IT'S ON THE EMS SIDE FOR A WHOLE GAMUT OF THINGS.

ANYTHING FROM HEART ATTACK, DRUG OVERDOSE, CUT, FALL, YOU NAME IT. OKAY, NO MORE COMMENTS FROM ME, SIR. BACK TO THE... ORIGINAL QUESTION DO I HAVE A MOTION? THE PEOPLE WHO SPOKE DURING PUBLIC COMMENT TONIGHT, THE ADJOINING LANDOWNERS, PEOPLE IN THIS AREA, NOBODY THAT SPOKE TONIGHT. HAS A LOT SIZE UNDER ONE ACRE, SO THAT I KNOW. MR BALDWIN SAID THAT BOTH THE BRICK HOUSE LANDING AND CEDAR CREEK BOTH HAD LARGER LOT SIZES. I UNDERSTAND THAT ONE SIDE OF IT WOULD MATCH BRANCHESTER LAKES, BUT THERE ARE OTHER PIECES OF THAT AREA THAT DON'T HAVE THESE LOT SIZES. IF NOBODY ELSE IS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY REZONING RZ25-0007.

OKAY, I HAVE A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'M NOT HEARING A SECOND, THE MOTION DIES AGAIN. I WILL ASK, I NEED A MOTION, MR. CHAIR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY REZONING DUE TO FIRE DMS NOT HAVING THE CAPACITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SERVICES IN THE SUBJECT AREA. OKAY, I HAVE A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND, MR. CHAIR YES, SIR. I GOT A CONCERN. HE JUST MADE A MOTION, HE JUST MADE ALMOST THE SAME IDENTICAL MOTION. HE PUT IN FIRE AND EMS IS REASONABLE.

SO WE'RE CHANGING THE MOTION? YES, SIR. OKAY. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ROLL CALL, PLEASE. FOR CLARIFICATION, MR. CHAIRMAN, WAS THE SECOND MR. HAMILL? YES. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU. MR. PHILLIP PUGH? YES.

MR. COX? YES. MR. WEBB? ABSTAIN. MR. FORD-PUGH? YES.

MR. HAMILL? YES. OKAY. ALL

[G. Reports]

[02:05:01]

COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN PROCESS AND POSSIBLE UPDATE IS OUR FIRST ITEM TO DISCUSS FOUR AREAS ON THE CURRENT STRATEGIC PLAN, BUT THAT WAS DONE QUITE A WHILE AGO, SO WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS, LOOKING AT AN UPDATE. SO, APPROVED COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN PROCESS, A BACKGROUND FOR PLAN. IT WAS APPROVED IN AUGUST OF 2022, WE HAVE BEEN REPORTING ON THE PROGRESS OF THAT APPROVAL.

BUT AS YOU ALL ARE AWARE, WITH NEW BOARD MEMBERS. THE POINT OF THIS PLAN IS TO ENSURE THAT OUR STAFF AND OUR DAILY ACTIONS ARE IN LINE WITH WHAT THE BOARD'S STRATEGIC PLANS ARE. AND YOUR OUTLOOK AND GOALS FOR COUNTY DIRECTION, SO AS FAR AS STAFF GOES. THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED TO MANAGING RESULTS LLC ON OCTOBER 2021 AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED 86, 000. AGAIN, THAT PLANNING TOOK PLACE. I KNOW WE DO HAVE ONE BOARD MEMBER WHO WAS ON BOARD WHEN THIS TOOK PLACE, SO I WAS NOT HERE. BUT I KNOW THAT THERE'S PEOPLE HERE IN THE ROOM THAT CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS ON THAT PROCESS. WORK IN TIMELINE FOR PLAN FOR THE PLAN APPROVED. AGAIN, THERE WAS PREP WORK AND ON-SITE INTERVIEWS OF INTERIM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND FOR THE FOUR OUT OF FIVE BOARD MEMBERS.

AGAIN, THAT TOOK PLACE FROM DECEMBER 14 THROUGH 15. IN 2021, THEY HELD FOCUS GROUPS WITH DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS AND SELECT STAFF, BUSINESS ROUNDTABLES TOOK PLACE, FOCUS GROUPS WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS ALSO TOOK PLACE. AGAIN IN JANUARY OF 2022, PUBLIC INPUT FORUMS, ONE BOARD MEETING ROOM AND THEN TO DISPUTE 10 AT 1 AT THE BOARD MEETING ROOM HERE AND 2 AT THE DISPUTE. AND A COMMUNITY CENTER AGAIN IN JANUARY OF 2022. THEY TOOK AN ONLINE SURVEY IN FEBRUARY OF 2022.

STRATEGIC PLANNING RETREAT TOOK PLACE IN MAY OF 2022, AND THEN DRAFT PLAN WAS DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED. IN JUNE OF 2022 AND PRESENTED A PRESENTATION OF THE PLAN TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR APPROVAL. IT TOOK PLACE IN AUGUST OF 22. SO JUST LOOKING AT THE HISTORICAL. YOU KNOW, OUTLINE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CURRENT PLAN. AS FAR AS LOOKING TO THE BOARD FOR DIRECTION ON, WOULD WE LIKE TO UPDATE, TAKE TIME TO UPDATE THIS PLAN, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF OPTIONS DISCUSSED HERE.

SO, AND FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION, THE FIRST WOULD BE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE OPTIONS. SO THERE'S THREE SEPARATE PLANS AND KIND OF DISCUSSIONS THERE FOR MANAGING RESULTS. THE CURRENT CONSULTANT WE HAVE ON STAFF FOR STRATEGIC PLANS.

AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE A RANGE FROM VERY IN-DEPTH TO $84,000 ALL THE WAY TO $33,000. FOR, YOU KNOW, LESS AS FAR AS LESS WORK ON THEIR PART, AND MORE ON THE COUNTY. AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER OPTION FOR THE BOARD.

THE SECOND OPTION WOULD BE DOING AN INTERNAL OPTION OR A PHASE ONE. WE COULD DO THIS IN-HOUSE, IT WOULDN'T. IT WOULD NOT INVOLVE WHAT I WOULD CALL A PHASE TWO, WHICH WOULD BE PUBLIC INPUT FOR COUNTYWIDE.

OUT FACING GOALS, SO WE COULD DO INTERNAL FACING GOALS GIVEN CURRENT STAFFING LEVELS.

HONESTLY, MYSELF AND SOME FOLKS FROM FINANCE AND SOME OTHER FOLKS COULD HELP FACILITATE A PHASE ONE AS FAR AS JUST LOOKING AT INTERNAL GOALS.

ENSURING THAT WE AS STAFF HAVE DIRECTION AND GUIDANCE FROM THE BOARD AND CAN IMPLEMENT THAT AS APPROPRIATE ACROSS THE ORGANIZATION. SO I AM LOOKING FOR BOARD CONSENSUS ON IF WE WOULD LIKE TO DO OPTION ONE, WHICH IS CONTINUE ON WITH THE CONTRACTOR. ONE OF THOSE THREE OPTIONS. OR AGAIN, BOARD CONSENSUS, IF WE'D LIKE TO WORK ON A PHASE ONE IN-HOUSE OPTION, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE A WORK SESSION FOR THE BOARD. WE WOULD PULL IN DEPARTMENT STRATEGIC PLANS FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION AND OTHER ITEMS, BUT AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE A WORK SESSION

[02:10:01]

QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? DO WE NEED TO EVALUATE OUR STRATEGIC PLAN AS A BOARD BEFORE WE CONTINUE TO EVALUATE? DEPARTMENT STRATEGIC PLANS? GREAT QUESTION. THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR PUGH. SO THIS COUNTY-WIDE STRATEGIC PLAN, AND I AM SORRY, BUT I DON'T HAVE A BETTER METAPHOR RIGHT NOW. IT REALLY IS, THE COUNTY IS LIKE A PUPPET WITH STRINGS.

THE BOARD HAS MANY STRINGS THAT THEY CAN USE TO MOVE THE ORGANIZATION IN THE DIRECTION THAT YOU FEEL IS APPROPRIATE. AGAIN, THAT IS OUR JOB, TO MOVE AT THE WILL OF THE BOARD. THIS STRATEGIC PLAN WOULD BE STRATEGICALLY UTILIZED TO REVIEW DEPARTMENT STRATEGIC PLANS AND SAY, ARE THESE GOALS IN LINE WITH THIS PLAN? AND SO THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF AFTER-EFFECTS OF THIS COUNTYWIDE PLAN. AND THE GOALS AND OUTCOMES THAT THE BOARD HEAD WOULD PRODUCE FROM UPDATING THE COUNTY PLAN AGAIN WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN DEPARTMENT STRATEGIC PLANS.

AND THEN OTHER THINGS, OTHER EFFORTS. IT REALLY DOES PROVIDE US SAFE COVERAGE, UNDERSTANDING WHEN WE'RE BRINGING STUFF BEFORE YOU.

IT'S KIND OF BEEN FILTERED THROUGH THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND WE HAVE SOME OVERSIGHT AND SUPPORT IN WORKING ON THOSE EFFORTS.

WITHOUT A CONSISTENT, YOU KNOW, COMING FORWARD, BRINGING THINGS THAT DON'T MATCH, AND THEN WE'VE TAKEN TIME. SO IT REALLY ALSO INCREASES EFFICIENCY IN OUR ACTIONS AS WELL. NOT THAT WE STOP THINGS FROM COMING BEFORE THE BOARD.

OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T MAKE DECISIONS FOR THE BOARD, BUT ANYTHING THAT'S IN COUNTY OPERATIONS, OPERATIONAL TYPE THINGS. WHAT IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION? MY RECOMMENDATION. BASED ON BUDGET CONSTRAINTS, WOULD BE OPTION ONE FOR RIGHT NOW. EXCUSE ME, NOT THE PROFESSIONAL OPTION.

MY OPTION RECOMMENDATION, BASED ON BUDGET CONSTRAINTS, WOULD BE AN INTERNAL OPTION JUST FOR A PHASE ONE INTERNAL FACING GOALS. AGAIN, THIS IS DUE TO BUDGET CONSTRAINTS, BUT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS.

THE BOARD COULD DO ONE-TIME COSTS FOR GETTING MANAGING RESULTS HERE. THEY ARE REALLY GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO. AND SO THERE'S A LOSS IN SOME PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE THERE.

SO I'LL JUST BE TRANSPARENT IN THAT AS WELL. SO YOU'RE SAYING OPTION THREE? YES.

SORRY. I SHOULD HAVE MADE THIS SLIDE BETTER. SO THE INTERNAL OPTION AT NO COST TO THE BOARD. CAN I GET A CONSENSUS? I HAVE A QUESTION.

OKAY, QUESTION. GO AHEAD, PHILLIP. YES, SIR. YOU GO AHEAD. HAVE WE GOT THE STAFF TO DO THIS? JUST FOR A PHASE ONE, WHAT WE DON'T HAVE STAFF TO DO IS AN EXTERNAL FACING COMMUNITY INPUT. THIS WOULD JUST BE INTERNAL COUNTY OPERATION, FACING GOALS AS FAR AS DIRECTING STAFF AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE IN LINE WITH THE BOARD. CONSIDER, IF WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE KEEP THE PUBLIC INVOLVED, WE'VE GOT TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE. SO YOUR, I MEAN, I GUESS THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, WOULD THIS. START. AND THEN WE'D WORK ON OUR STRATEGIC PLAN AS A BOARD. OR WOULD WE DO OUR STRATEGIC PLAN FIRST? AND THEN BRING IN THE DEPARTMENT HEADS TO MAKE SURE THEY COINCIDE WITH EACH OTHER? THE BOARD'S STRATEGIC PLAN WOULD BE DONE, NEEDS TO BE DONE FIRST, AND THEN WE COULD TAKE ALL DEPARTMENT STRATEGIC PLANS AND REEVALUATE THOSE GOALS. AND ENSURE THAT YOU KNOW AGAIN WHAT YOU ALL HAVE COVERED. WHAT WOULD YOU COVER IN YOUR NEW PLAN WOULD BE INCLUDED. OKAY, SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS DAY.

33,000. OR ONE OF THESE OPTIONS IS THAT INCLUDING THE BOARD STRATEGIC PLAN OR JUST DEPARTMENT STRATEGIC PLAN? THAT IS THE BOARD STRATEGIC PLAN. OKAY. WHEN WE SAY BOARD, STRATEGIC PLAN, THAT'S COUNTYWIDE, BUT THAT IS PUTTING SOME WEIGHT ON STAFF TO DO SOME OF THE WORK AS WELL.

BUT AGAIN, I THINK I WOULD, YEAH, THAT WOULD. AGAIN. THEY HAVE A LEVEL OF EXPERTISE AND PRACTICE IN THIS THAT THAT MIGHT MAKE IT GO SMOOTHER. MR. CHAIR, MS. PUDLOW, WHAT TIME FRAME DO YOU THINK THIS MIGHT BE ABLE TO OCCUR? I KNOW WE'VE GOT A LOT OF THINGS IN THE AIR. SO WITH BUDGET, TO BE HONEST, SIR, I WOULD PREFER TO TAKE THIS UP, AGAIN, WORK SESSION, BUT LOOKING AT COMPLETING IT ANY TIME IN THE NEXT 60 DAYS WOULD BE PRETTY DIFFICULT. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT APRIL, MAY. TO MR. WEBB'S COMMENT. DON'T LET ME PUT ANY WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH.

JUST ADDRESSING THE CONCERN.

IS THERE, WE'VE GOT A NEWSLETTER, I THINK IS GROWING IN SIZE, BUT JUST THINKING ABOUT HOW COULD WE GET SOMETHING LIKE THIS OUT INTO THE PUBLIC? SO THAT THERE MIGHT BE ENGAGEMENT TO MR. WEBB'S QUESTION OR CONCERN.

TO DO IT IN 60 DAYS, I KNOW, IS

[02:15:01]

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE NEWSLETTER. BUT TO MR. WEBB'S POINT, IF THERE IS INTEREST IN HAVING THE PUBLIC BEING INVOLVED, THAT WE MIGHT DO SOME WAY TO INVOLVE. MAYBE THERE'S ONE EXTRA STEP, MAYBE A PUBLIC HEARING OR SOME WAY TO DO THAT. IS THAT? SO NOW I HAVE TO BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT MY DETRIMENT. AND THE BENEFIT OF MANAGING RESULTS.

WE WOULD HAVE TO BUILD OUR PROCESS. I WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK, KIND OF PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER, A PROPOSAL FOR THE BOARD, AND THAT WOULD TAKE ME SOME TIME.

MANAGING RESULTS COULD DO IT IN THEIR SLEEP. SO I'M JUST BEING TRANSPARENT THAT IF THE BOARD WANTS TO GO WITH AN INTERNAL FACING OPTION, WHICH HAS MORE COST SAVINGS, I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND REVIEW A PROCESS, OUTLINE A PROPOSAL FOR THE BOARD TO LOOK AT AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

SO TONIGHT WOULD BE TO GIVE YOU SOME DIRECTION ON WHICH DIRECTION TO GO.

WOULD WE BE ABLE TO HAVE ANOTHER CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW THAT MIGHT LOOK? YES, SIR. BUT AT A LATER DATE. ALL RIGHT, SO ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE NOTICED THAT'S IN, I BELIEVE, EVERY ONE OF THEM IS A STRATEGIC PLANNING RETREAT.

WHAT'S THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT? BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT A FEW ENTERPRISE CAN SPONSOR SOME SANDWICHES OR SOMETHING, AND WE COME IN HIS BOARDROOM AND SAVE SOME MONEY.

I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS LIKE A GENERIC THING. WE PUT IN THERE TO BE DETERMINED A VENUE OR THEY. THEY HAVE HOURS, SIR, SO THERE'S A CHARGE.

THERE IS AN ITEMIZED, OKAY, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SEND THAT TO THE BOARD. OKAY, I DID GET AN ITEMIZED COST FOR EACH OF THESE. ALL RIGHT, MR. WEBB. SOMETHING TO CONSIDER IS IS THE PROFESSIONALS DO IT ALL THE TIME, SO YOU KNOW HOW TO ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS.

THE BEST THING I CAN GIVE IS KIND OF SENDING A SURVEY OUT TO THE PUBLIC. AND IF IT'S VERY GENERIC, YOU GET ANSWERS ALL OVER THE MAP, WITH NOT REALLY GETTING TO THE POINT OF WHAT WAS INTENDED TO ASK FOR, FOR A POINT BLANK ANSWER. WHEN WE DID THIS THE FIRST TIME, THEY WERE VERY FINITE AND POINTED, LIKE UTILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE.

BUT IT WAS ALSO SUPPOSED TO BE SOME PLACE, BARRING CONSTRAINTS OF MEASURED ITEMS, THAT COULD BE MEASURABLE.

BECAUSE YOU COULD GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, AND IF YOU CAN'T PUT SOMETHING TANGIBLE TOGETHER THAT YOU CAN MEASURE, YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU'RE ON COURSE OR NOT. THE THIRD THING TO IT IS, WHAT'S THE FOURTH THING? THE THIRD THING TO IT IS IT CAN CHANGE EVERY TIME THE BOARD CHANGES. RIGHT. THAT'S JUST A FACT OF LIFE.

BUT IF YOU CAN'T GET IT DOWN AND GET IT WHERE YOU CAN, LOOK AT WHERE IT'S AT, THERE'S THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE BECAUSE EVERYTHING CHANGES A LITTLE BIT, BUT IT'S NOT INTENDED TO WHERE YOU JUST TURN, OKAY, WELL, I DON'T WANT TO DO THIS ANYMORE. WE'RE GOING TO GO OVER HERE. BECAUSE NOW YOU DON'T WASTE ALL THAT MONEY.

IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. WE SET THIS THING UP. AND IT REQUIRES A BOARD, OR IT SHOULD, I'M GOING TO SAY IT SHOULD, REQUIRE AT LEAST A BOARD MEMBER OR TWO.

TO BE AT SOME OF THESE FORUMS, TO BE ABLE TO HEAR WHAT'S GOING ON, AND BE ABLE TO RESPOND FROM WHAT THEIR UNDERSTANDING OR WHAT THEIR INTENT WAS WHEN THEY PUT AN OBJECTIVE OUT THERE.

AND THIS IS WHY I THINK WE NEED TO GO THIS DIRECTION. YOU'VE GOT TO PUT SOME TYPE OF MESSAGING AROUND IT SO AT LEAST THEY KNOW, NOT JUST LISTEN TO THEM. AND THEN TRY TO COME BACK AND TRY TO DECIPHER, OKAY, WHAT BOX DOES IT FIT IN? ALL RIGHT. IT'S A LOT OF WORK, WHICH I'M NOT OPPOSED TO. CAN WE GIVE HER A CONSENSUS? ONE MORE QUESTION. IF WE WERE TO DECIDE, SAY, OPTION THREE, AND YOU WERE TO GO TO THE DRAWING TABLE AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT I THINK IT LOOKS LIKE, THIS IS TOO MUCH. HAVE WE SPENT ANY MONEY AT THAT POINT? SO I NEED TO CLARIFY, OPTION THREE ON THE SLIDE IS A $33,000 COST FOR A CONTRACTOR. REALLY, THE SECOND IN-HOUSE OPTION.

SORRY, AGAIN, THAT'S MY FAULT ON THE SLIDE. I'LL STOP LOOKING AT THIS. BUT YEAH, SO IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT AN IN-HOUSE OPTION, AGAIN, I WOULD WORK THROUGH A PROCESS, DEVELOP SOMETHING THAT I THINK WOULD BE A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO THIS, BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

NO, WE WOULD NOT HAVE SPENT ANY MONEY, SIR. TIME IS WHAT WE WOULD HAVE SPENT. AND I KNOW THAT'S VALUABLE AS WELL. JUST AS A SUGGESTION OF THE BOARD, AS A SINGLE MEMBER, I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE THAT OPTION.

AND IF WE COME BACK AND DECIDE WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO COMMIT TO THAT, COULD WE BRING THIS BACK UP? THAT'S WHAT I WOULD OFFER THE BOARD. WOULD YOU? YEAH, I'D LIKE TO GET US PASSED. I SEND STAFF.

PASS THE BUDGET AND THEN TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE. OKAY. MR. WEBB? I AGREE WITH IT. MR. PHILLIP, YOU? I'LL GO WITH THE MAJORITY. OKAY.

THAT'S CONSENSUS. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. THANK YOU. SECOND

[02:20:01]

BUT GIVEN TONIGHT'S AGENDA, I AM GOING TO TRY TO BE BRIEF HERE. HUMAN RESOURCES, ISSUES, AND GOALS, PLEASE TAKE TIME TO REVIEW THOSE. I KNOW WE'VE COVERED THEM IN DEPTH AT A COUPLE OF OTHER MEETINGS. JUST SOME HIGHLIGHTS HERE. THE ANNUAL COMPENSATION STUDY, AGAIN, AS OF SECOND QUARTER. 13 OUT OF 14 JURISDICTIONS WHERE NEIGHBORING JURISDICTION WERE COMPLETE. THREE PERCENT EMPLOYEES, THAT'S FIVE OUT OF 134, HAD LEFT THE COUNTY BEFORE THEIR FIRST YEAR ANNIVERSARY.

THAT'S AN IMPROVEMENT FROM THE LAST ONE. AND WE DO FINALLY, JUST AS AN OVERALL, WE HAVE SOME NUMBERS NOW WE CAN START TO COMPARE BASELINES.

YOU'LL SEE A COUPLE DEPARTMENTS LIKE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THAT HAS YEAR-TO-YEAR COMPARISONS, FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE ON PD. SO WE CAN START DOING THAT WITH SOME OF THESE DEPARTMENTS THAT LOOK LIKE GAS CAGES. COUNTY EMPLOYEES TO SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE 24 HOURS OF MANDATORY TRAINING, THAT'S 24%. COUNTY DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS TO COMPLETE 16 HOURS OF TRAINING. SO YOU CAN SEE, WE'RE PRETTY LOW ON THESE.

THOSE MIGHT NEED TO BE REASSESSED FOR WHAT'S PRACTICAL. AND THEN COUNTY DEPARTMENTS TO SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE THEIR EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS, WE'RE AT 68%.

THAT OBVIOUSLY IS AREA FOR IMPROVEMENT. AND THEN VACANCIES FILLED WITHIN 60 DAYS IS 25%. QUICK QUESTION.

MM-HMM. BACKUP ONE. VACANCIES THAT ARE FILLED WITHIN 60 DAYS, 25% ARE FILLED WITHIN 60 DAYS.

DOES THAT MEAN 75% ARE AFTER 60 DAYS? CORRECT? YES, SIR.

WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO GET US A BREAKDOWN? AND HOW MANY OF THOSE WERE INTERNAL VERSUS RECRUITER? MM-HMM.

THANKS. LOOK, WHEN I SAY ME, I MEAN OUR HR DIRECTOR. YES, SIR. OKAY, THANKS. SURE, IT MAY HAVE BEEN A SLIDE, I DIDN'T SEE IT.

WITH THE TURNOVER RATE WE GOT, ARE WE TRYING TO PERFORM EXIT INTERVIEWS TO TRY TO GET SOME IDEA OF WHY THEY'RE LEAVING? BECAUSE SOME OF THESE AREAS, WE'RE SPENDING MONEY TO TRAIN PEOPLE, AND THEY'RE LEAVING. THERE'S GOT TO BE A REASON. YES, SIR.

WE DO PERFORM EXIT INTERVIEWS.

WE HAVE BEEN PERFORMING EXIT INTERVIEWS. IF YOU'D LIKE MORE DATA ON THAT.

BUT IT IS OPTIONAL. WE CAN'T FORCE PEOPLE TO DO THEM.

BUT PLENTY OF PEOPLE DO PARTICIPATE IN THE EXIT INTERVIEWS. I ALREADY LOST THE BATTLE WHEN I TRIED TO.

SEE WHY WE COULDN'T AT LEAST HOLD SOMEBODY ONCE? WE TRAIN THEM UNTIL AT LEAST WE GET SOME OF OUR MONEY BACK OR EFFORT OUT OF IT. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT'S NOT LEGAL. CAN WE GET A GAUGE ON THE NEXT QUARTER UPDATE WITH NUMBER OF EXIT INTERVIEWS COMPLETED? YES, SIR. OUT OF HOW MANY PEOPLE LEFT? OKAY. THANKS. PERCENT OF DEPARTMENTS WITH SUCCESSION PLANS WERE AT 10% CURRENTLY. PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS THAT ARE RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS, THAT'S ZERO.

COUNTY DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE COMPLETED JOB SAFETY ANALYSIS, AGAIN, WE'VE BEEN IMPROVING THERE.

AND THEN WORKPLACE INJURIES THAT WERE AVOIDABLE, WE HAVE 57% OR 16 OUT OF 28.

PLEASE KNOW THAT THE SAFETY COMMITTEE WILL BE LOOKING INTO THIS TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO PREVENT THOSE INJURIES IN THE FUTURE. WE'VE BEEN DOING TRAINING ON SAFETY AUDITS.

WE'VE HAD TWO SO FAR, AND SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO GET BETTER AT THIS AND REDUCE THOSE INJURIES THAT WERE AVOIDABLE. ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE COUNTY'S WELLNESS PROGRAM. WE HAD 25% AND THEN I WOULD DO WANT TO COMPLIMENT MISS HURT, OUR HR DIRECTOR. SHE'S HAD 82% COMPLETE FOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS THAT HAVE ESTABLISHED GOALS. THAT WAS PRETTY LOW WHEN WE FIRST STARTED THIS. SO AGAIN. SHE'S MADE GREAT PROGRESS THERE.

PENDING COMPLETION, WE ARE. I BELIEVE THIS SURVEY HAS TAKEN PLACE NOW, IN FACT, I KNOW IT HAS, BUT AT THE TIME OF THIS REPORT. IT WASN'T DONE YET. PARKS AND RECREATION, I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THESE QUICKLY. AGAIN, WE NOW HAVE ESTABLISHED A BASELINE AND CAN DO A SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON FOR ENROLLMENT FROM ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT. SO THIS SLIDE WILL BE CHANGED. LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS HERE. AS FAR AS THE LARGEST DROP IS ACTUALLY FIELD HOCKEY. WITH 29 ENROLLED, THAT'S BEEN A BIG CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR. THERE WAS ALSO A DROP IN CHEERLEADING.

BUT WE BELIEVE THAT THERE THERE ARE SOME CONSIDERATIONS THERE WITH STAFFING AVAILABILITY, SO SOMETIMES IT'S NOT ALWAYS BAD TO HAVE LESS PEOPLE. AND THEY GET BETTER SERVICE. DUE TO LIMITATIONS, PARKS AND RECREATION EVENTS AND RENTALS AGAIN. WE'LL HAVE THIS SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON. I DO WANT TO SAY ON THESE EVENTS THAT WE THESE ARE ESTIMATES SO WE COULD GET MORE REFINED AS FAR AS HOW WE'RE COUNTING ATTENDEES. YES, SIR. LIKE SCOTT PARK PAVILION, THE 79 RENTALS, IS THAT FACTORING IN THE FARMER'S MARKET OR DON'T KNOW? I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS, SIR. OKAY. I DON'T THINK WE COUNT COUNTY EVENTS. COUNTY EVENTS? THANK YOU. PRETTY SURE IT IS. OKAY, I DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT FACILITIES AND MAINTENANCE HOURS. AGAIN,

[02:25:02]

NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, 144, SO YOU CAN SEE THOSE ARE LOWER MAINTENANCE. AND THEN RESTROOMS AND FACILITIES HAVE THEIR OWN CATEGORY. SPORTS TOURNAMENTS, NUMBERS ARE THERE. AGAIN, AFTER DIXIE WORLD SERIES, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THOSE KIND OF HIGH NUMBERS UNLESS WE GET A LARGE TOURNAMENT IN AGAIN.

TO THE COUNTY. IF THERE'S ANY WAY, I KNOW THIS IS SOMETHING WE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT A LITTLE BIT IN THE BUDGET SEASON.

BUT WHETHER OR NOT IT MIGHT BE, I DON'T KNOW IF REVENUE GOALS IS NECESSARILY THE RIGHT WAY TO MEASURE THIS, BUT I KNOW A LOT OF THESE THINGS. WE SEE REVENUES A POSITIVE INPUT TO SOME OF THE COSTS, AND I SEE HERE WE'VE GOT COSTS FOR PARKS. IF IT POSSIBLE, AND IT COULD BE SOMETHING WE CAN HAVE A SIDEBAR LATER ABOUT, IS IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO SEE SOME SORT OF COST REVENUE OR RENTAL GOAL REVENUE TYPE THING TO SHOW. NOT ONLY ARE WE DOING THESE THINGS, BUT THIS IS THE IMPACT OF IT.

OKAY. I CAN SEE SOMETHING LIKE THAT. ABSOLUTELY, SIR. I CAN WORK WITH THE PARK STRANGER ON THAT. OKAY. FIRE AND EMS. GOALS. AND I'M GOING TO BE SHORT HERE. WE'VE HAD A LOT OF THIS INFORMATION SHARED IN THE BUDGET PRESENTATIONS AND ALSO IN DISCUSSIONS WITH UPDATING THEIR DEPARTMENT STRATEGIC PLAN AS WELL.

POLICE STRATEGIC PLAN, AGAIN, GOALS AND ISSUES. THESE ARE THE NUMBERS. SO THEY ARE BY CALENDAR YEAR. THAT'S WHEN THEY NATURALLY COLLECT THEIR DATA. SO THEY ARE ONE OF THE REPORTS THAT WE'VE KEPT ON CALENDAR YEAR RATHER THAN FISCAL YEAR. AGAIN, CALLS FOR SERVICE ARE UP. POLICE TRAFFIC STOPS ARE UP. THAT'S NOT A BAD THING. THAT MEANS WE HAVE MORE OFFICERS OUT THERE WORKING TRAFFIC, AND THEN THOSE CRASHES, I'M SURE, WOULD BE HIGHER IF WE HAD LOWER TRAFFIC STOPS. EMERGENCY CUSTODY ORDERS ARE UP.

EMERGENCY CUSTODY ORDER HOURS ARE SLIGHTLY DOWN COMPARED TO A TWO-YEAR AVERAGE, AND THEN SUMMONS AND ARRESTS ARE UP AS WELL. TEMPORARY DETENTION ORDERS ARE INCREASED AGAIN 81 COMPARED TO THE 55 FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE TEMPORARY DETENTION ORDER HOURS. PRETTY LEVEL 903 VERSUS 9-11. AND THEN TOTAL CASES CLEARED, SLIGHTLY DOWN FROM THE FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE FIELD OPERATIONS. WE'VE GOT DRUG ARRESTS, THOSE ARE SLIGHTLY DOWN, FIREARM ARRESTS ARE SLIGHTLY UP. AND THEN SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS, OR SRO CALLS FOR SERVICE ARE AT 437. WE ARE STILL ESTABLISHING A BASELINE FOR THIS ONE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS. FOR SECOND QUARTER, THERE ARE 222 INCIDENTS DE-ESCALATED BY SROS IN THE SCHOOLS. 10 DRUG OFFENSES BETWEEN 6TH AND 12TH GRADE, AND THEN 6 THEFTS BETWEEN THE SAME GRADES. AND I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THESE ARE SOME ILLEGALLY POSSESSED FIREARMS. YOU CAN SEE A COUPLE OF THEM ARE FROM OUT OF STATE FUGITIVES, A CONVICTED FELON. SO AGAIN, THESE ARE SOME OF THE WORK, BASED ON GOALS AND FORMER SLIDES THAT OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT IS DOING TO PROACTIVELY ADDRESS THINGS IN THE COUNTY. OKAY. NEXT IS GOING TO BE ANIMAL SERVICES.

AGAIN, WE'LL BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH A BASELINE AND DO A COMPARISON HERE. I DO WANT TO SAY THERE'S BEEN NO CHANGE PER SECOND QUARTER IN THE NUMBER OF PETS WHO HAVE DIED IN THE SHELTER. OF THE NUMBER OF PETS WHO WE TOOK IN SICK, I BELIEVE IT WAS 101, WHICH IS IN THE NEXT SLIDE. OF THOSE 101 ANIMALS THAT WERE TAKEN IN SICK, 15 OF THOSE ANIMALS PASSED AWAY.

SO ALL OF THESE ANIMALS CAME INTO THE SHELTER SICK, AND UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO GET THEM RECOVERED, DESPITE HAVING ADEQUATE MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR THEM. ANIMAL INTAKES FOR THE YEAR TO DATE, 420. CALLS FOR SERVICE INVOLVING WILDLIFE, 31. NEGLECT AND CRUELTY CASES 55, AND THEN AGAIN, SICK OR INJURED ANIMALS RESULTING IN RECEIPT OF ANIMALS WAS 101.

EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION CENTERS, YOU CAN SEE SOME LARGE NUMBERS HERE FOR THE NUMBER OF CALL VOLUMES THAT THEY GET. 99% OF THOSE CALLS WERE ANSWERED WITHIN 10 SECONDS. THAT'S BASED ON QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEWS.

YOU CAN SEE QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEWS, WE CAN IMPROVE THERE. THAT IS A GOAL IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THIS DEPARTMENT. RETENTION RATE IS 30%. WE JUST HAD TWO, IT MIGHT HAVE EVEN BEEN THREE, GRADUATE FROM TRAINING, SO THAT'S IMPROVING THERE. ECC, AGAIN, PERSONNEL THAT HAVE MAINTAINED MANDATORY CERTIFICATION, 76%. THIS WAS AS OF SECOND QUARTER, SO IT'LL BE DIFFERENT FOR THIS QUARTER. I'M GOING TO START BREATHING THROUGH THESE FASTER. SORRY, IT'S BEEN A LONG EVENING HERE FOR ALL OF US. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM, WE HAVE HAD NINE BUSINESSES THAT THE DEPARTMENT MET WITH. THAT WERE CONNECTED TO BUSINESS RESOURCES, THREE BUSINESS RESOURCE MEETINGS.

THERE'S ANOTHER ONE COMING UP HERE, ACTUALLY JUST HELD ANOTHER ONE IN LAST WEEK OR

[02:30:01]

LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS HERE, BUT CLIFF, CAN YOU MOVE THE MOUSE A LITTLE BIT? AND SO FAR, WE HAVE 80% OF OUR COUNTY DEPARTMENTS WITH DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING PROCEDURES AFTER COMPLETING THEIR DEPARTMENT STRATEGIC PLAN. SO THAT'S EIGHT OUT OF TEN. WE HAVE TWO THAT JUST FINISHED, AND WE ARE WORKING WITH THEM TO DEVELOP DATA COLLECTION PRACTICES. AND THEN YOU'LL SEE REPORTS FORTHCOMING.

FUTURE REPORTS, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO PROVIDE A BUDGETED AMOUNT FOR THE QUARTER NEXT TO THE AMOUNT? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS? THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR YOU THIS EVENING. ANY QUESTIONS? CHAIR, I JUST WANT TO COMMENT. AS SOMEBODY THAT WORKS IN DATA AND REPORTING, I KNOW THIS IS AN EXTREMELY TIME-CONSUMING EFFORT, AND I THINK WE'VE HEARD IN THE PAST THAT WE'RE PROBABLY ONE OF THE FEW THAT ARE DOING THIS.

AND SO I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK AND STAFF'S WORK FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER, BECAUSE THIS, FOR ME, JUST AS ONE MEMBER ON THE BOARD, I FIND THIS EXTREMELY HELPFUL.

SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THAT. THANK YOU, SIR. I'LL TELL THE STAFF. I AGREE. IT IS TIME-CONSUMING. THANK YOU, MR. BUTLER. ALL RIGHT, NEXT ITEM UP, STATION 6, SITE AND FEASIBILITY STUDY. CHIEF CACERES. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MS. PABLO, MR. KINGSBERRY, ALL ASSEMBLED. TONIGHT WE JUST WANT TO HAVE WITH ME KATIE ATWATER FROM FGM ARCHITECTS. SHE'S GOING TO BRIEFLY GO OVER THE REPORT FINDINGS AS FAR AS WHICH SITE WAS RECOMMENDED. NOW WHAT THE SITE DEVELOPMENT MIGHT LOOK LIKE, SOME OF THE COST ANALYSIS, AND THEN AFTER THE REPORT, IF THE BOARD SO DESIRES, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE PERHAPS SOME CONSENSUS IN GENERAL DIRECTION OF WHAT THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE ON THIS STATION. I KNOW THAT THE NUMBERS DIDN'T COME OUT QUITE LIKE WE'D LIKE, BUT THERE'S STILL ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT AS WE MOVE THROUGH THE PROCESS. SO IT'S NOT, THE NEXT STEP SHOULD BE BASED ON WHAT THE ACTUAL FINAL ESTIMATES, EARLY ESTIMATES ARE. THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS, BUT I'LL LET KATIE KIND OF GO THROUGH THAT, AND SHE CAN PROBABLY SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROCESS FOR COST ESTIMATING AND SOME OF THE OPTIONS MOVING FORWARD.

THANK YOU, CHIEF. SO QUICKLY, THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE STUDIED ON THE FIRE STATION 6 PROJECT, WE STARTED OUT WITH LOCATION ANALYSIS. I THINK YOU GUYS ALL HAVE SEEN THE REPORT FOR THAT. THERE'S A LOT MORE DETAIL THAT I'M GOING TO GET INTO HERE. I'LL TRY AND KEEP IT SURFACE LEVEL, BUT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO ASK. WE ALSO OBSERVED AND ANALYZED THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE STATION AND THEN PROVIDED SOME DRAFT SITE CONCEPTS. THEY'RE VERY ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE, REALLY, FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPARING THE THREE SITES AND GETTING TO A COST NUMBER. DETERMINING WHETHER THERE'S A DIFFERENCE IN THE COST BETWEEN THOSE THREE SITES, SO, AS YOU KNOW, FIRE STATION SIX RIGHT NOW IS AT ELEVEN THREE HUNDRED SOUTH CRATER ROAD. WE EVALUATED THREE SITES, THE EXISTING SITE WAS ONE OF THEM. THERE IS ONE JUST DOWN THE STREET, ON CRATER ROAD, I THINK, IS ELEVEN, EIGHT HUNDRED. AND THEN A THIRD HYPOTHETICAL SITE IN A DIFFERENT AREA OF THE COUNTY. THAT WAS PUT FORWARD AGAIN, COMPARING AND CONTRASTING WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE. SO STATION LOCATION ANALYSIS, IT STARTS WITH, THE PROCESS STARTS WITH DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION.

THEY LOOK AT THE COUNTY, THE LAND AREA, WHERE THE CALLS FOR SERVICE ARE. THEY WORKED WITH CHIEF OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ON THE CALLS FOR SERVICE. IN THE LAST, I THINK IT WAS EITHER A YEAR OR TWO YEARS. TALKED THROUGH WHAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MIGHT LOOK LIKE, WHAT AREAS OF THE COUNTY ARE LOOKING TO GROW IN MORE, IN A HIGHER MAGNITUDE THAN OTHER AREAS, AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE

[02:35:01]

GENERALLY, STATION LOCATION IS EVALUATED BASED ON RESPONSE TIME IN A FOUR-MINUTE AND EIGHT-MINUTE WINDOW. THAT IS DRIVEN BY NFPA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES THAT ARE DONE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY FOR CAREER FIRE DEPARTMENTS.

THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION FOR STATION 6 GIVES YOU A 49% FIRE INCIDENT CAPTURE, A 42% EMS INCIDENT CAPTURE, AND A 43% FOR ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF FIRE AND EMS CALLS. THAT ALSO COVERS 46.2 SQUARE MILES IN THE COUNTY. MOVING THE STATION SLIGHTLY DOWN SOUTH CRATER ROAD INCREASES THE FIRE INCIDENT CAPTURE AND THE EMS INCIDENT CAPTURE. MORE THE FIRE THAN THE EMS. IT'S A SMALL DIFFERENCE ON THE EMS CAPTURE. IT ALSO INCREASES THE OTHER INCIDENT CAPTURE MINIMALLY AS WELL. IT DOES DECREASE THE LAND AREA COVERAGE, BUT BECAUSE OF WHERE THE CALL INCIDENTS ARE LOCATED AND WHERE THE DENSITIES ARE OF THOSE AREAS, THE HOT AREAS IN THE COUNTY, ARE CLOSER OR MORE ACCESSIBLE FROM THE 11800 SOUTH CRATER ROAD THAN THE CURRENT SITE? AND THEN LAST COLUMN ON THE RIGHT IS THE MOVE TO CORTLAND IN 35 REALLY REPRESENTS LITTLE TO NO CHANGE. THERE IS A SLIGHT DECREASE IN THE PERCENT OF THE EMS CALLS THAT WOULD BE CAPTURED IN THAT FOUR MINUTE RESPONSE TIME. IF STATION SIX MOVED TO THAT SITE, THE OTHER TWO NUMBERS WOULDN'T CHANGE VERY MUCH. THIS IS A GRAPHIC AGAIN, MANY MORE GRAPHS LIKE THIS OR CHARTS, MAPS LIKE THIS IN THE REPORT. THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION ON THE LEFT SHOWS THE 49 AND 42. AS YOU KIND OF LOOK AT THE MIDDLE ONE, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE RED IS ESSENTIALLY AREAS THAT ARE NOT COVERED IN, I THINK THOSE ARE THE EIGHT-MINUTE CAPTURES. THE LEGEND IS TOO TINY FOR ME TO READ, BUT THE GREEN IS THE CLOSEST. I THINK YELLOW IS FOUR-MINUTE, AND AS YOU GET INTO THE RED, IT'S BEYOND WHAT'S RECOMMENDED. SO YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MIDDLE ONE AND THE 11800 SOUTH CRATER ROAD AND THE CORTLAND AND 35. HAVING A LITTLE BIT MORE OPEN AREAS THAT ARE NOT IN THAT CAPTURE ZONE.

SO, THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE STATION LOCATION WAS THE 11800 SOUTH CRATER ROAD SITE IS THE BEST OF THE THREE OPTIONS, IF JUDGING PURELY ON RESPONSE TIME AND CALL LOCATIONS. AS THEY ARE NOW AND WHAT WE PREDICT INTO THE FUTURE.

AGAIN, THE DIFFERENCE WAS...

RELATIVELY MINIMAL IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGES, SO IT'S NOT SAYING THAT ONE OF THESE IS ABSOLUTELY OFF THE TABLE. THE EXISTING SITE AND THE CORTLAND ROAD AND 35 SITE ARE VERY SIMILAR. THAT SHIFT SLIGHTLY DOWN SOUTH CRATER ROAD INCREASES AT ABOUT, I THINK, FOUR OR FIVE PERCENT. AND THE ONE NOTE IN THERE IS THAT 11800 SOUTH CRATER ROAD SITE IS VERY COMPARABLE TO WHAT AN IDEAL EIGHT-STATION MODEL WOULD BE, WHICH BASICALLY, AGAIN, IS LOOKING AT ALL THE CALLS IN THE COUNTY, PUTTING DOWN EIGHT STATIONS EXACTLY WHERE THEY WOULD BE OPTIMIZED TO MINIMIZE RESPONSE TIME EVERYWHERE. OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S NOT THE SITUATION ANYBODY'S EVER IN. UNLESS YOU'RE STARTING A COUNTY FROM SCRATCH, BUT THAT GIVES YOU A KIND OF COMPARISON OF FROM A DATA ANALYTICS PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S AS CLOSE TO GOOD AS YOU'RE GOING TO GET. ANYTHING BEYOND THAT IS A LITTLE BIT LESS OPTIMAL. SO GOING FROM THERE THE SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY, WE LOOKED AT TWO SITES. THE THIRD SITE THAT WAS KIND OF HYPOTHETICAL LOCATION AT COURTLAND AND 35, WE DIDN'T HAVE A SITE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED, SO WE DIDN'T DO A CONCEPTUAL TEST. FIT IS WHAT WE CALL THESE. WHAT YOU CAN SEE HERE IS THIS IS THE EXISTING SITE. THE EXISTING BUILDING IS UP HERE ON THE TOP. THE DESIGN HERE, AND AGAIN, THIS IS VERY, VERY PRELIMINARY. THIS IS NOT SAYING THIS IS WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE IF WE STAY ON THE SITE HERE.

BUT THE INTENT THERE IS TO ALLOW THE EXISTING STATION TO REMAIN OPERATIONAL, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT TEMPORARY QUARTERS OR WHAT SERVICE WOULD HAVE TO.

SHIFT AROUND TO BE ABLE TO COVER THIS AREA DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE NEW STATION WOULD BE BUILT TO THE SOUTH ALONG THE CORNER, GIVE YOU RESPONSE ON THE SOUTH CRATER. YOU COULD RETURN, AND PERSONNEL VEHICLES CAN COME OFF OF ETHERIDGE TO REALLY NOT USE THE EXISTING BUILDING.

ONCE THE NEW STATION IS OPEN, THAT ALLOWS THAT NORTHERN PROPERTY TO BE USED FOR WHATEVER. THE BUILDING CAN REMAIN. IT CAN BE REPURPOSED FOR SOMETHING. IT CAN BE TORN DOWN, AND THAT PROPERTY CAN BE SOLD.

THE OPTIONS ARE PRETTY ENDLESS WITH THAT PIECE. THE FIRE STATION WOULD BE CONFINED TO THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY AT THAT CORNER. THIS IS THE

[02:40:03]

THIS IS SHOWING DRIVE-THROUGH BAYS, WHICH I WILL GET TO IN THE COST CONVERSATION IN A MINUTE, BECAUSE IT DOES IMPACT THE COST A LITTLE BIT.

FROM A RESPONSE PERSPECTIVE, IT IS OPTIMAL BECAUSE THEY ARE ABLE TO DRIVE THROUGH AND NOT HAVE TO STOP.

TRAFFIC AND BACK IN AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT CAN JUST GO AROUND THE BACK LOOP. THE MAIN CONCERN WITH THIS SITE, AS WE GOT INTO THE SOME OF THE SITE FEASIBILITY REPORTS, IS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. THE EXISTING SITE DOES NOT HAVE MUCH STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. IT LOOKS LIKE IT DRAINS. ACROSS SOUTH CRATER ROAD. SO THERE WILL BE MORE ENGINEERING AS THE PROJECT MOVES FORWARD, IF THE SITE IS SELECTED, ON WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AND WHAT THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO THE PROJECT WOULD BE.

LOOKING AT THE EXISTING FACILITY, WE HAD A MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAM OF MYSELF, A COUPLE OTHER PEOPLE FROM MY OFFICE THAT ARE ARCHITECTS. WE HAD A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER COME OUT. WE HAD A MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING ENGINEER COME OUT, AS WELL AS A CIVIL ENGINEER, ALL REVIEWED THE BUILDING. WE WALKED THROUGH. WE LOOKED AT THE EQUIPMENT AND THE PANELS AND THE THE INSTALLATION DATES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THE CONDITION OF THINGS, ALL OF THAT IS DOCUMENTED IN THE REPORT. THE SUMMARY, AS ONE MIGHT EXPECT, FOR ANYBODY WHO HAS BEEN IN THAT FACILITY, RIGHT NOW IT'S ACTUALLY TWO BUILDINGS.

AND IN ORDER TO RESPOND, YOU HAVE TO WAKE UP FROM YOUR BEDROOM, GO OUTSIDE, INTO WHATEVER THE ELEMENTS ARE DOING, INTO THE SECOND BUILDING, WHICH IS CERTAINLY NOT IDEAL.

SOME OF THE HVAC EQUIPMENT WAS NOTED TO BE 25-PLUS YEARS OLD AND NEAR ITS LIFE CYCLE. SO THAT WILL LIKELY NEED TO BE REPLACED, WHETHER THE BUILDING REMAINS AS IS OR CHANGES. THE TYPICAL LIFE SPAN ON THOSE, I THINK, HE SAID, WAS ABOUT 30 YEARS. THE ACTUAL INFORMATION SHOULD BE IN THE REPORT. THE OTHER THINGS TO CONSIDER, THERE IS A, DEPENDING ON THE EXTENT, IF THAT BUILDING IS REUSED AND ADDED ONTO, THE ELECTRICAL SERVICE MAY HAVE TO BE INCREASED TO A THREE PHASE POWER, WHICH IS NOT AN INEXPENSIVE OPTION.

THERE IS THREE PHASE POWER AVAILABLE, IT JUST DOESN'T GO TO THE CURRENT BUILDING. AND THEN THE TOP ONE THAT I SKIPPED OVER BY ACCIDENT. BUT IS VERY IMPORTANT IS IF THERE IS ANY SORT OF ADDITION OR MODIFICATION TO EITHER OF THOSE EXISTING STRUCTURES, BECAUSE BUILDING CODES HAVE BEEN UPGRADED SINCE THEY WERE BUILT, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO MAKE THOSE BUILDINGS CODE COMPLIANT. IF YOU GO BEYOND 5% OF THE BUILDING AREA, WHICH IS PRETTY SMALL IN A BUILDING LIKE THAT SIZE.

SO THE RECOMMENDATION, BASED ON ALL OF THAT IS THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE SOLUTION IS LIKELY TO BUILD A NEW STATION.

AGAIN, YOU CAN REUSE THIS FOR SOMETHING ELSE IF YOU WANT TO, BUT TRYING TO ADD ON TO GET TO THE PROGRAMMATIC NEEDS OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO BE LIKELY COST PROHIBITIVE, BASED ON THE CONDITION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. COST ESTIMATES, I'M SURE THERE WILL BE QUESTIONS, SO I'M HAPPY TO FIELD THOSE. A COUPLE THINGS ABOUT THE BASIS OF ESTIMATES.

THERE'S A LIST HERE OF WHAT'S NOT INCLUDED. THIS IS JUST KIND OF GIVING YOU AN IDEA. WE ARE VERY, VERY EARLY ON IN THIS PROCESS. THE ESTIMATE NUMBERS THAT ARE ON THE NEXT SLIDE ARE BASED ON A 12,000 SQUARE FOOT THREE BAY FIRE STATION. THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT THIS STATION NEEDS TO BE A 12,000 SQUARE FOOT THREE BAY FIRE STATION. WE HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH WHAT WE CALL PROGRAMMING, WHERE WE GO THROUGH AND TALK WITH THE CHIEF AND THE DEPARTMENT AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THE NEEDS ARE OF THE DEPARTMENT. SO THAT WAS BASED ON OUR EXPECTATION. THE BRIEF CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD WITH CHIEF ABOUT IT BEING A THREE BAY STATION AND WHAT WE HAVE SEEN, THREE BAY STATIONS GENERALLY ARE IN THE 10 TO 12 OR 14,000 SQUARE FOOT RANGE.

SO WE PICKED 12 AS KIND OF A MIDDLE PIECE. SO THAT DROVE THE NUMBERS, WHICH ARE SEEN HERE. THE INTENT OF THIS SLIDE REALLY IS A COMPARISON OF THE THREE OPTIONS. SORRY, I SHOULD SAY FOUR OPTIONS. TWO OF THEM ARE ON THE CURRENT SITE. OPTION ONE IS RENOVATING THE EXISTING BUILDING. OPTIONS TWO, THREE, AND FOUR ARE NEW STATIONS. TWO IS ON THE EXISTING SITE, SO THAT'S THE SITE PLAN I SHOWED EARLIER. OPTION THREE IS A NEW STATION ON THE 11800 SOUTH CRATER ROAD SITE. AND OPTION FOUR, WHICH IS IDENTICAL IN THIS CASE TO OPTION THREE.

BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A SITE TO GO FROM, SO WE JUST KIND OF ASSUMED THAT IT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THE SOUTH CRATER ROAD SITE. YOU CAN SEE.

THE COSTS GENERALLY ARE IN THE 12 TO 12.5 MILLION DOLLAR RANGE. AGAIN, THESE ARE VERY, VERY PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES.

THERE IS A DETAILED COST REPORT THAT I BELIEVE WAS SHARED WITH YOU GUYS THAT HAS A MUCH MORE DETAILED BREAKDOWN TO SEE WHAT THE ASSUMPTIONS WERE. ALMOST ALL OF THESE NUMBERS ARE COST PER SQUARE FOOT NUMBERS, AND THEY ARE BASED ON A NARRATIVE. AS WELL AS THE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT THAT WE PROVIDED. THAT NARRATIVE WAS THINGS LIKE, WHAT TYPES OF WALLS, HOW MANY STORIES, IN THIS CASE, ALL OF THEM ARE SINGLE STORY OPTIONS, WHAT? MAGNITUDE OF SQUARE FOOTAGE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT, THINGS LIKE THAT THAT ARE AGAIN VERY EARLY ON. AS THE PROJECT MOVES FORWARD, IF THE PROJECT PROCEEDS, THE DESIGN TEAM THAT YOU WORK WITH WILL GO THROUGH THAT PROGRAMMING EXERCISE, WILL START TO GO THROUGH A MASSING EXERCISE.

OF WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE, WHAT THE ROOF WILL BE, WHAT THE EXTERIOR WALL MATERIALS WILL BE, AND ALL THAT WILL HELP TO REFINE THE COSTS. AS PART OF THAT, THEY WILL ALSO VALIDATE IS THE

[02:45:02]

ANOTHER THING THAT WE HAVE WORKED ON BEFORE IS IF THERE IS A BUDGET ESTABLISHED, VERIFYING THAT BUDGET WITH REAL-WORLD MARKET CONDITIONS, TALKING TO GENERAL CONTRACTORS, THINGS LIKE THAT, AND THEN DESIGNING TO THE BUDGET IS ALSO AN OPTION. SO I DON'T WANT THESE NUMBERS TO, I KNOW THEY'RE LARGE NUMBERS, THEY CAN BE VERY SCARY, BUT THEY ARE VERY, VERY EARLY PRELIMINARY NUMBERS.

AND REALLY SHOULD BE USED TO LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS AND COMPARE BETWEEN THE FOUR OF THEM, NOT NECESSARILY TO SAY HERE IS THE BUDGET THAT NEEDS TO BE PUT FORWARD. THESE NEXT SLIDES, WHICH ARE REALLY SMALL, BUT ARE IN YOUR PACKET, I THINK, THAT YOU RECEIVED BEFOREHAND, BREAK DOWN THOSE COSTS FOR EACH OF THE FOUR OPTIONS INTO DIFFERENT BUILDING SYSTEMS. SO IT GOES INTO THE STRUCTURE, THE FINISHES, THE FURNITURE IS NOT IN THERE, BUT THE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS, THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO IF ANYBODY HAS QUESTIONS ABOUT SPECIFICALLY WHAT WAS INCLUDED, THAT IS A GOOD SECTION TO LOOK AT IN THE REPORT. I BELIEVE THAT IS THE END. ANY QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS FOR MR. WEBB? WITH EVERYTHING Y'ALL HAVE DONE, DID YOU LOOK AT THE FOOTPRINT OR KNOW THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF WHAT STATION 7 IS? BECAUSE THAT'S THE LATEST STATION WE BUILT. WE DID, AND I DON'T REMEMBER THE NUMBER. I JUST ASKED CHIEF BEFORE WE STARTED THIS, AND I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

BUT WE CAN FIND THAT OUT FOR YOU, FOR SURE. MR. WEBB, IT'S 10,222 SQUARE FEET. I WAS JUST CURIOUS. THE LAST ONE WE BUILT WAS 11 QUARTERS. I GUESS I HAVE CONCERNS.

WITH THE PRESENTATION, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS COMMUNICATED, AND I DON'T KNOW IT SOUNDS LIKE Y'ALL JUST KIND OF DID A GENERAL OF. THIS IS WHAT THE NATION'S BUILDING FIRE STATIONS ARE. ONE OF THE THINGS I NOTICED THAT'S IN THIS IS BIFOLD DOORS, THEY'RE HUNTER-GRAND TO POP, WE'RE NOT A LOCALITY, IS GONNA HAVE BIFOLD DOORS. I CAN TELL YOU, FROM THIS BOARD MEMBERS PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE GONNA BUILD A PRACTICAL BUILDING THAT SERVES THE NEEDS. BUT YEAH, I WOULD DEFINITELY. I GUESS.

MY QUESTION IS, OUT OF WHAT WE'VE CONTRACTED Y'ALL TO DO SO FAR, WHAT'S LEFT TO DO? OR IS THIS COMPLETE WITH WHAT WE'VE EXPENDED? THIS IS LARGELY COMPLETE UNLESS THERE ARE COMMENTS. LIKE, IF YOU WANT THE COST ESTIMATE TO BE REVISED TO REMOVE THE BUY-FULL DOORS, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT KIND OF THING. THEY WERE BASED ON STATIONS IN VIRGINIA, NOT NATIONAL STATIONS. OKAY. THEY WERE BENCHMARKED ALSO BECAUSE WHEN THE COST CAME IN, MY FIRST REACTION WAS, I DON'T BELIEVE IT. SO THERE WAS A LOT OF DIALOGUE BACK AND FORTH IN THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS. US AND THE COST ESTIMATORS TO KIND OF CHALLENGE THAT A LITTLE BIT AND TO LOOK AT SOME COMPARABLE STATIONS.

THERE'S A COUPLE OF STATIONS IN THE RICHMOND AREA. THERE'S A COUPLE IN NEW KENT THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, IN A 8,000 SQUARE FOOT BALLPARK. AND WHAT THOSE LOOK LIKE AND HOW THAT IMPACTS IT.

AND I'M HAPPY TO SHARE ALL THAT INFORMATION.

BUT IN GENERAL, FOR OUR SCOPE OF WORK RIGHT NOW, THIS IS THE KIND OF PAUSE POINT OF WHAT THE NEXT STEPS ARE. SO THERE'S NOT ADDITIONAL REPORTS COMING FORWARD BEYOND THIS. SO IF I GAVE YOU THE SCHEMATICS FROM THE CURRENT STATION 7, WOULD THAT BE ABLE TO BE JUST, OR... UPDATED.

UPDATED TO REFLECT... WE CAN DO THAT, YEAH. AND I MEAN, I'M SURE NOT, LIKE, REMOVING A BAY WOULD BE PART OF THAT, BUT IS THAT SOMETHING... WE CAN RIGHT-SIZE IT TO... AND THAT'S PART OF GETTING INTO THAT NEXT PROGRAMMING PHASE IS REALLY GETTING MORE INTO THAT. BUT IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THAT THE NUMBERS THAT ARE SHOWN HERE FOR THE FOUR OPTIONS ARE MORE REFLECTIVE OF WHAT STATION 7 IS, I THINK THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE CAN DO. WE DID BASE THE NARRATIVES ON... WHEN WE CAME DOWN TO DO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT, WE TOURED STATION 7. SO SOME OF IT WAS BASED ON THAT, BUT ABSOLUTELY, WE CAN TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THAT. IF YOU HAVE PLANS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE HELPFUL. 11-800 UP TO RED FEAST. ISN'T THAT WHERE THE OLD CONTINENTAL MOTEL WAS THAT WE PURCHASED? SO WE ALREADY OWN THAT LAND? YES.

CORRECT. OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. HAMMIL? I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. I'LL START. I'LL START WITH THE GOOD AND THEN SOME OF MY QUESTIONS, HARDER QUESTIONS TOWARDS THE END.

FIRST PART, I APPRECIATE THE DATA THAT GOES INTO THE LOCATION OF THE STATION. I LIKE HOW IT GOES, IDEAL SEVEN, IDEAL EIGHT. WHAT IF YOU MOVE ONE? WHAT IF YOU GET RID OF ONE? WHAT IF YOU ADD ONE? I APPRECIATE THAT PART OF IT BECAUSE, TO YOUR POINT, WHAT I UNDERSTOOD WAS IS THE IDEAL PLACE FOR THIS STATION REALLY IS OFF OF TAVERN, WHICH IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER. WE'RE REALLY CLOSE. SO I APPRECIATED THAT PART OF IT. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS A STATION 7 WITH A BAY REMOVED. AND SO TO GO FROM A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, WHEN YOU REMOVE A BAY, I WOULD THINK AROUND 08,000 SQUARE FEET, PROBABLY.

NOT THAT A BAY IS NECESSARILY THE WHOLE OF THAT 2,000, BUT $1,000 A SQUARE FOOT AT 10,000 SQUARE FEET, AND I GOT STICKER SHOCK, FOR SURE, ESPECIALLY AT $1,000 A SQUARE FOOT. THE

[02:50:01]

BEFORE I'D GOTTEN TO IT, BECAUSE THEY'D ALREADY KIND OF PARSED THROUGH IT, AND IT WAS THAT MUCH OF A CONCERN TO THEM WHAT THEY HAD READ. SO IN NEGOTIATION, IT ALMOST FEELS LIKE ANCHORING. LIKE, IF WE CAN'T SCARE YOU OFF WITH A $12 MILLION NUMBER, EIGHT SUDDENLY FEELS GOOD.

LIKE, WHEN I LOOK AT THESE NUMBERS, I WAS THINKING WE MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN THE $5 MILLION RANGE, YOU KNOW, 650 A SQUARE FOOT AT 08,000 SQUARE FEET. SO THIS WAS A LARGE, ONCE I GOT PAST THE FUN, HAPPY DATA PART OF IT, WHICH I REALLY ENJOYED, I WILL COMMENT THAT, BUT WHEN I GOT TO THE BOTTOM HALF OF THIS, IT WAS REALLY, IT FELT LIKE WE DESIGNED SOMETHING, AND I KNOW IT WASN'T DESIGNED, BUT WE LOOKED AT NUMBERS THAT WERE IN NO WAY RELATED TO WHAT I THOUGHT THE PREVIOUS BOARD HAD ASKED FOR. SO I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THOSE NUMBERS BEING DOWN A LITTLE BIT. MR. PUGH'S COMMENT ABOUT THE BIFOLD DOORS, IT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A $30,000 GARAGE DOOR AND A $100,000 DOOR. $2,100 INTERIOR DOORS, THERE'S 35 OF THEM.

THERE'S MORE LIVING SPACE THAN BAY SPACE FOR FOUR FOLKS THAT LIVE, YOU KNOW, OR ARE ON THERE IN SHIFTS. IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF SPACE. I'VE GOT A LOT OF QUESTIONS. I KNOW THIS ISN'T ANY FINAL THING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT I'M JUST SHARING WITH THE BOARD THAT THAT WAS MY INITIAL PIECE OF THIS. I FOUND THE SECOND HALF OF THIS REALLY HARD TO DIGEST. NOT BECAUSE IT WASN'T PUT TOGETHER WELL. IT WAS A GOOD DOCUMENT, BUT THE CONTENT OF IT WAS A BIG DEPARTURE. AND I KNOW THIS IS A STATION WE NEED TO FIX, RIGHT? I MEAN, THIS STATION NEEDS FIXED. AND LIVING IN A TRAIL FOR 20 YEARS.

RIGHT. THAT'S NOT, I THINK WE ALL AGREE, AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE, TALK ABOUT IT. BUT I'VE GOT STICKER SHOCK RIGHT NOW, I THINK. AND I UNDERSTAND. THE ONE CONCERN, OR SOMETHING I THINK NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED, THOUGH, IS WHERE ARE WE GOING FORWARD WITH DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTY? THE COUNTY'S GOING TO GROW. WE NEED TO SOMEWHAT TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE THINK THOSE ESTIMATED NUMBERS ARE. SO WE'RE NOT BUILDING THE STATION, EVEN IF IT'S $6 MILLION. AND THREE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, WE FIND THAT ISN'T BIG ENOUGH BECAUSE NOW WE'VE GONE FROM FOUR OR MORE PEOPLE LIVING THERE. YOU'VE STILL GOT MEN AND WOMEN COHABITATING IN THE SAME SPACE. IT'S KIND OF LIKE WHEN WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT STATION 7. THE FIRST CONCEPT WAS WE WERE JUST GOING TO BUILD HALF OF IT AND COME BACK AND DO THE REST OF IT LATER. EVEN BEFORE I GOT ON THE BOARD, WE REALLY DON'T DO A GOOD JOB OF COMING BACK. IT'S ALMOST LIKE LOOKING AT A PLANT. WE'LL PUT NEW EQUIPMENT IN, WE'LL COME BACK AND DO A DEMO LATER.

IT NEVER HAPPENS. JUST SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUMBERS MAY BE.

WE KNOW WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE NOW. I KNOW WE ONLY GOT FOUR PEOPLE RIGHT NOW, PLUS THE VOLUNTEERS THERE.

WHAT HAPPENS? IF WE EXPAND THAT, THEN WHAT DO WE DO? AND JUST ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION REAL QUICK ON THAT TOPIC. IT WAS BASED AROUND A SIX- TO SEVEN-PERSON SHIFT, SO IT IS BUILDING THE FUTURE INTO THOSE COST NUMBERS TO SOME EXTENT. SO IF WE DO WANT TO SCALE BACK TO FOUR PEOPLE, THAT WOULD ABSOLUTELY BRING IT MUCH CLOSER TO THE 8,000-SQUARE-FOOT NUMBER. WITH A COMBINATION OF MALE AND FEMALE. CORRECT.

AND THAT'S PART OF THE COMPARISON TO STATION 7. AND WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE MOVING FORWARD IS IT WOULD NOT BE MALE AND FEMALE GENDERED.

EVERYTHING IS IN THE INDUSTRY. THE BEST PRACTICE IS SINGLE USER. BUNK ROOMS. SO IT'S WHAT THEY CALL GENDER NEUTRAL. IT CAN BE MALE, FEMALE, OR WHATEVER. IF THERE'S SIX PEOPLE ON A SHIFT, THERE'S SIX BUNK ROOMS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THERE'S FOUR BEDS FOR FEMALES AND SIX BEDS FOR MALES, BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHICH SHIFT IS WHAT NUMBER. SO IT HELPS TO CONSOLIDATE SOME OF THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT IT REQUIRES A CHANGE FROM STATION SEVEN. I WOULD JUST COMMENT ON THE PRIVACY PART OF IT. THERE ARE CERTAIN AREAS AND THINGS YOU NEED, SOME PRIVACY, PERIOD. SO THANK YOU.

CLARIFICATION TO SIX TO SEVEN PER SHIFT. MR. REB, I APPRECIATE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING FOR THE FUTURE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THREE TIMES THE SIZE OF OUR SHIFT CURRENTLY AT OUR CURRENT STAFFING LEVEL.

IT'S PRETTY HEFTY INVESTMENT.

IT'S NEEDED. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THREE TIMES AS MUCH STAFFING AS WE HAVE CURRENTLY. WHAT FUTURE? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT 25 YEARS FROM NOW? WE COULDN'T DO IT ON THE CURRENT TAX. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BUILDING NOW. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STAFFING. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE'RE PLANNING FOR WHEN OUR STAFFING IS.

THREE TIMES THE SIZE OF WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY. I'M NOT TRYING TO PUSH US THAT FAR. I JUST KNOW WHERE WE'RE AT NOW, AND WE'RE CROSS-STAFFING, AND WE'RE SHORT, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING TO LEAVE STUFF SITTING. SO IF WE WERE LUCKY ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO FULLY STAFF ACROSS THE BOARD, SOME OF THAT WORKFORCE CAN BE SHIFTED, IF NEEDED, AT TIMES OF NEED. IF IT'S ALL RIGHT, I'LL MAKE A COMMENT REAL QUICK.

SO REALISTICALLY, RIGHT NOW, THERE'S TWO PEOPLE AT THAT STATION. OKAY, REALISTICALLY,

[02:55:01]

UNLESS YOU UPSTAFF FOR A STORM, OR YOU'RE DOING PRECEPTING, OR YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING THAT IS OUT OF THE NORM, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. SO YOU HAVE TO BUILD FOR THE OUT OF THE NORM. CORRECT.

BUT I WILL ASK CHIEF CACERES THIS. HOW MANY CURRENTLY IS HOUSED? I KNOW IT'S TWO PEOPLE HOUSED AT STATION 7, BUT WHAT CAN IT HOLD UP TO? THAT STANDARD, OR IS IT? IT'S SIX, OKAY. AND THOSE ARE SWITCH BIDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, CORRECT? YEAH, AND THERE'S, I BELIEVE, THREE BATHROOMS IN THAT STATION, SO THEY'RE INDIVIDUAL BATHROOMS. USUALLY YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A TWO-TO-ONE RATIO, SOMETIMES THREE-TO-ONE, BUT THAT'S A LITTLE KIND OF PUSHING IT. DO YOU KNOW ROUGHLY THE LIVING SIZE OF THAT BUILDING, THE LIVING AREA SIZE OF THAT BUILDING? NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I WILL HAVE TO GO LOOK. I'VE LOOKED AT A LOT OF NUMBERS HERE IN THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT REASONS. WE TALKED ABOUT IT EARLIER. I'LL GIVE YOU THE CORRECT NUMBER WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE. BUT KIND OF TO YOUR POINT, YEAH, WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE ASSIGNED.

WE NEED MORE PEOPLE THERE.

MR. PUGH, I'M GLAD YOU SAID SIX PEOPLE, TWO ON THE MEDIC AND FOUR ON THE ENGINE. THAT WOULD BE IDEAL. IN MY MIND, WE WOULD START AT 5, 3, AND 2 WITH AN EXTRA BUNK ROOM THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO PRECEPT OR TO HAVE. VOLUNTEERS COME IN.

WE DO HAVE A HANDFUL OF VOLUNTEERS THAT SOMETIMES WORK OUT OF THAT STATION. I WOULD ASSUME THAT THAT WOULD REMAIN.

AND THEN IF YOU LOOK AT BEYOND 10 YEARS, RIGHT, BECAUSE THAT FIVE TO SIX PEOPLE IS IN THE IMMEDIATE TIMEFRAME, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT BETWEEN 10 TO 25 YEARS, AND THIS IS, I UNDERSTAND, KIND OF WAY OUT THERE. I WOULD SAY, IF WE GET TO FOUR AND SIX, WE MAY BE TO THE POINT WHERE WE CONSIDER AN EDO, AN EMS DUTY OFFICER, LIKE A CAPTAIN OR SOME OTHER PERSON THAT IS HIS OWN VEHICLE TO RESPOND AND SUPERVISE EMS, FOR INSTANCE. IT COULD BE A SAFETY OFFICER THAT COMPLEMENTS THE COMMAND STAFF, THE BATTALION CHIEF. IT COULD BE THAT WE MOVE THE BATTALION CHIEF THERE. IT GIVES US SOME FLEXIBILITY. THAT'S WHY WE STAYED WITH THE 6 TO 7 PERSONNEL FOR THE STATION, BUT I THINK THE BAY SIZE COULD BE REDUCED. I THINK TWO BAYS IS PROBABLY ENOUGH IF THEY'RE LONG ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO PUT ENGINE, MEDIC, AND A VEHICLE GOING OFF THE BACK. NOW, IF YOU DO THAT CONFIGURATION, YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, HAVING A DRIVE-THROUGH ADDS COST, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BIG, LONG DRIVEWAY.

IF YOU DO A BACK-END STATION, THEN YOU GO MAYBE THREE SHORTER BAYS, BUT YOU HAVE THROWN APRON, YOU DON'T HAVE THE BIG LONG DRIVE.

SO THE NEXT STEP IS TO START WORKING ON ACTUAL PROGRAMMING AND DESIGN PHASE THAT WILL START TO NARROW DOWN THOSE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.

AS PART OF THIS, YOU DON'T WANT TO GET TOO INVOLVED, PLUS, WE NEED FEEDBACK FROM A LOT OF OTHER FOLKS, NOT JUST MYSELF AND CHIEF COKER, WHO WERE KIND OF THE MAIN POINTS ON THIS TO REALLY THINK ABOUT. WHAT ARE THE POSSIBILITIES THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE COVER FOR THE FUTURE? YOU KNOW, THE LAST THING WE NEED IS IN FIVE YEARS TO COME BACK HERE AND SAY, YEAH. WE BUILD A STATION FOR FOUR PEOPLE AND NOW WE NEED AN ADDITION OR SOMETHING ELSE, AND THAT'S NEVER A GOOD IDEA.

THANK YOU BOTH ACTUALLY FOR EXPLAINING THAT HELPS ME UNDERSTAND, THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS. YEAH, CHIEF, YOU GOTTA ADMIT, THOUGH, I KNOW YOU COULD SAVE A LITTLE BIT ON A PAVEMENT. ON AVERAGE, IT'S SAFER TO PULL A BIG RIG FORWARD THAN IT IS TO TRY TO BACK IT UP, EVEN WITH A SPOTTER, WHICH WE SHOULD HAVE SPOTTERS.

YEAH, THERE'S VARIOUS OPINIONS ON SOME OF THAT. I DROVE TRACK TRAILERS FOR A LOT OF YEARS. I GET IT.

IF I CAN PULL IN, I'LL PULL IN BEFORE I TRY TO BLINDSIDE IT. I HAVE WORKED AT A STATION THAT WAS BACK-END ONLY. WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION EARLY ON AND THE CHEESE PHILOSOPHY, AND I KIND OF TEND TO AGREE.

ALTHOUGH I'M NOT OPPOSED TO EITHER ONE, IT'S JUST A COST THING, IS THAT IF MY FOLKS, IF THE FIREFIGHTERS, THE ONLY TIME THAT THEY'RE BACKING IN IS ON THE SCENE, WE'RE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE AN ISSUE? THAN IF THEY LEARN EVERY DAY, TWO OR THREE TIMES, THEY'RE BACKING INTO THIS BASE. NOW, YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE YOU'VE GOT A SPOTTER, YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE THEY KNOW HOW TO DO IT, THAT THEY ALIGN WITH THEIR LINES. I MEAN, IT JUST TAKES PRACTICE, RIGHT? WE DON'T WANT THEM TO BE OVERCONFIDENT, BUT IF THEY'LL NEVER BACK.

[03:00:01]

OTHER QUESTIONS? IT'S MORE OF A STATEMENT TO YOU. AND, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS LIKE, THERE'S A NEED, WE'RE GROWING, RIGHT? I'M NOT GOING TO SAY WE'RE NOT GROWING RIGHT NOW. I THINK, YOU KNOW, WITH THE STAFF AND WHAT WE'VE GOT COMING OUT, ONCE WE GET TO FULL STAFF, WE SHOULD BE AT 14 A SHIFT, THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT HAVING THE FACILITIES WHERE YOU CAN HAVE A COMBINATION SYSTEM OF VOLUNTEER AND CAREER, YOU MAY ENCOURAGE A VOLUNTEER TO COME UP THERE AND PULL DUTY AND STAFF A UNIT, WHICH WOULD, YOU KNOW, GET IT OUT QUICKER, THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT LIKE I SAID, WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IS WHAT WE SPENT ON STATION 7 AND THEN THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOOTPRINT OF STATION 7, MINUS THE BAY.

BECAUSE I THINK THAT WILL PUT US BACK TO WHERE WE SHOULD BE AT. I HOPE SO. WE CAN DEFINITELY DO THAT. ALL RIGHT.

I GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT, AND THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT, MS. COX. WHO FROM THE COUNTY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR STATION 7 WHEN IT WAS BUILT? I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IT WAS A MIXTURE OF CAREER AND VOLUNTEER. WAS A VOLUNTEER OUT IN THE AUDIENCE THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO COMMENT ON THE LONG FORM DESIGN TEAM ON THAT BUILDING. YEAH, THE LONG PART OF THE QUESTION IS, DO WE HAVE ANY FEEDBACK? ANY NOTES THAT WE TOOK DURING STATION SEVENS BUILD? SO WE DON'T MAKE MISTAKES THAT WE MADE WITH STATION SEVEN, IF ANY, WERE MADE? SO THERE'S ALWAYS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE GO BACK TO THE NOTES, BUT WE HAVE WALKED THROUGH. WE SEE SOME AREAS WHERE, FOR INSTANCE, THE GEAR ROOM HAS WINDOWS AND THINGS WHERE THAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. THERE'S SOME SPACE SAVINGS IN SOME OF THE SUPPORT SPACES, BUT LIKE, THE FITNESS SPACE IS VERY LIMITED, SO THERE'S SOME ROOM TO PLAY AROUND AND MASSAGE.

THAT FLOOR PLAN. THE CORE ITSELF, WHERE THE BUNK ROOMS AND THE BATHROOMS ARE, THAT'S PRETTY IDEAL. IT'S SOME OF THE SUPPORT SPACES WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENCE. OKAY.

STATEMENT 7 HAS GOT DEEP BAYS OF THE MARKET. YES. THEY'VE GOT DEEP BAYS. YES. SO YOU CAN PARK TWO VEHICLES ON EITHER SIDE.

ALL COMMENTS? OKAY, I'LL MAKE MINE. I'M A PROPONENT FOR POOL THREE. ESPECIALLY ON CRATER ROAD. THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC FLOWS BACK AND FORTH THROUGH THERE, AND I'D HATE SOMEBODY TO COME UP AND RUN INSIDE.

YEAH, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO TURN IN THE APRON WITHOUT GOING INTO THE STREET. YEAH, THAT'S FOR SURE. I WILL SAY THAT I HAD STICKER SHOCK, TOO.

BUT I DO KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO GROW. WE CAN'T STAY STAGNANT. YOU KNOW, IF WE BUILD A... STATION FOR SIX. IT DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE GOING TO PUT SIX THERE NEXT WEEK, AS SOON AS IT'S COMPLETE, BUT WE NEED THE ROOM TO GROW.

AND LIKE MR. PUGH, ON THE RIGHT, SAID, WE MAY GET SOME VOLUNTEERS THAT COME UP THAT WOULD BE WILLING TO WORK FROM THERE AND STAFF AN ENGINE, WHICH WOULD TAKE THE LOAD OFF.

BUT BACK TO HOW MANY BATHROOMS WILL BE IN THERE? IF THERE'S A SHIFT OF SIX, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE THREE. IF THERE'S SEVEN, IT WOULD BE EITHER THREE OR FOUR, DEPENDING ON THE... AND THAT WILL HAVE SHOWERS IN IT, OR IS IT? I MEAN, THAT'S ALL I GOT RIGHT NOW. I MEAN, I THINK WE'VE GOT SOME LOOKING TO DO, SOME MORE FIGURING TO DO. BECAUSE I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, MY THOUGHTS HAVE BEEN A METAL CLAD BUILDING LIKE THIS, WITH A BRICK FACADE TO THE FRONT. MAKE IT NICE FROM THE STREET APPEARANCE, BUT MAKE IT FUNCTIONAL. I DO KNOW WE NEED THE LIVING QUARTERS.

TO BE BLOCKED FOR STORM INSTANCES IF SOMETHING SHOULD COME, TORNADO OR SOMETHING.

BUT I THINK WE GOT TO, I GUESS WE'LL SAY, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY WE GOT A GOOD START, BUT WE GOT TO START. AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK MORE AND DIG DEEPER INTO IT. AND WE NEED TO GET SOME THINGS TO YOU SO THAT WE CAN GET YOU TO RUN SOME MORE NUMBERS. AND I MEAN, IDEALLY, IF WE COULD BUILD ANOTHER STATION, 7. AND THAT BECAME THE BLUEPRINT ACROSS THE COUNTY.

THAT WOULD BE ONE THING, BUT IT'S JUST NOT FEASIBLE.

ALL RIGHT, BOARD, DO WE WANT TO TAKE ANY ACTION TONIGHT, GIVE HIM A CONSENSUS, OR DO WE WANT TO GET NUMBERS AND DRAWINGS TO HER? I THINK SHE'S GOING TO GO BACK AND PULL THE DRAWINGS FROM STATION 7 AND DO A COST ANALYSIS WITH THAT AND SEND IT BACK TO US, RIGHT? SO YES TO THAT. I NEED TO GET THE DRAWINGS, BUT WE'RE KEEPING THEM AS DRIVE-THROUGH BAYS RIGHT NOW.

BUT CHANGING IT FROM THREE, WHAT WAS IN THE ESTIMATE NOW,

[03:05:01]

LIKE I SAID, IF THEY'RE DEEP ENOUGH BAYS, WE CAN PUT AN EXTRA TRUCK IN THERE. AND THEY ARE. I THINK WHAT'S IN THERE IS THREE DOUBLE DEEP BAYS. THERE'S AN EXTRA ONE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IF WE CAN DO THAT, AND THEN ONCE CHIEF SEQUEIRA, YOU GET IT BACK, GET WITH MS. PUDLOW AND RESCHEDULE, AND WE'LL GET YOU BACK ON THE AGENDA. OKAY. COME BACK AND GO THROUGH IT AND LOOK

[H. Order of Business]

YEP. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL.

ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO OUR ORDER OF BUSINESS TONIGHT. OKAY, FIRST ONE IS APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM UTILITIES CASH RESERVE FUND AND AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE UTILITY EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES. MS. LUMPKIN, INTERIM COUNTY ENGINEER AND UTILITIES DIRECTOR. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MS. PUDLOW, MR. KINGSBERRY. I'LL TRY TO BE VERY, VERY BRIEF WITH THIS. WE HAVE IDENTIFIED SOME AGING AND UNUSABLE EQUIPMENT AND SOME OTHER EQUIPMENT THAT WE REALLY NEED AS A UTILITY. TO OPERATE WITHOUT HAVING TO RELY SO MUCH ON OUTSIDE CONTRACTORS. OUR LIST HERE HAS BUDGETARY NUMBERS ASSIGNED TO IT. THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE. WE COULD BE ABLE TO GET SOME OF THIS EQUIPMENT FOR LESS THAN THE BUDGETARY NUMBERS THAT WE'VE ADDED.

WE'VE PUT IN HERE A REQUEST TO MOVE $595,000 FROM OUR CASH RESERVES TO AVOID HAVING TO PUT THIS INTO OUR. FISCAL YEAR 27 BUDGET THAT WOULD IMPACT OUR RATES.

AND SO WE ARE REQUESTING AN AUTHORIZATION TO HAVE THE MONEY TRANSFERRED FROM OUR CASH RESERVES TO BE SPENT DURING THIS FISCAL YEAR. AND AUTHORIZING OUR INTERIM COUNTY ATTORNEY, OUR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE ORDERS FOR THE PURCHASE OF THIS EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES.

QUESTIONS I'M AN ADDED UTILITY FUND. YEAH, SO I'VE GOT A QUESTION. LAST WEEK, WE TALKED ABOUT BUDGETS AND THINGS LIKE THAT AT ONE OF OUR LAST BUDGET WORK SESSIONS. AND IT WAS A NEED TO HIRE MORE EMPLOYEES BECAUSE WE COULDN'T MEET THE 811 TICKETS. AM I CORRECT IN THAT STATEMENT? YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT, BY US BUYING THIS EQUIPMENT AND STARTING TO DO MORE STUFF IN-HOUSE. IS THAT GOING TO BE A RESULT OF HIRING MORE PEOPLE? BECAUSE WE'LL BE IN THE HOLE VERSUS A CONTRACTOR? NO, THE TWO POSITIONS THAT WE WERE ASKING FOR IN THE BUDGET ARE FOR WATER WORKS MANAGER AND FOR 811 LOCATING. SO THE EQUIPMENT THAT WE HAVE HERE WILL HELP US TO DO THE REPAIRS AND THE REGULAR MAINTENANCE WORK ON OUR OWN WITH THE STAFF THAT WE HAVE.

RIGHT. AND SO FAR THIS FISCAL YEAR, WE HAVE PAID ALMOST $140,000 JUST IN EMERGENCY CONTRACT WORK.

OKAY. SO MY NEXT QUESTION IS, IF THAT JOB DOES NOT GET FUNDED, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO DO BOTH WITH THE ADDED EQUIPMENT? OR WOULD IT CAUSE MORE OF A STRAIN ON THE ALREADY STRAIN OF KEEPING UP WITH 8-1-1? I DON'T THINK IT WOULD CAUSE MORE OF A STRAIN. IT WOULD JUST, WE WOULD HAVE POTENTIALLY THE SAME OVERTIME TIME THAT WE'RE HAVING RIGHT NOW BY HAVING TO DO 8-1-1 LOCATING AFTER.

WE'VE TAKEN CARE OF MAINTENANCE AND EMERGENCIES.

OKAY. SO WE'VE EXPENDED $140,000 IN, WHAT IS IT, EIGHT MONTHS, SEVEN MONTHS, SEVEN AND A HALF? YES, SIR.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. I'LL ASK FOR A MOTION. MR. CHAIR, IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. COMING OUT OF UTILITIES, IT'S NO IMPACT TO OUR GENERAL FUND. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. DO I HAVE A SECOND? DO I HAVE A SECOND? MOTION FAILS ON NO SECOND. SO DOES SOMEBODY WANT TO OFFER A MOTION? I KNOW WE HAD A CONVERSATION AND THIS IS MORE OF A DISCUSSION. WE WANT TO REPLACE THE CURRENT DUMP TRUCK, CORRECT? YES, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. AND WE WANT TO REPLACE THE UTILITY, CORRECT? THE SUV. THE SUV, WE WOULD LIKE TO REPLACE IT WITH A UTILITY BODY TRUCK BECAUSE IT MAKES IT MORE USABLE FOR THE STAFF THAT ARE USING THE VEHICLES. OKAY. AND THEN THE LARGER TRENCH BOX, THAT IS A SAFETY CONCERN, CORRECT? YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT.

NOW, OUT OF THOSE THREE THINGS THAT I'VE NAMED, ARE YOU ABLE TO DO THE THINGS YOU NEED TO DO INSTEAD OF CONTRACTING WITH THAT LITTLE BIT? OR DO YOU NEED ALL OF THIS STUFF TO BE ABLE

[03:10:02]

THE SKID STEER WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL PIECE OF EQUIPMENT TO USE, WHERE THE BACKHOE MIGHT NOT BE AN APPROPRIATE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT. Y'ALL NOT HAVE AN EXCAVATOR? WE DO. WE HAVE A MINI EXCAVATOR RIGHT NOW. IT IS IN OUR CURRENT FISCAL BUDGET.

TO REPLACE THAT WITH A LARGER EXCAVATOR.

OKAY, WHAT'S THE BOARD WANT TO DO? I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT WARRANTED, BUT I'M NOT READY TO EXPEND IT YET. IF IT'S IN CASH UTILITIES, THAT MEANS IT'S GOING TO BE THERE UNTIL WE EXPEND IT. AM I CORRECT IN THAT STATEMENT? YES, SIR. SO I WOULD LIKE TO DO MORE INVESTIGATION ON...

THIS EQUIPMENT BEFORE PULLING THE TRIGGER.

BECAUSE I KNOW WE CAN GET A DUMP TRUCK LESSER, $200,000, AND I KNOW THAT'S JUST A, YOU KNOW, A PRICE. WE PUT OUT THERE AND WE HOPE TO COME UNDER BELOW IT.

BUT I WOULD AS PERSONALLY LIKE TO SEE THE BENEFITS OF WHAT THIS COST WOULD DO.

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW I'M EXTENDING EXPENDING $140,000, AT SEVEN AND A HALF, I'M GOING TO EXPEND $600,000. BUT SOME OF THESE ARE MUST REPLACES. AM I CORRECT IN THAT STATEMENT? YES, SIR. OUR CURRENT DUMP TRUCK IS A 1993 DUMP TRUCK THAT IS NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO PULL EQUIPMENT. RIGHT. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO AND HAVE IT BE BROUGHT BACK IS WHAT EQUIPMENT WE HAVE NOW, THE LIFE EXPECTANCY OF IT, AND THEN RUN DOWN THE LIST LIKE THAT. I'LL PUT IN A MOTION. CAN I ASK A QUESTION? YES, SIR. WHAT DO YOU MEAN, WHAT EQUIPMENT WE HAVE NOW? WHAT THEY HAVE? YES, SIR.

BECAUSE THIS EQUIPMENT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE REPLACEMENT FUND FOR THE COUNTY VEHICLES.

THIS IS SEPARATELY INDEPENDENT.

CORRECT. THEY HAVE THEIR OWN, WHAT'S THE WORD OF THE FUND WE USE? ENTERPRISE. ENTERPRISE FUND. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT EXPENDING CERTAIN FUNDS OUT OF THE ENTERPRISE FUND, WHICH WILL IN TURN CAUSE US TO HAVE TO EITHER RAISE RATES OR DO SOMETHING THAT WE COULD HAVE AVOIDED, IF POSSIBLE. I THOUGHT YOU ALREADY STATED THAT, BUT THAT'S FINE. SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GO AND SELECT A BOARD MEMBER, ONE OR TWO OF US, KIND OF GO AND SIT DOWN AND GO OVER THE LIST AND KIND OF SEE THE DIRECTION THAT THE DEPARTMENT WANTS TO HEAD TO MAKE SURE WE CAN COMMUNICATE THAT WITH THE BOARD AND SIGN OFF ON IT BEFORE WE VOTE TO SAY ANYTHING. ALL RIGHT, I HAVE A MOTION TO HAVE A SECOND. SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ROLL CALL. MR. COX? NO. MR. PHILLIP PUGH? YES. MR. HAMILL? YES. MR. FORD PUGH? YES. MR. WEBB? NO. ALRIGHT, MOVING TO THE NEXT ITEM. THANK YOU, MS. LUMPKIN. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN FORT LEE AND PRINCE GEORGE, CAD SERVICE.

MR. BOZEMAN? CAN I SAY SOMETHING? MEMBERS OF THE BOARD? YES, SIR. MR. COX, I WOULD LOVE IF... IF BY THE END OF THE MEETING, IF WE COULD, YOU KNOW, MAYBE PICK ANOTHER ONE, I THINK TJ MIGHT BE GOOD TO ASSIST ON GOING OVER THERE AND KIND OF REVIEWING THAT DEPARTMENT IF YOU'RE WILLING TO. YEAH, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU AND I AGREE, BUT I'D BE GLAD TO DO IT. I LIKE YOUR EXPERTISE. OKAY. I THINK WE'RE MATURE ENOUGH THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY HAVE SOME INSIGHT THAT I MIGHT NOT REALIZE, AND WE CAN KIND OF GO FROM THERE. ALL RIGHT. I'LL DEAL WITH A LOT OF THIS STUFF. MR. WEBB AND MR. PHILLIP, YOU. WAIT, SIR.

SORRY. ALL RIGHT. HEY, GOOD EVENING. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MS. PUTLOW AND MR. KINGSBURY. THIS EVENING, I'M HERE SEEKING A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MEMO OF AGREEMENT WITH FORT LEE, WITH THE COUNTY IN FORT LEE, THAT IS, FOR CAD SERVICES. AS YOU MAY BE AWARE, WE CURRENTLY OPERATE UNDER AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT THAT'S SET TO EXPIRE ON MARCH 23RD. WHILE WE BOTH FULLY INTEND TO AGREE AND RENEW THE ICSA, THE PROCESS WILL EXTEND, MOST LIKELY PAST THAT 23RD DATE. SO

[03:15:01]

BUT THIS CODE IS VERY CLEAR TO SAY THAT ANY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE COMMONWEALTH, YOU OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE COMMONWEALTH WHO IS A PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTER SHALL RECEIVE PAID LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR ALL WORK HOURS FOR WHICH A LEAVE OF ABSENCE IS REQUIRED, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH AMOUNT OF WORK HOURS EXCEEDS 21 WORK DAYS PER FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR, BUT SHALL NOT EXCEED A TOTAL OF 388 WORK HOURS. DURING WHICH SUCH OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE, WHO IS A PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTER, ENGAGED IN FEDERALLY FUNDED MILITARY DUTY TO INCLUDE TRAINING DUTY. SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT.

IN THAT SAME SECTION, WE DO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT MILITARY ORDERS MUST CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE EMPLOYEE AS THE MEMBER. WE ARE NOT SEEKING ANY SENSITIVE INFORMATION FROM OUR EMPLOYEES.

BUT WE HAVE HAD STRUGGLES FOR THEM TO TURN IN SOMETHING WITH THEIR ACTUAL NAME ON IT.

SO IT'S VERY HARD TO HONOR THAT SERVICE. SO WE WANT TO ADD THAT TO BE CLEAR.

ADDITIONALLY, IN SECTION 24.17 FOR PAID TIME OFF PLAN, WE'VE RECENTLY RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT OUR EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DISABILITY PROGRAM KNOWN AS VLDP. IT HAS HISTORICALLY ONLY BEEN FOR OUR VRS PLAN MEMBERS.

THANK YOU. THIS WOULD IMPACT IN A WAY THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE COVERED UNDER VRS DISABILITY AND THEY WOULD BE UNDER THE VLDP PROGRAM. WE HAVE FIVE CURRENT THAT WE HAD TO GET OPT-OUT FORMS FOR THAT NONE OF OUR PEOPLE OPTED IN.

BUT CERTAINLY, EFFECTIVE JULY 1ST, 2026, WE MAY HIRE SOMEBODY FROM ANOTHER LOCALITY THAT DID OPT IN. SO WE DO NEED TO BE PREPARED THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE A VRS PLAN 1, PLAN 2 MEMBER, WE WILL HAVE TO GIVE THEM PTO. RATHER THAN ANNUAL AND SICK LEAVE. SO WE WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. AND THAT'S IT. ANY QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, I WILL ASK FOR A MOTION FOR RESOLUTION FOR THE REVISION TO PERSONNEL POLICY SECTIONS, WHATEVER, WHATEVER, WHATEVER.

24. THE WHOLE THING. MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION. I HAVE A SECOND. FOR DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ROLL CALL. MR. HAMILL? YES. MR. FORD PUGH? YES. MR. WEBB? YES. MR. COX? YES. MR. PHILLIP PUGH? YES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MA'AM.

ALL RIGHT, NEXT ITEM, RED HILL WASTEWATER CONTRACT. MS. PASTOR? GOOD EVENING AGAIN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MS. PUDLOW AND MR. KINGSBURY.

TONIGHT, I AM ASKING FOR AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE A WASTEWATER CONTRACT. THIS IS BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE RED HILL MOBILE ESTATES LLC.

FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WASTEWATER SYSTEM, THIS IS A PRETTY STANDARD CONTRACT WHEN WE HAVE THESE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS. THE DIFFERENCE IN THIS PARTICULAR ONE, THOUGH, IS WITHIN THEIR WASTEWATER SYSTEM.

IT'S A PRIVATE, CAN BE PRIVATELY OWNED, PRIVATELY MAINTAINED, AND CONSTRUCTED BY REDHILL.

HOWEVER, EVENTUALLY, DOWN THE LINE, SHOULD ANY OTHER COUNTY CITIZEN DECIDE TO HOOK UP TO THIS SYSTEM. WE UNDERSTAND THAT AT THAT POINT WE WOULD TAKE OVER OWNERSHIP, OWNERSHIP OF IT. THAT'S THE CONTEMPLATION. SO THERE'S NO SPECIFIC DATE THAT WOULD HAPPEN. BECAUSE THIS NEEDS

[03:20:01]

AGAIN, THIS IS A CONTEMPLATED, PROPOSED FUTURE USE. SO IT'S HARD TO ANTICIPATE ANSWERING THAT QUESTION WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHO THAT FUTURE USER COULD BE. MS. LUMPKIN, I THINK, HAS SOMETHING TO SAY.

PERFECT. THANK YOU.

CURRENTLY, THE RED HILL MOBILE HOME ESTATES ARE UNDER CONSENT ORDER WITH THE DEQ FOR A FAILED ON-SITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT.

THIS PROJECT INCLUDES PRIVATE WASTEWATER LINES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AND A PUMP STATION THAT WILL CONNECT TO THE PUBLIC UTILITY SYSTEM.

THE PUMP STATION IS THE PORTION OF IT THAT COULD BECOME PUBLIC IN THE FUTURE IF WE HAVE USERS UPSTREAM THAT NEED TO CONNECT TO THE PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEM.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, MR. CHAIR, IF I COULD ASK. WILL WE HAVE ANY OVERSIGHT OF THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PUMP STATION WHILE IT REMAINS IN THE DEVELOPER'S PROPERTY BEFORE IT MIGHT BE TURNED OVER TO THE COUNTY IN THIS AGREEMENT? ARE YOU CONTEMPLATING THIS IS POST-CONSTRUCTION? SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BUILT, BUT NOBODY ELSE IS HOOKED TO IT, SO IT'S STILL PRIVATELY OWNED, I BELIEVE, AT THIS POINT. BUT IT'S BEFORE THE COUNTY HAS IT. IS MS. LUMPKIN APPROACHING? I'M SURE SHE COULD PROVIDE A MUCH CLEARER ANSWER THAN I, SO I WILL DEFER TO HER. THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A MAINTENANCE CONTRACT ON THE PUMP STATION, AND IF AT ANY POINT IN THE FUTURE, IT DOES BECOME PUBLIC. WE WILL REQUIRE A COMPLETE EVALUATION AND ANY DEFICIENCIES TO BE CORRECTED BEFORE WE WOULD TAKE OVER OWNERSHIP. DON'T GO NOWHERE YET. HOLD ON. ALL RIGHT, I GOT ONE FOR YOU. HOW CLOSE WOULD A DEVELOPER HAVE TO HOOK ONTO THIS? HOW FAR DOES IT HAVE TO BE? CURRENTLY, THERE IS A REZONING PROPOSAL THAT IS BEING CONTEMPLATED. JUST NORTH OF THE MOBILE HOME ESTATES, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CONNECT. SO, ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT REQUIRES A SUBDIVISION OR HAS THE USAGE, THE WAY OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN, A NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT USES MORE THAN 15 HOMES IS REQUIRED TO EXTEND AND CONNECT. SO IF ANYTHING ELSE IN THAT AREA DEVELOPS, THAT CAN NATURALLY DRAIN TO WHERE THIS PUMP STATION IS.

THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO EXTEND THE SEWER AND CONNECT TO IT. MY NEXT QUESTION IS, DO WE HAVE A SPEC OF WHAT SIZE THIS PUMP HOUSE OR THIS PUMP STATION IS GOING TO BE AND ALL THAT STUFF THAT THEY HAVE TO BUILD? SO I HAVE ALREADY REVIEWED ALL OF THAT. I HAVE LOOKED AT THE AREA THAT CAN NATURALLY DRAIN TO WHERE THIS PUMP STATION IS, AND I HAVE REQUIRED THEM TO SIZE THE WET WELL FOR THE ULTIMATE SERVICE AREA FOR THIS PUMP STATION.

CURRENTLY, HOW ARE THEY DOING THEIR SEWER? THEY HAVE AN ON-SITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY. OKAY, WHICH DISCHARGES AND THIS IS GONNA BYPASS THAT, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY, OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. PUGH GENERATED A QUESTION FOR ME. DO YOU KNOW ROUGHLY HOW LARGE THE AREA IS THAT COULD BE SERVICED BY THIS? EITHER IN ACRES OR PARCELS, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? IT WAS IN A PRESENTATION THAT I MADE IN DECEMBER. I DON'T REMEMBER, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. IT DOES EXTEND NORTH ALONG RIVER ROAD, I BELIEVE, PAST IRWIN, OR IN THAT GENERAL AREA. SO THERE IS A GOOD AREA OF LAND THAT EITHER ALREADY HAS HOUSES ON IT, OR HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BUILD MORE HOUSES. OR AN INDUSTRIAL FACILITY. THAT IS BEING CONTEMPLATED IN THAT AREA RIGHT NOW.

BUT I CAN GET THAT ACREAGE FOR YOU. THE EXISTING SYSTEM.

SO, AT THE POINT THAT THE COUNTY WOULD TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THIS SYSTEM, IS THERE ANY LIABILITY IN THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED WITH THE PRIOR SYSTEM THAT WE WOULD THEN ASSUME ANY ISSUES WITH? NO, SIR. THANK YOU. ANY

[03:25:01]

THAT SAYS THAT ANY PUBLIC PORTION OF THIS WILL BE BUILT TO OUR STANDARDS AND WILL BE TURNED OVER TO US SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE. AT NO COST TO US. SO, IF WE DON'T APPROVE THE AGREEMENT, I DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE DEQ HAS THEIR LAWYERS INVOLVED IN THIS ALSO AT THIS POINT. BECAUSE THEY'RE IN VIOLATION OF THEIR CONSENT ORDER.

THEY'RE AIR CITIZENS. YEP.

THEY'RE LIVING IT. OKAY. EPA LAWYERS, I'M SORRY, NOT DEQ, EPA. WE'LL ASK FOR A MOTION.

MR. CHAIR, I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE. THEY'RE AIR CITIZENS.

AND WE'VE HEARD ALL THE DETAILS ON WHO OWNS WHAT UP UNTIL THEN, AND WE'LL HAVE IT BUILT TO AIR STANDARDS. ALL THE PERMITS WILL COME THROUGH US, AND THEN WE ARE FREE TO INSPECT IT PRIOR TO IF WE HAVE TO CONNECT TO IT. DID I STATE THAT RIGHT? YES. YES. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION TO HAVE A SECOND. SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND FOR DISCUSSION.

HEARING ON ROLL CALL. MR. FORD PUGH? YES. MR. WEBB? YES. MR. COX? YES. MR. PHILLIP PUGH? NO. MR. HAMILL.

NO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

MOVING TO THE NEXT ITEM, THE ASSESSOR'S RFP DISCUSSION, MS. PUDLOW. GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, CHAIRMAN COX, MR. KINGSBURY. THIS EVENING, I'M BRINGING FORWARD A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DRAFT FOR THE BOARD TO REVIEW FOR AN RFP TO GO OUT TO BID FOR AN ASSESSOR. WE CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE ANY QUALIFIED APPLICANTS FOR THE ASSESSOR'S JOB ANNOUNCEMENT. WE ARE PUSHING THE MARCH TIMELINE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE SOMEONE IN PLACE AND START THE EVALUATION PORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR FY27.

JUST SOME HIGHLIGHTS HERE, CONSIDERATIONS. AS FAR AS BACKGROUND WORK, I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH MR. MCMILLAN, WHO'S IN THE AUDIENCE HERE, FOR QUESTIONS. HE HAS THE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE THAT I DO NOT. ALSO, THE STATE TAX AUTHORITY HAS ASSISTED US IN REVIEWING THIS CONTRACT TO MAKE SURE WE'VE COVERED SOME BASES. TO ENSURE WE HAVE A GOOD EXPERIENCE THIS YEAR, OR, EXCUSE ME, IN THE COMING REASSESSMENT.

JUST SOME NOTES HERE. ONE OF THE LARGER CONSIDERATIONS FOR COST IS THE NUMBER OF FIELD VISITS AND INSPECTIONS. IN THIS DRAFT, WE'VE REQUESTED 15%. I CAN TELL YOU... WE COULD GO HIGHER, BUT THE HIGHER WE GO ON THE NUMBER OF FIELD REVIEWS WE'RE ASKING A CONTRACTOR TO DO, THE HIGHER. THAT IMPACTS THE COST. SO, I WOULD SAY THAT THAT IS THE NOZZLE FOR TURNING THE COST UP AND DOWN. AND WE DO HAVE IN-HOUSE ASSESSING STAFF THAT CAN GO OUT AND DO FIELD REVIEWS AND SUPPORT WITH THAT. SO, WE COULD HAVE DONE MORE HERE. THERE IS A REQUIREMENT OR A PROFESSIONAL STANDARD TO REVIEWS. ALL PARCELS WITHIN THE COUNTY, I THINK THERE'S 14,179 WITHIN SIX YEARS. SO, I CAN TELL YOU WE ARE SLIGHTLY BEHIND SCHEDULE. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THIS YEAR, AGAIN, WITH PUSHING OUR STAFF AND ASKING THEM TO DO AS MANY AS THEY CAN IN-HOUSE, 15% HERE, AGAIN, THIS IS COST SAVINGS.

IF WE'RE NOT MEETING OR MAKING THAT POTENTIAL, WE COULD COME BACK TO THE BOARD. NEXT FY AND ASK FOR A SPECIFIC CONTRACT JUST TO GET THAT DONE. SOME OTHER LOCALITIES HAVE DONE THAT.

AGAIN, IT KIND OF SPREADS THE COST OUT IF WE HAVE TO, IF WE'RE NOT LOOKING LIKE, WE'RE MEETING THAT. SO, THERE'S A CONSIDERATION. I DO WANT TO ASK MR. MCMILLAN TO COME UP IN CASE I'M FORGETTING ANYTHING HERE, BUT I'M GOING TO DO THE BEST I CAN TO, AGAIN, TALK ABOUT HIGHLIGHTS. AGAIN, THIS IS VALUATION PORTION WE HAVE IN HERE THAT THEY WILL COORDINATE WITH OUR EXISTING ASSESSMENT TEAM. OUR ASSESSMENT TEAM WILL SUPPORT IN PROVIDING LISTS AND MAKING SURE KIND OF COMMUNICATION AND OVERSIGHT TAKES PLACE. THERE'S REQUIREMENTS IN HERE THAT THEY REPORT TO ME QUARTERLY AND THE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, WHICH I WILL SIT IN ON THOSE MEETINGS MONTHLY. WE CAN CHANGE THAT LANGUAGE AS WELL, BUT IT WOULD BE MYSELF AND OTHER FOLKS THAT THEY WOULD REPORT MONTHLY. WE ALSO HAVE A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY ARE AVAILABLE IN PERSON AND FOR MEETINGS. HANG ON. SORRY.

THANK YOU. GUESS, LET ME JUST WROTE WHAT? LOOK AT WHAT YOU HAVE HERE. SO,

[03:30:01]

AND THEN AND THEN WE, AGAIN, UNDER STAFFING, THERE'S SOME OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THERE DISCUSSED AS FAR AS AVAILABILITY AND RESPONSIVENESS. SO, WE DID ASK THAT ALL CALLBACKS IN RESPONSE TO VOICEMAIL MESSAGES MUST BE MADE WITHIN ONE WORKING DAY.

AGAIN, SO WE ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS SOME CUSTOMER SERVICE ASPECTS AS WELL IN THE CONTRACT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S RESPONSIVENESS.

THERE'S DATES HERE. I WILL SAY WE'VE PUSHED THESE OUT AS FAR AS WE CAN, BASED ON THE TIMELINE OF THIS TO ENSURE THAT THEY, BUT THEY COULD GET THIS DONE SOONER. BUT THE COMPUTE FINAL VALUATIONS WOULD BE SUBMITTED OR REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED BY JANUARY 31ST OF 2027, WITH NOTICES MAILED BY FEBRUARY 5TH OF 2027. AND THEN, ONCE THEY'RE DONE WITH THAT, THE FIRST WORKING DAY AFTER NOTICES ARE MAILED, WE'RE ASKING THAT THEY WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL QUALIFIED STAFF TO SUPPORT IN SCHEDULING, HEARING APPOINTMENTS AND ANSWERING THOSE IN-OFFICE QUESTIONS. DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS SO FAR? THIS IS JUST A REQUEST FOR RFP. THIS IS, YOU BRING THE PROPOSALS BACK AT A LATER DATE. YES, YES. SO THIS IS JUST TO SAY, HOW DOES THIS LOOK? ARE WE FEELING COMFORTABLE WITH THIS? CAN WE PUT THIS OUT OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO IT? AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND, AGAIN, BRING YOU WHAT WE RECEIVE. AND IN TRANSPARENCY.

IN THE STATE, EXCUSE ME, IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, THERE'S CURRENTLY ONLY FOUR QUALIFIED ASSESSORS TO BE ABLE TO APPLY TO THIS RFP, SO WE DON'T ANTICIPATE A LARGE SHOWING OF RESPONSES. AND AT THIS POINT, I WILL STEP ASIDE FOR MR. MCMILLAN, THE TECHNICAL EXPERT, TO PROVIDE ANY ANSWERS. EVEN, SIR. GOOD EVENING. EVENING.

HOW ARE YOU ALL? PRETTY GOOD, AND YOU? I'M ALL RIGHT. YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YOU HAD HANDS IN WITH THE CONTRACT, RIGHT WITH THE RFP AND DULY NOTED AND ALL THAT AND YOUR EXPERTISE. YOU SIGNED OFF ON IT, RIGHT? YEAH. SOUNDS GOOD TO ME. I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. PUDLOW AND IT'S PROBABLY MAYBE BOTH OF Y'ALL.

IF WE'RE PUTTING IT OUT ON RFP, ARE WE GOING TO REMOVE THE JOB APPLICATION? THANK YOU, SIR. YES, THIS RFP GOING OUT DOES SAY THAT WE ARE THEN AT ESSENTIALLY PAUSING ANY JOB INTERVIEWS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND THEN UNTIL IT'S DONE.

BECAUSE THAT IS THE FUNDING THAT WE WOULD PUT TOWARDS THE COST OF THE RFP, WHATEVER THAT COMES IN AT. SO YES, WE WOULD BE USING SALARY AND WAGES TO TRY TO COVER AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE FOR THE RFP. SIR, ALL RIGHT, THE NEXT THING I HAVE IS WHEN? AND THIS MIGHT BE A TRISTAN QUESTION, WHEN DO WE THINK THAT WE WOULD MAYBE POST THAT JOB DESCRIPTION BACK OUT AS SOON AS THEY MAIL OUT THE NOTICES LIKE THAT IN FEBRUARY 5TH, I MEAN, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY WE COULDN'T PUT IT BACK UP ON THERE. JUST I THINK IT WOULD LOOK A LITTLE BIT BETTER NOW THAT WE'VE HAD A GOOD ASSESSMENT UNDER OUR BELT. WE COULD MAYBE BRING IN SOME QUALIFIED CANDIDATES THAT AREN'T GUN SHY TO STEP INTO A PLACE THAT NEEDS TO BE A LITTLE BIT REBUILT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD TIMELINE.

I MEAN, IT'S NOT LIKE THEY GROW ON TREES, ANYWHERE. YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD TO FIND A DECENT ASSESSOR, AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE BEST THING. IS, JUST AS SOON AS IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE NOTICES ARE MAILED OUT, START THINKING ABOUT PUTTING THAT BACK UP IN HR. IS THAT IT? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NOPE. WE NEED CONSENSUS OR A MOTION. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION. WELL, MAYBE TWO, BUT IT'LL BE TWO THINGS IN THIS. ONE OF THE THINGS WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME IN IN THE LAST PROCESS WAS EXPLAINING TO FOLKS HOW THIS WORKED. SO IS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE INTERNAL OR THROUGH THE RFP THAT WE MIGHT HAVE SOME SORT OF PUBLIC FACE EVALUATION GUIDE? YES. SO, IN THIS, UNDER 27 ASSESSOR'S MANUAL, WE'VE STATED THAT THE ASSESSOR'S MANUAL SHALL BE SET UP IN AN EASILY COMPREHENSIBLE MANNER. ENABLING THE COUNTY TO SHOW THE TAXPAYER HOW PROPERTY VALUATIONS ARE DETERMINED.

CALCULATION METHODS SHALL BE THE SAME AS THOSE IMPLEMENTED IN THE COUNTY'S VISION APPLICATION. AND ALL CODES AND CUSTOM CALCULATIONS USED BY THE COUNTY'S VISION APPLICATION SHALL BE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSOR'S MANUAL. SO, WE ARE ASKING HERE THAT THEY BE TRANSPARENT AND THAT IT BE EASILY EXPLAINABLE TO THE PUBLIC. SO, THESE ARE ALL DISCUSSIONS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE ARE ON THE CONTRACT, TO BE HONEST. BE YES, SIR. WE HAVE WORKED BECAUSE, AGAIN, LAST YEAR IT WAS A LITTLE COMPLICATED, THE MODEL, TO TRY TO MAKE SURE IT'S A SIMPLIFIED MODEL AND EASY TO EXPLAIN

[03:35:02]

BUT I KNOW IT WAS A BIG CONCERN OF CITIZENS, THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT TOOK FOR THEM TO GET BACK TO, OR IT GOT DROPPED OFF COMPLETELY. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT KIND OF SPECIFIES? IT'S ONE WORKING DAY FOR RETURNING PHONE CALLS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR CALLING THOSE PARTS OUT.

THOSE ARE BIG PIECES. I'D LIKE TO THANK TRISTAN FOR ALL OF HIS HARD WORK AND COORDINATING WITH THE TECHNICAL EXPERTS ON THIS AS WELL. OKAY. WHAT DO YOU NEED TONIGHT, MS. PUDLOW? A CONSENSUS, SIR. OKAY. DO I HAVE A CONSENSUS? MR. HAMMOND? YES. MR. PUGH? YES. MR. WEBB? YES. MR. PUGH? YES. AND I'M A YES. SO, YOU'VE GOT THE CONSENSUS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. THIS IS A RESOLUTION OF AUTHORITY TO ADVERTISE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE APPROPRIATION OF THE $1.8 MILLION IN SOME CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE SCHOOL CARRYOVER. MS. DRURY. YES, SIR. GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN COX, BOARD MEMBERS, MS. PUDLOW, MR. KINGSBURY. AT YOUR JOINT WORK SESSION LAST WEEK WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD, THEY PROVIDED A LISTING TO YOU OF CAPITAL PURCHASES AND PROJECTS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO COMPLETE WITH THE REMAINING AMOUNT THAT THEY CONTRIBUTED TO THE GENERAL FUND, FUND BALANCE. AT THE END OF FY25.

THAT TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT IS $1,839,781. BECAUSE OF THE MAGNITUDE, THE SIZE OF THAT APPROPRIATION REQUEST, IT DOES NECESSITATE A PUBLIC HEARING. IT IS MORE THAN 1% OF YOUR CURRENT YEAR OPERATING BUDGET. 1% OF THE CURRENT BUDGET IS JUST OVER $1.7 MILLION. WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE A MARCH 3RD PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE OF THE TIMING. IT DOES REQUIRE TWO ADS AT VERY SPECIFIC TIME PERIODS. I HAD NOT CHECKED THE DATES AND THE DEADLINE TO THE NEWSPAPER, SO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE REQUEST IS MARCH 24TH. I HAVE PREPARED A DRAFT ADVERTISEMENT THAT OUTLINES GENERICALLY WHAT THEY HAVE REQUESTED. THEY DID FURNISH THE LIST. OF COURSE, THE MOST SIGNIFICANT COSTING PROJECT IS A ROOF AT N.B. CLEMENTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL AND THEN SOME MODULAR UNITS FOR THE HIGH SCHOOL. THERE ARE A VARIETY OF OTHER PROJECTS AND PURCHASES ON THE ATTACHMENTS IN YOUR PACKET. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS, MS. DRURY? NO QUESTIONS. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADVERTISE. I HAVE A MOTION TO ADVERTISE. I HAVE A SECOND.