Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. I'll call this uh budget work session April of April 9th, 2026 to order. Roll call, please.

Mr. Hoy, yes. Mrs. No, here. Mr. Dury, present. Mr. Ran, here. Mr. Shepard. Mr. Chairman, you have a quorum. Thank you. Over to the building. We're going to discuss the proposed CIP.

Uh yes, we are. Uh but to start with, we're going to have a presentation from PMA Architecture this afternoon on some design alternatives for the courthouse expansion in the broader Yorktown campus. And these things basically build on the study that they had previously brought to us. So I shared also this uh memorandum with you all this week talking about how we have previously discussed this hoping to to bring it back into context for you. So today's discussion really is intended to build on our prior conversations and provide additional information to support what we believe would be the next step should the board decide to head in this direction. So, and then following PMA's presentation, Susan and I are going to real quickly go through some CIP changes that the board has talked about and uh I think mostly that will will finish us up for this evening and whatever the board may have in terms of comments. So, I would start with uh Mr. Stoddel and uh who else were you going to bring up with you?

Um a couple of the folks who worked on this. Okay, we got I got two seats. here. Yep. I'll start off. Okay. Good afternoon. Thank you for letting us come and be with you this afternoon. Thanks for coming. Um to see you again.

Mr. Bell, let me introduce uh I guess what brought us to today. Um what we're here to talk about today was really uh prompted by uh the study revealing that expanding the existing courthouse um and building a new county administrative center on the existing properties. The way we were looking at it before um we were running into a lot of constraints. Um and and one of the implications was that we would have to have higher density parking and the other implication was that we were going to have to do extensive renovation to the existing courthouse. um the idea surfaced of let's look at another alternative and that alternative um in the beginning that alternative sounded preposterous but um now that we've looked at it

it's because it came from Tom and I well you know anytime anytime you start off with let's build a new building you're going to get some scance looks and um but that is what we looked that could we relax some of the constraints, remove some of the conflicts that were causing us to have to do structured parking decks with a new building and get a get a more really a less complex solution that could work on surface parking.

And after the study of it, we're here today to show you what the a couple of options look like. Now, it's not to say that's the these are the only ways to do it. This was a study to determine can it be done and would it come in and allow us to do it less intensively uh without all the complexities. And I think what we have found is is that uh a new building would allow you to get the court solution exactly right and do that the fastest. And then you have the opportunity to move the administration build uses and departments into the old courthouse with a less intensive renovation. Um that is what we want to walk you through. So this afternoon um uh I'd like to introduce the team that's here. We've got uh Keith Ventress who is your courts planner. and Keith will come up and walk you through the the plans. Um I I will say this that anyone looking at plans now just need to realize these are diagrams to show you basically where things could go and that it all fits. We don't have a final courthouse design. That's not what we came to do really. Um what we have solved is that

space we can fit it all together. We've reviewed it with um the you know the circuit court judge. Um I think he feels comfortable that there's a solution in here somewhere. But the real solution if you moved ahead would have to be would have to be worked out in a design phase. We're here to say that as a package this can work. It can fit on the site and here's a roughly the way it would lay out. So with that, I'd like um Axar Patel, my partner, and Thaad Rich from the Timmans group to come to the table and walk you walk you through the slides that we have.

Welcome back, Mr. Thank you.

I got it. So looking at this new courthouse building concept, we uh came up with some some goals and it was to relocate all of the court units and court functions into a new uh courthouse building. um convert the current courthouse into county administration office uses, keep the finance building up and running and move the or keep the commissioner of revenue and treasurer needs um with additional space for administration uses to grow into. And then with these two options, it will be possible to keep economic development, tourism building in use and in its current location. Um some advantages of a new courthouse at the existing site. Um it'll meet the long-term court needs uh without any complex renovations to the existing building. Um also allowing for future long-term growth. Um it'll be a lower cost to meet the 20-year court and administrative needs as a whole combined. Um, it'll, this is a big one, eliminates the need for structured parking and parking decks in the early years of the project. And as I mentioned previously, finance building and administrative space needs can be used and met. Um, what we predicted for the space needs of the administrative departments.

Does that not need to be renovated the finance building? Uh, yes. As departments will grow into the space and some will move out, it'll need to be renovated, but not as part of the project. It could be a separate project, but it won't be as indepth or as much of a intensive renovation as um as we originally had thought or it's probably phased because you would want to move it first before you tackle that building.

Correct. Um and this will build on existing infrastructure that is here on site currently. Um so just to orient everybody, this is the existing uh courthouse administrative building uh campus. We've got the existing administration building which we are um saying would be demolished for future parking needs. The existing economic and development economic development tourism building um which can remain in its current location in use. the finance building which will be used for administrative needs and then the existing courthouse which will be converted to administrative needs as well. So going into our first option um here we're looking at a new three-story courthouse. Um it's a smaller footprint that'll fit right on the site to the right of the courthouse. um keeping the commissioner of revenue and treasurer in the finance building, allowing them some elbow room to grow into the building and administrative functions can move into the existing courthouse. And then dad will talk a little bit about the site layout and parking.

Yeah, thanks Ashar. Um so like Doug mentioned uh phasing is going to be a big component of how things are laid out on the site. Um, but before I get into the site in depth, I want to talk about some of the constraints we were looking at. Um, can you go back a slide? There we go. All right. So, we have the existing administration building that's to be demolished. We've got the finance building that we're going to keep and then the existing courthouse building that we're going to renovate and keep. Um, so the trick is to be able to do the construction on the site while allowing all of the other activities to continue as they could with the least interruption possible. So, we landed here um trying to create a courtyard feel with the finance building and the existing courthouse to be renovated to the new administration building and then the new courthouse to the right of that. Um, as you can see, that's a threetory option. We don't have a lot of space there in that corner. Uh the topography falls off greatly. It's very steep back there. There's a big uh draw that's filling the pond and then the stream.

How tall was it if it's a threetory option? Three stories. Threetory option. 45T. 45 to 50 ft. What? 45 to 50. 45T. Yeah. So th this one will be a little taller than the other option that you'll see later in the presentation, but but with the topography, we can use that to our advantage. So we'll have a basement underneath the three stories. So all of the program fits within those four stories.

Um so by placing the building in this corner, we can allow for the construction of the building while the courthouse remains operational. Then once the construction of the courthouse is finished, we can move move them into there. That's right. And then we can move renovate the existing courthouse for county administration and then move county administration into that building

and then we can take out as much as we want of that that parcel to the northwest there that you see and put surface parking there. So the advantage with with this option is that we don't have to do structured parking to meet the needs in the immediate phases of the project. There will be a lot of phasing regardless though. Is it three stories the courthouse three stories above ground? Yes sir. Is that does that also include un subfloor too? Basement. So that's three stories over top of a basement. So yes sir. So four stories all together basically.

Yes sir. And you'll see on the on the following slides how those floors are broken up, but that is correct. So, also with this option, it allows for us to segregate employee parking. So, we'll have a secure employee parking. And it's hard to see from here, but we're envisioning that the existing parking lot serving the existing courthouse can be fenced in behind the finance building to create a secure lot for staff, um, judges, and and sheriff operations. We're proposing that there's ADA or two-hour parking up front uh that you can come in and out of and then the the vast majority of the public parking would be north of Alexander Hamilton Boulevard.

Let me ask a question on that. Is it is the parking also phased? Yes, sir. Yeah, we so we would have to do a portion above Alexander Hamilton, convert that to parking while some of this construction is going parking would likely need to be phased. Yes, sir. I notice on this slide it says I guess in this view looking at 632 parking spaces. Yes, sir. How many parking spaces are needed for him? admin, finance, uh, treasurer and courthouse employees and staff today.

I can the administrative parking need is about 200 200 to 250 depending on how you know we we account for visitors, right?

Um, and then the courts parking is about uh first let's say the beginning phase of this around 450 parking spaces and then that's projected to grow you know uh over the 20 years to a total of about 800 parking spaces. Okay. The reason I was asking is in this view here does this give us an option for event parking as as well? That's where I was kind of thinking. Sir.

Yeah. And and so as you can see in this option, the employee parking lot that's untouched for the most part. So So that does not need to be re reorganized. It can be reorganized to get more spaces out of it in our opinion, but in this option as you see today, we've left it as is. Question I guess because it'll be clear on this and I looked at looked ahead I guess at your other location. Not supposed to do that. Well, and instead of having to come back, it's going to be easier to look at it here.

Have you thought of a third option of long ways along Alexander Hamilton instead of adjacent to Route 17, but take up that front part of the parking? You'd have parking on the out on the back side of that and leave all the parking that you have now. You could even add parking on this other side with it where you're proposing the courthouse. Was that a consideration?

So, yes, sir, we did look at that and and the we did not look at putting this small three-story footprint in that specific location just due to the fact that the topography is working with us here. So, it's falling off. So, we can you can see that road on the east side or on the right side that would serve the security lot for sheriff to bring their the prisoners in or for the judges to have access to their their parking under or in the basement level. Um, if we were to take that footprint and move it to the place that you're suggest suggesting there, we don't have as much topography to work with us. And to get the road networks to work, it wouldn't make as much sense. So, we did look at a a smaller as you've seen in the uh in the second option um or a two floor option over a basement.

It's a larger option. Yes, sir. I was thinking the larger one would go over there, not not the smaller one. Yeah, the larger one would not fit in us be able to get the fire access that we need around that and uh everything else that comes with I'm just thinking like Stephen off hours that's a huge parking lot back there could be used for offsite parking during events.

Okay, thank you sir. All right. Next, I'll have uh Keith Ventress, our courts consultant, come up and explain go through the plans of the uh house. Thank you. So my job has been to work with the courts to sort of lay out their the trends that go to case load that go to personnel and space and detail that space and then sort of come up with suggestions on how the building could be organized to meet their needs. So that's we'll look at two different options today. And this is the first option. This is the basement. And so the red area represents the detainee area. um the gray area, we would have secure judges parking under the building

and some maintenance area under the building. So, you'll see that the basement is not the same size as the total footprint. Um but it is organized to keep all of the secure detainee holding in the basement as well as all of it. Um we believe so that would be more any correct. Yeah. The only access would be off of the back of the building from that secure access road where you would need the sally port and where prisoners are transported. What? So moving up one floor. So the sally port is where is large enough to get police vehicle into

Yes. drop off prison. Okay. I I believe we've sized it for a van. Okay. I was trying to picture the existing yeah comparison. Okay, this is the first floor now above the basement and in this model we essentially have a more or less one question. So the please so the driveway is up at the top here. Correct. Yes. Okay. And then again the judge's parking would be completely separate from towards the front of the building would come in. That's what I thought. Stairs on the right over here.

So, so this will be the Sally part will be from the outside separate opening into this area for the reason that you wouldn't want um prisoners coming in and being able to see the judge's car where they park. Yes. Right. So that's an entrance way there. I think that's at the very bottom where you see that box drawn and with the dashed outline. What is that? Oh, that's the entrance way. Yes. For the what Sally Port Sally Port Sally Port right here. This is the driveway.

So what's that down here? No, you're right. You're right. I'm so sorry. The Sally Port's at the top. Right. So you turn right. It's labeled Sally Port. You would turn right. Yeah. The road comes the dash line probably sometime that's the only access to the lower area. Correct. Thank you.

And then there are two elevators that you'll see. One of those is blue. So the judges would go from their respective parking to an elevator. The other's red and that's where detainees would be taken up. So essentially this has two courtrooms stacked on each floor going up one floor for each type of court. Okay. Okay. Where does it say court? Next page. Well, but he said on each floor. This is one floor right here. The basement. Call that the basement. But you don't have a court down here, do you? No. Okay. Downstairs. First floor or second floor.

So this is first floor. And and again, these options can change, but we put circuit court on the first floor for a couple of reasons.

One is the jury assembly, uh the records area. It's it's more of a public space and so we wanted to keep that on the ground floor. So here you would have two courtrooms on the right with secured holding between them. Um the light blue circulation uh that you can see is for judges and staff. The yellow is for the public down at the bottom of the diagram and that's where the main entrance would be with screening. And then on the left side would be the clerk's office and jury assembly. And at the top would be the judge's chambers and a conference room. I can I cannot read it.

So what we're saying this is the public circulation and this is the men and women's room. Correct. So where is the entrance into the court? Right here. No, you could you know up in here. It says main public entrance. That's the main entrance. I'm talking if if they're going to right there where your pen is in the in the middle. It's difficult to see on the print out. It might be easier on the screen. Okay. Right here. Yes. It means vestibule. Vestuble. So, a best practice

be nice if I could read it. Then it'd be okay. Thank you. Well, the best practice is the public enters into a vestibule, which is two separate doors to keep the sound from the hallway of coming into the court. And then beside those are attorney conference rooms and look, they have not, right? That's something that they they really need now. So, who's going to enter into this? This public people coming in. Okay. The general jury's symbol down on the far left and then they're called into the courtroom. I guess they come through the public circulation. They would they would walk down the hall in there,

but that's jury assembly. If you look at the top, you'll see jury. It says jury. Those are jury deliberation rooms. They would stay in restricted circulation. And you'll see public elevators and the lighter color right yes above the entrance. And then you'll have the same judge and detention elevators coming up through the core between the courtrooms. So, the elevators for the judge, is that going to be pretty standard size or is that one of these

standard size? Any questions on other questions on first floor?

All right. You'll see a very familiar pattern as you go up. This is a general district court. And so again, two courtrooms with security and everything on the right hand side, the clerk's office sort of there in the center, and then the Commonwealth attorney over on the left. So, a lot of office spaces over on the the left hand side. We spoke with uh the judge earlier this week and really judge Rizzik really stressed the need for separation between the juvenile and domestic relations from the other courts. And so that's why we've placed them above so they would be in the sort of the I don't want to say it's isolated because the public has to get up there but a quieter place in the building for sensitive nature of those proceedings.

Courtroom holding area for district court. What are they what are they holding in there? So they they are just same as circuit court. They're holding detainees that come over. Um, so they're kept in the basement and then when it's time for their court proceedings, they go up the elevator and they would be escorted off whatever floor. I thought the district court only dealt with um misdemeanors. I didn't think it dealt with u clerk here somewhere. I got it right. No, they deal with felonies also. Okay. Cause hearings. So felonies are tried. There's a judge there. Sorry. Okay. I don't spend a lot of time in district courts, so I don't know.

Hopefully not. Well, knock on wood. I'm thankful the courts are here to be the true experts. Yeah, I'm their parent right now. Um, any questions on the second floor? The Are you satisfied with that stair? That long corridor? That seems kind of I don't know what else you could do with it, but it seems like a awkward empty space there. Yeah, I think as long as you know there's a way to get down on the public side with the stair and there'll be a stair in the back and two stairs on the you know it it is a long distance so I'm guessing that's restricted access too. Yes, but the elevators are fairly central. Yes.

So those are stairs there. Is that what that is? The little squiggly lines and where it says that's mechanical vents. The stairs are little white boxes on the outside of the building. Um, that's the only way you get down out of there. Could you have to go back? You have to go outside the building. No, it it will be connected to the inside. It's just how we're showing them. So, you would go to the, you know, the end of the yellow uh to the right at the bottom and you would have stairs there that would go down stairs here and here. They're enclosed.

And the common is the one above the Commonwealth Attorney's Office at. a long distance to get there on that long long corridor and that's something that we can look at, but it it would meet code from this standpoint, but placement will be something we can look into. All right, moving to the third. So, as I mentioned, juvenile and domestic relations court.

So, it's that same two courtroom setup. They also need holding cells. Then you have their clerk's office and the lighter green color in the center. And then to the right you have court services unit and juvenile court services. And they for their operation it's ideal if they are in proximity. They don't have to be adjacent to but if they are in proximity to Judah domestic relations. So, what we're hoping here is a a quieter floor that's not near the bottom to keep everybody together for the uh efficiency of their own operation.

So, uh Judge, where's your district your your drug court? So, we'll run the recovery court out of one of the two circuit court rooms. My question is if you got the two courts in operation at the same time, the juvenile ones and you're meeting some places holding. Yes, it's Is it divided or is it It's divided. Do people Yes, that's what I needed to know. It's a little um Yeah, we haven't put all the little walls and lines in there, but yes, there would be at least two holding cells, if not three, that would be there.

Thank you. And to get a sense of scale here, um, these hallways like between the circuit, excuse me, the court services and the juvenile domestic relation court, they got the blue halls. What What What are we looking at in terms of size? It's a normal public hallway. I don't know what normal is, but 5t probably. That's why that door wide enough for two people to pass. Yeah. Yes. squeeze wheelchair, two wheelchairs, 36 in accessible in

Yeah. I mean, this layout here that makes it pretty much cut and paste for three floors on on the right hand side. It seems like be pretty efficient in construction. You're not doing something different on every floor. It's pretty much the same footprint each floor straight up on the right hand side and not have a lot of difference on the left hand side. So that should help with construction and cost. We we really do believe in courtrooms being built around a central core that comes up and you're exactly right. It does make it efficient for the construction. It makes it efficient for the public's understanding of where things are. So they'll they just need to know what floor to get off on and everything's going to be the same, right?

It's their experience that we want to enhance through this. And it's a lot of parking. So in this in this diagram here in the front where you have the parking and all that. So people are going to have to going to have we have stairs to climb the hill or from the parking lot over to the to the the courthouse back that hasn't all been flushed out yet, but I'm sure Yeah, we'll we'll make sure. So you got a you got a road you got to cross but then that's kind of if I'm not mistaken that's you got a hill to climb there too. Are you option two or I just want I just want

So that's a great point. So as we talked about this is really very conceptual. Some of the items you're raising are great points about the width of a hallway and how the parking all lays out. But today this is just very conceptual to get you to the point where you understand that this is all doable. They've got the square footage from this and as you can see it's pretty rudimentary what they have brought with them. So some of those details about long hallways and stairways being outside those will all be addressed when you come to a final design. So I I would say while they're all very valuable thoughts, those aren't things that we would solve today.

As to where we left off.

All right. So now um I will walk you guys and I will walk you through option two. Um, so we can see here right off of Route or US17, we've got a new courthouse um that'll be centered on the previous Alexander Hamilton Boulevard. Um, again, we'll be keeping the finance building and and moving it or growing commissioner revenue and treasure into that road. Correct. Okay. Correct.

And moving the administrative department into the existing courthouse. This um will require a little bit more involvement in terms of the overall site that that will cover. But um this is a two-story courthouse option that we know will work and lay out nicely on the site. Yeah. So with this option, we looked at the site holistically saying if we broke as many constraints as we could, how could we most efficiently and economically lay this thing out um to solve future growth as well. So we broke the constraint of Alexander Hamilton. So we are proposing to close off the uh exit from US7.

We we had our traffic engineers look at this and this is a in in VOTE terms a relatively small uh vehicles per day going over Alexander Hamilton. And from their analysis of it, it does not affect fire and EM EMS response, police response. Um and it really doesn't imp impact traffic as well. So with this option, we centered the courthouse as you around the corner from Ballard Street and then you turn in the government complex. You have the courthouse sitting right as you as the front door of the county. Uh then you would enter and go into the roundabout, take a right to go to the public parking that would serve the courthouse, take a left to go to the employee parking lot that serves uh the administration building and the courthouse building. It also allows for us to get fire access all the way around the building. You can see the small gray bar going around the back side of the building. Um we we also envision this being a twostory option over a basement. So that basement level as the grade falls off uh that Mr. Shepard pointed out. There's still a lot of grade back here. Uh we take advantage of that grade, but it wouldn't be the third story. So it'd have less visual impact in in the Yorktown district. Um

what's the yellow is that the courtyard? So yellow we are just holding as it could be hardscape it could be just dressed up uh to try to get pedestrian movements and create an access between the courthouse the finance building and and then the new administration building to try to the syn bring synergy between them for pedestrian movement. Okay.

I guess I want to say is what are the advantages of number two? And so number two, we think in our opinion it segregates the parking better. It breaks it up so you don't have as far to walk from public parking to the courthouse. Um you also allow for in our opinion more efficient employee parking so that you can get employees staff to the administration building and to the courthouse building. And then it also provides public parking to both the finance and the administration building. In our opinion, it we feel like it breaks the site up reasonably um so that you are it's not so massive,

right? Yes, ma'am. Um any other questions on this option? Well, let's go through the schematic that shows where the courts are, etc. I'd like to hear the same discussion on Yeah. where all the facilities are and does it make sense?

Yes, sir. Yeah. All right. So, we're moving from the two courtroom per floor option to a four. And so, again, they're still centralized, but they're beside each other. So, we start with the basement. The exact same functions are in this basement. So, the sallyport is at the top and judges parking is beside that. They both go to their respective elevators. You have holding cells and mechanical areas all down in the basement. So the exact same functions that you saw before.

What is meant by the um un un evacuated area? What does that mean? Excavated. I'm sorry. I can't read. It's just the footprint of the floor above is larger than the basement. So, if I switch to the next slide, you'll see that all that fills in and you have a larger the basement's just a smaller footprint than the first floor. Easy if we could take the first floor, put one and two next to each other. Oh, to put them side by side. Yes. Use your imagination.

Can I tear it apart? So on the first floor uh the public comes in at the bottom. Same as in the other diagram. Circuit court is now to the right. The courtrooms, the clerk's office, the jury assembly. Still those very public functions are on the right. But on the left hand side is the general district court. So now we have two elevators coming up for prisoners, two elevators for uh judges and staff that could come up on that back side um associated with each of the pairs of courtroom. And then the clerk's office for the general district court is the light purple all the way over on the left hand side

courtroom bigger. I I think it's a perception this perception because you've you've got option two is elongated and it and it may be just to try to you know it's it's like a JPEG file that we're trying to squeeze on the PowerPoint but dimensionwise um both of them the exterior walls measurements are all the same. Yes, they're the same courtrooms but not off the building. Correct. Correct. Okay. I see a judge elevator. to debt is that's what detention detainy detainy elevator.

So they would come from the basement holding cell through that office that building into to the court holding room. Yes. Holding room and then then they could go in court. Okay. Yes. into the Sallyport down that little red hallway and into the sheriff's detainy area. This is the

Sally port sally ports in the top sort of center right here. Got it. And into the detainine area where there will be on both versions both options you know you have to have separation male female and juvenile. So both options will have have that. Where's the like? Don't you have a observation or control? I mean, I maybe already too much detail, but there's an office somewhere in here that's going to have a all the monitoring equipment. That'll be in the sheriff's office. In the sheriff's office, the sheriff's office, right? It's to the right of that red. Okay. Upper right

control room where they can open and close the holding cell doors or monitor cameras and all of that. All right, back to square footage of the circuit court clerk's office on the option two is less than the circuit court option one. They're the same size. They're just a different look. I know it's just it's the perception because we're shrinking uh the four courtroom per floor uh image down to get it to fit on the on the slide but square footage wise they are the same size shaped a little different but they are the same size.

So each room courts offices etc and so forth are all the same size almost identical almost identical. So what's the advantage? Let's get let's get to second floor.

Second floor and you'll see one of the advantages. Um so on second floor again trying to keep juvenile and domestic relations separate on that floor, their clerk's office to the right. And then you have the court services unit and juvenile court services in the yellow on the second floor. Again, they want to be in proximity and the Commonwealth Attorney's Office. Now, in the grand scheme of things, when space becomes tight and you need additional courtrooms and there's nowhere else, you know, to grow, they could be moved out. Those two office space components could be moved out. So, our recommendation would be to bring the judges elevator and the detainee elevator up on that left side all the way to the top floor. And then you could construct two additional courtrooms on that floor to give the building a little more futurep proof. So that's one of the advantages.

Okay. Um you could do that in the other one, but it's sort of awkward. One courtroom stacked on top of another with holding. And so for expansion expansion this option the section option is better. Why don't you say that? That's

which offices are you saying could be relocated? the I I hate to say it because I know they really want to be in the courthouse, but when push comes to shove, the Commonwealth Attorney's Office could be relocated. They're not in every courthouse in Virginia by far. And the court services unit and juvenile court services could be located relocated from the courthouse. But we hope if that decision is ever made, it is way out into the future. And you're talking about the past 20 years. We already at six court rooms and today we managed with three. Right.

Uh four. Four. So adding two additional in this. So th this courthouse will certainly get you through the 20-year period. Right. That was Yeah. This is a question I had that this these plans. What the what's the lifespan? You're saying at least 20 years as we sit here before we're looking at future space constraints. Yes. A 20 year life cycle. Okay. What what is the projected cost differential between the two? No, we're not going to discuss cost today. Sorry. Oh, I Okay. I just want to know plus or minus. Well, let's discuss the a billion dollars. How's that? We'll say we've discussed them internally and they're not that far apart. So,

okay. That's remind me when when was our original this courthouse. Today's courthouse. When was that built? 97. 97. Okay. Sheila's got her name on the building. So we got 30 years out. So kind of going to what Sheila was talking about and and looking proportionally. Um one of the things the way this the first one option depicts like the circuit court and the clerk's office got them all together. It's half the half the pattern. Yes.

That of the footprint. And I look over here on the option two and you got four courts in there. four courtrooms in here plus the circuit circuit court um plus two additional holding room. I mean no an additional holding room. So either this this is really jamming this option two is really jamming them in there. This is the space that you would use the first floor. Option two shows a bigger building. He said it was you said the footprint was the same.

You said you told me it was the same. The footprints of the individual building blocks are the same. So the across both options, all your courthouse or courtrooms are the same size. All your clerk's offices are the same square footages. Oh, so it's okay. I understand. I got it. Well, yeah, but the way the way was it being explained, I was taking the same way Sheila was. That's the same size, smaller four stories with larger threetory with the thought for option two being a twotory instead of a three-story building to minimize the visual impact. Visual impact. Yes. I I think it would be helpful to put them each floor on the same page and size, you know, appropriately to one another so you can get a sense.

Well, I know what they're now cleared this up. I know the footprint's bigger. I think I understand it now. I mean, yeah. Chief, have have you seen the these concepts before? Absolutely, sir. Okay. Just curious your thoughts on getting your big equipment in there should need it. we can get to many sides of the building as possible. better off we are because if I look at go back to option two um site plan site plan so the square footage is the same like the the proposed new admin building you got a fire in that b right the southeast corner can you give your big trucks back I'm trying to hear what he's saying

but if it's the first time you're seeing it you don't have an answer yet so no but there are ways to do that as far as grassrete other mountable curbs, multiple curbs, those type of things that we can have a hardened surface to drive around the building even the grass on top of it. We had to gain access to those. That's something would be determined when we do the site plan reviews and the actual plan review with the codes office. Okay. Just Yeah, we make sure that there fire access. Yeah. So, you're saying the fire truck can get all the way around this? That's what that's what I'm asking. You know, make sure that Yes. That's what we have a plan in department for. this problem. Okay. Prominent will any other

option one looks a whole lot cleaner to me in terms of design, but I'd like to hear from the judge. Well, yeah. What does Judge Rid think we should lean towards? So, I'll leave that to the experts. I just want space. That's a compound amount of square foot. I have no preference. It's whatever makes most sense for the board and for the community. And obviously there are a lot of factors to consider. One of the thing that I was the fact that you expand like this and you like the body. It's easier to expand than option one and we don't know what the future holds.

But a three-story building on a smaller footprint is going to be a cheaper build than a much larger two-story building. And it's just fundamental by how much how much you can think about longevity. And Gooseley Road will be your first access point if you close it. If you build this courthouse over Alexander Hamilton, Gooseley Road will be your last opportunity to turn right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That that's a miss. That's my biggest heartburn with option two is closing that that road. But I thought they would be cool and build right over the road. You just drive underneath the building. Yeah. It can be done. No, it can't. We'll have me parking on 17.

We'll have me parking on 17. Just pull off the shoulder. Thank you. And I'll turn this back over to

Yeah. So, here just a quick comparison of the two options we talked about. Um option one, looking at that threetory option. um on the east side of the site parking uh for parking and circulation. Your parking is going to be more separated where you have that one public parking lot across Alexander Hamilton. It'll be less convenient to the public. Um in terms of the historic area impact, it'll build around a courthouse green with the new building. So, we'll be able to keep that courthouse green that we have currently. Um and it'll be a much less complex solution and quicker to implement. Um option two with a twotory building on the west side of the site. Um the parking is distributed better amongst the site, so staff and the public will have a much easier time getting to where they need to get to. Um the new courthouse will be less visually noticeable from the historic area, so less of an impact on the historical resources of Yorktown. And then complexity, you know, of course with closing Alexander Hamilton Boulevard, it'll be more complex. Um, and it'll require more reconstruction of parking and using less of what's existing.

I like the work. That's very good job. Yeah. So, I think this has kind of met our needs in terms of how can we build it all in one site. How can we uh eliminate at least one of the major buildings to build? Well, and then I think looking at closing the Alexander Hamilton, I'm not sure that's that's a non-starter for me, but there's other options for that. I want to do Well, my only my big my big issue is what's I'm not going to be happy until I see the price. Okay. And then when the price comes out, then then one way or another, I'll be I'll be happy. I mean, if you're meeting all the judges requirements, okay, both options, I'm good. But when you come in, you come in with a 10 million$20 million difference,

then you're going to have an that that's kind of to me is a significant impact. I'm not drawing any assumptions on this stuff because I mean I've seen I've seen something that looks really beautiful and end up costing us costing a ton of money. We still we still looking what about is it about 80 million for this building? 90 million we're discussing. No, but I mean it's general the general idea. No, we've laid that out already. Okay. I mean, we've already made comments about 160 million for two buildings. So, there there have been comments about prices, but they're not close.

They're not the No, they're not those solutions.

So, okay, then I'll stay off of it. All right. Cool. Um they both serve the purpose. The question is what do you want to look at? Do you want something that's massive or do you want something that fits more into what what town is those town thinking of the future? You want to expand have some room to be able to or not? uh if you want there's a lot that we have to consider on this. So I like to like like Tom Tom wants to know what the bottom price is for both of them. Then he'll throw a dart at it and get the cheapest one.

But I think we have to look less expensive. Cheap is the wrong word. Use the word less expensive. Less expensive one. All right. But but I but I think that there's a a lot of variables in here that we really need to consider consider. So what's the next step? What what do you need from us Mark? Um to your your census to go forward with design work. I think you have that. Yes. And I think the only up question in front of us is should we go forward with both options or should we limit it at this point to one? Well, it certainly would be easier if you picked one.

We can't pick one right now to understand. How do you So we got to get far enough down the road we understand the cost and the delta le and then we can pick one and say run with that. I can tell you in general that the first one is going to be cheaper largely because of the parking lot arrangement because there'll be a lot of reconfiguration and asphalt site work to do like that. How much cheaper and scale prepared and construction simpler construction Jeff please do

right now we're looking at you know a sense of the size of the building and both of these options are really just about the same overall square footage that the site locations in these two options are very different and there are a lot of unknowns. Um, so in approaching a budget right now, the it's important that we put some contingencies in for things we don't know and we don't have answers for engineering of of parking, storm water,

uh, soils. We just don't know those things. And the rationale for moving ahead with design is to know more. Mhm.

And that's going to be your special sort of key in getting the most cost effectiveness out of this. And so if you move forward into the design phase, you're going to be able to reduce a lot of these uncertainties. And I think if we put a number out right now, it's just it's got a lot of assumptions in it which have contingencies. And it's going to be to your benefit to move into the design phase, understand the site better, and then start eliminating some uncertainties so you really get down to what the cost is going to be. Because I think truthfully, if between now and when you have a design, you've got some opportunities to bend the cost curve the way you want. And and Doug, you're you're right that all things being equal, option one would be probably be a cheaper cost, but the landscape is different between those two options. And I would imagine that's going to be a lot of back filling and reinforcement on option one because you got that drop off, soft grind and so forth that could jack the price up of that compared against the option two. We won't know that until they really get down into the weeds on what it's going to take to stand up either one of the two buildings.

I agree. So, there is some some thought u I mean you can go down you can go so far and then you can say wait a minute we just keep coming back to us you reach a point where you just pitch it out. I mean I could tell you right now I'm not going to go for a $200 million operation period. Okay. I mean I'm just I don't think any board member here is going to go. So the point So we got a limit to what we're going to do. All right. It's still it's still a lot lower than that, too. So yeah, I know it is 95. That's a fact. Uh but um I already said 58. So

that's my number. If you looked if you looked at option one and option two and you look where option one is placed compared to option two, I mean you're putting it right in the middle in the village, okay, as opposed on the outside of the village and that's, you know, that's going to have a significant look at of this village. So I mean those are kind of things that we got to somewhere along the way we got to make that consideration so we don't we get moving on this right. So

would we tell you to go forward your guidance I'm trying to I'm trying to kind of parameter you know put parameters around your guidance here. So Tom, in in the in the long run, you may end up not making cost your your value statement, but it might be a consideration when you look at all the end of it 200 million day. That's not a non-starter. How how about for next step is the artist rendition and the visualization of both. Yeah. So you you look at it from the front and the back from Alexander Hamilton the other row so that we can actually kind of see what it look like in in in real life and that may help drive some decision and

I'd like you to come back probably in the September time frame. Could you come back with a rough estimate on cost difference between the two or what would that give you a 10% maybe engineering design or 20 15% you know not a we need to know the cost or a ballpark of what those costs are. What whatever it takes to get to that, that's what we need. Or at least the delta, then you can't do it. Doing one. Somebody brings me two projects and wants me to price them up and they're totally different and they only want to pay for one. Ain't going to happen. No, you have to do both. You got to do both. You have to do both

to get us to a point where we feel confident that numbers are going to be in this range. I feel you're squirming there. No, sir. No. I mean, so you don't We're giving you parameters to work with, right? You are going. Okay. I mean, we're not putting you in a place where you can't you can't go. I'm I'm great. I'll take care of it. There you go. He's going to handle it. That's what I like to hear. I don't I don't think we need a rendition. I think we need a cost is what we need first. The rendition that can come later. You say rendition of what the outside what I was asking just I don't think we need to spend the money on

artist destroyed anyway I would think that yeah I'm thinking of like when we do the schools and stuff you know we were looking at what what the building look like and putting what you're putting what you're putting where and and the cost of doing the things well just remember a big part of our decision process for the stock master building were picture A picture P picture C helped us decide where where to go and rest the community. So we don't but you only had one one building. We have two buildings now and it's double the cost. Yeah. To do that. Have we given you yet? I have it. Okay.

Jeeoff. Thank you. Appreciate the help. Yep. Thanks folks. Thank you.

So, we're going to cut through 200 million out of the CIP. Be right where we need to. You find it, I'll go along with it. Okay. So, what we wanted to finish up with tonight as far as presentations go was to talk about the CIP. Again, I want to run you through where we've talked about the CIP during this budget process and then we have taken some of the comments your requests and made adjustments in the CIP. So, we wanted to share those with you. Uh if you seem to be in a in agreement with this, I I think we can wrap this aspect of the budget up.

So, if you would the next slide. So, we talked about the uh CIP with each one of you individually back in November. That was followed by a preliminary uh presentation from Mr. Stoddel and his team that just walked out. In addition to that, um I gave you the CIP, the initial presentation, my recommendation for the CIP. So at that point you'd seen it twice. On January 30th, your board retreat, we had a conversation about CIP there as well. Uh and again with the operational budget, I also gave you an overview of the CIP at that point in time. And then you've also had a uh another budget one-on-one with the finance staff uh back in March. So, we've had several opportunities to view the CIP. Susan is going to go over the changes that we have collected from you all and make sure that this meets your request. So, Susan, if you don't mind.

Sure. So, building on PMA's presentation, we've made some adjustments to the project that we had in the uh preliminary CIP for the space study implementation. We've renamed it Yorktown Campus Improvements because you you know you've seen that it will affect more than one building. We originally had $12 million in here for this project. Again, just a placeholder. What we did was we accelerated some of that funding to 27. So, we now show 10 million in 27 and that's really to put the funds um in next year to start the design process. Um, then we moved construction dollars out to 29 and added 20 million to it. Now, you may say, why 20 million? We know we're not going to be able to build this building for 20 million, but it was the amount that we had available within our current debt um financing policies ratios. So, we just, you know, we put what we could in there for now. And we know that as we go through this process, we're going to get finer estimates on what that cost is going to be. And then we're going to incorporate that when we do our 15-year CIP. So right now we just don't know enough. So we we put a placeholder there really just um within our debt.

Remind us real quick this we have a sixyear. We do and now we're going to go 15 year. Is that but we still going to have a sixy year? No it'll be replaced with 15. Is that is that 8 million also debt financed? Yes.

And will any of this drive our have a policy change? um we're we're going to look at that all together. So, you know, one thing that we talked to our financial adviserss about after our January retreat was the timing of when we need to make any potential policy change. Their recommendation is that we consider that as it gets closer to knowing what these costs are and what is the year that we're actually going to borrow the dollars. The rating agencies like to see that you're making, you know, changes in in alignment with when you need the debt. So, we don't want to do it too soon, but that's something that we're going to be talking about. All the levers we might need to pull, whether that be revenue options, whether that be um policy options, all those things we're going to look at in conjunction with a financing plan once we know what numbers we're talking about.

And that's going to take in consideration the single year assessment process. All that fits together. We'll all we'll have that conversation during the next budget cycle. how all that plays together when we go to 12% dead load, etc., right? And and so, Mr. Sheepard, for more detail, I do have a a memo for you so that you could read about how this will all play out together, the the single-year assessment, the debt load change, etc. So, I can share that with you.

My concern and and I don't want to get off the subject here, but my concern is that all the pieces have to to fit. Okay. But based on a tax rate that is steady state tax rate%

well that yes but you better be you better brace yourself when you see the number. That's what I'm saying. Okay. Because if that doesn't work the board doesn't agree to that then your pieces fall apart or you have to make changes significant changes. So, I mean, I just don't want anybody I I can just tell you I was stunned when I talked about this the other day, okay? So, just brace yourself next year of all years. It's done silence. That's what that is. This is called stun silence. Okay.

Okay. The other change that we've u made in the CIP is for fire station renovations. So we have accelerated uh the study that we had in there from um FY30 to FY28. And so that study is kind of going to really look at all of our stations locations I think. Yeah. To make sure that we've taken all that into account before we start doing the design. We know we've got some pressure at station two and three. Um but we want to have that overarching look of all the stations before we start that work.

Right. So this will help us get that plan in place. And then we accelerated the um initial design money for station two. I mean, the thought was I could do two and three potentially because those are the same design, but again, depending what comes out of the study, we've now moved that to FY30. Um, just based on the critical nature of the needs of the fire department in those buildings. Okay. You moved I'm sorry, moved what to uh FY30. Um, the design money for station two. Well, it could cover station two and three. I think they're right now the same uh building. Um, so the thought was we could same what I mean the same design. Same design. Okay. on the building. Only engineering you do for one works for both. Well, it makes sense. I mean, save yourself some money,

right? I'm all the same. Tab high school. Okay. So, but you know, when we get to firefighting and in the sheriff's department, we started talking about priorities. Okay. That's what our strategic plan says. So I'm just kind of going to go back to this puzzle we want we're going to put together. And so we're moving this thing out. This is FY27. So we're talking about three years. Well, we've actually accelerated the plan moved it forward from 27. You got to read it. Well, 28. All right. I thought, see, that's what I was trying to pick figure out what we what we're trying to do with it. I see the 28. 28.

Okay. Got it. Good. You solved my problem. Okay. a problem. It wasn't a problem. We just got solved. Just a couple other adjustments. We've

we've shifted the North County Library design to 28. We know that our current uh contract with WR covers us all the way through 27. You know, while those negotiations are ongoing, we recognize that we may have to ex we may have to extend it to finish our design. Um but we think the timing of putting it in 28 makes more sense with the current plan. Uh the other ma change that we u made is moving the light foot small area plan accelerating that from 28 to 27. We understand there's been some changes in that in that property um that might make that um developable in the near future. So we wanted to make sure we got that accelerated

and we have developers coming out of coming out of the woodwork to uh approach us. So we need to be ready. So So remind me what the small area plan is again. This is the lightfoot pottery property. So, it's a comprehensive plan for a small area. So, in in this in this instance, it would be uh in Mr. Hoid's district up there in the Lightfoot area right there around Fenton Mill where that new division subdivision is going in there up 199 and the old pottery property cross on the right. Right. That that general is senating. So, so what is the plan? What does the plan consist of? Less development. What does the plan consist of? It's

basically the same thing the comprehensive plan. Yeah. But it it takes that focus area. We look at transportation, you know, environmental use and so forth. And we but it's concentrated in that small area and it's very focused public engagement, those kinds of things. So after you spend $400,000, what do we have in our hands? you'll have a plan that kind of talks about what the community wants to see in that area and you know because we would do more a very public engagement process with you do $400,000 and all we're going to get is a plan. That's where I was going. Yeah. Cost $400,000 unfortunately. That's about the price for consultants to do those things.

So what are we doing? Surveying and stuff or what? Yes. Yes. It' be an engagement process in that. $4,000. So, let's go back to this concept of this plan. So, last time I remember seeing anything that still that my old brain still remembers, but it showed some kind of development up there in commercial property. It had housing that was some plan to put it try to make some improvements to or get the state to fund some some uh what is an exit in off of 64 and all that. So, I'm not sure what we're talking about here now. Well, Doug at that point had an issue with with the the roads. Is this the same property that had the factory on the

Yes, that same property. It's the warehouse. It's the pottery property was it's it's the Gawk property that's next to the Waw Wa. Um it's what happens on the interchange at 199. It's all that has to be worked and we knew it when we signed off on the comp plan and basically left it untouched. We said we need to come back and do a focus study. Well, here we are and now we've got developers coming out out of our ears uh wanting to get moving on that property and and we need a plan. What do we want in that area? Let me ask a question here. Is this our property or is this privately owned? It's privately owned, right? Zoned by the pottery. But what would you accept in that area?

Well, well, what what is this? No. What? My question is what is it zoned now? It's already industrially the light industrial economic opportunity mostly. All right. So that kind of dictates what can go there if they want to sell the land. I mean if they sell the land, right? So we don't own this land.

So I'm I'm coming back is $400,000 on on property we don't own that they can the owner of the property can come in there has a right. They own it. that set economic opportunity and they create whatever they want. Now, what are we doing with $400,000 going to go reszone the whole place? Is that not do we not run into danger of downzoning the property? I mean, that's what I'm trying to understand here. I understand the question, but but at the end of the day, we don't have a design for that area. We don't have a plan on how we're going to address address it. We don't know how we're going to address the traffic in that area. We have not looked at it. The question is

it's a two-lane road. I know, but we don't do that to any place. No, that's a commercial property and that's the issue. And the issue is we're way overdue on doing it. This should have been done in a couple month.

Okay. So, we got to come back to the point of we don't own the property. So, we don't own the property. We don't own the road because that's state road. Okay. So, we've created this plan. Are we supposed to put highways in there? Because we don't have the right. We don't own the rightway. We don't establish the roads. We don't We'd have to go even maybe even get the roads if we can get the money from the state anyway, which is on its ass when it comes to transportation money. So, I'm trying to understand what we could spend 4 thou $400,000 on. Why can't we get the ina in-house staff to kind of draw up designs? And if you because when it gets to the end game here, I think what you're talking about is reszoning the property maybe.

Well, then you got to get the homeowner or the property owner to go along with that because then you end up where's our lawyer. So, we end up with a problem of downzoning the property. Then we're going to end up in court over there in a brand new building. So, $400,000 is is a lot of money to be spending and I don't understand what we're spending it on. Well, well, I guess goes back to what you're saying, too. We we we can't do this in house. What what's what's our limitation? I mean, it I guess it's a big thing. I mean, it's a big project to take on as staff, and we thought bringing in some outside thought process would be helpful for that.

But can can you may not necessarily sit right here, but maybe you can outline to us what needs to be done to to develop this plan and help us understand better. So, because right now it sounds like we're just asking out of this property if we can wave a magic wand, how would we like to see it developed

is what kind of what we're asking. But, um, I mean, I'd kind of like to see you you you all take a stab at a stab at that and present what what that could look like. I mean the biggest piece is the engagement process community and asking them what they you know spending that time with them and then figuring out how best to take what they tell us they want to see there and then implementing that into a small area

and that's fantastic that's fantastic input that we're going to want to have but also it would be very helpful if you came in with a here's a couple of ideas to help seed that conversation and not just kind of come in cold like would you like us what would you like to have happen with this property here? Um just kind of help to help that conversation.

I mean it's I I agree in some ways with you. Yes. And sometimes it's better though to get the public input first. find out what the citizens would like to see there before we start throwing ideas about things out because our ideas may be com I mean we're just four staff members you know and we haven't had a chance to engage the broader public in it this would give us that opportunity to engage that broader public and get some ideas about how to proceed in that area and then we would get the remember your your your staff also knows right off the top what And we don't it can't be done. Correct. Correct.

Because you know the limitations maybe the average homeowners just don't have the ability to right and put this in to handle it. Most of this property is under a single ownership. There are some you know pieces of that but the greater portion that's undeveloped is under one ownership. So, you know, there may be some compromise and that, you know, maybe we elevate one area of that to allow for different uses and bring down another area as a compromise to allow them. So, well, you were talking about downzoning. We're not talking about down zoning, but I mean, sometimes you can work those things out when you get into those processes where one portion maybe you make

a different type of zoning. Maybe it goes down to a general business and another area goes up to industrial or something to that effect. But we wouldn't know that until we started engaging the community and finding out what they envision this area being in the future.

Okay. So based but I hear exactly what you're saying but you're talking about B you're okay. When you do a zoning and Mr. Lawyer I've done a planning commission and I understand how this stuff works. So when you do a when you're going to change zoning on properties, you got to do the whole county and take and and look, in other words, you got to look across the whole county or you are going to end up in a problem with the with a a property owner that could be I mean it's like us going over to planes and and reszoning reszoning planes without their input. Um it that's why we have a comprehensive plan. You don't have you you take a comprehensive plan, you get the general idea, then you can go to your zoning and when you do a zoning when we talk about it through the comprehensive plan, that's when you lay out the bits and pieces of what you want to see the county to look. And then when you do your zoning from that, you you're you're you got at least some legal background to go to say, I'm changing the zoning on this. I'm going to go from from uh say rural residential. I'm going to take it all the way to our I don't know you make it whatever you just change the whole zoning. If you tried any in in between the comprehensive plan to do this, I think we're we're getting into we're going to get into a significant legal challenge, especially with a piece of property this big.

But that's exactly what the small area plan is. It's a it's a comp plan. It's just for a smaller area and it brings in the public, right? And this would bring in the public also. Well, it's not going to cost us $400,000 to do that. Well, to hire a consultant is what's going to cost $400,000. And part of their we hire a consultant for the comprehensive plan. We haven't had we haven't done that in However, I would point out that staff spent four years and and 10 15 volunteers.

We there was a significant effort put forth on that. That's because we didn't put this we didn't put the screws down and say we wanted this thing done when it's supposed to been done every five years. Right. Right. We didn't do that. So now here we got a gap in our comprehensive plan. We don't have this in a comprehensive plan. Right. That's what you're telling. And so we got this but we but we got a huge piece of property that we don't own that could very well spend $400,000 that we end up uh having to reszone or or or just ends up right where we started or ends up where we started. So, I'm just I'm right now my my concern is what are we spending $400,000 on?

And if we got developers championing at the bit to develop, I mean, can we lean on them to go present us a present us a plan and let let them take take that? Well, that's what if we have developers championing at the bit who want to develop their property. Okay, show us your vision. You think you're going to spend that kind of money on property? No, they they probably won't because they'll probably do that in in house. But hey, if if you got a vision, share with us. I like Doug's approach that instead of just letting that go through the wild, let's try to develop a vision for the county for that property get developed. I just don't know if we need to spend half million dollars to develop that. And I'm trying to figure out, yeah, that that's the whole point. We don't own the property. I keep coming back to that.

We don't own the property, but we're going to go over there and tell that home that property owner, hey, look, this is our concept, and we spent $400,000, and this is our concept of what we're going to think we see on your property. Can I just clarify, Mr. Shepherd that I'm sorry Mr. You know that's what the comprehensive plan is. The comprehensive plan is the long range vision that the county has for it. So we're telling all the property owners in the county that our comprehensive plan vision is this for your property. So it's not any really it's not different in this case. I mean it's just on a smaller scale. Right. But and we did that already for this piece of property. We and the comp comp plan called it economic opportunity for the most part.

Correct. We want to come in and go in a more microscopic view. Is it still EO or is it EO plus something else? Is it divided up? That's which which again I like the vision idea, you know, instead of just hope for the best. Let's, you know, put some structure around it. But again, like you said, is not our property. We can visualize anything you want and the property owner may go, "Nope, I like EO because I got to buy for it and that's what we're going to do." Here's here's a possible I'm getting right now is developers who say I want to build high density uh and we don't have to accept that right we don't we we the board do not have to accept that but we but we should come back with what is it you want in that property

well we asked we asked the property owner but here's the other thing too that road that road is um you might be able to get a developer to build some pieces of the road but they're not going to build that road to make to meet what you're talking about and it's going to be the state that's going to do that. So, if we want to do a plan, I mean, this is going to be kind of almost ridiculous. I hate to say this, but it's going to be like scar smart scale money. In other words, we have to go and compete that. Now, how do we compete it is in the state of Virginia smart scale,

I know, but in the state of Virginia, you got to have a crisis before the state moves. Okay? This they don't build on planning. They don't. They just don't. My whole concern has always been $400,000 on. Okay. That That's And I just uh I'm having a little trouble with that because on property we don't I understand what you want to do, but I don't I don't Unless you We got to have something like a comprehensive plan. Do we want housing? Do we want industrial? What do we want in there? It's whatever zone right now. That's what I'm going to say is what we want in there. And you can put housing on economic opportunity, right? You can come in for like a special use or senior house. Special use, senior housing. Yeah. Okay.

Special use. We can there's there are things we can turn down on that property that they want to do. A builder comes in, we just shut it down. So Earl, be specific. So they can do senior housing with with a special use permit, but not by right. Correct. Okay. Really? EO the the objective is to put a business some type of business but we can still it's restricted even that business is limited business basically right so we we we can limit whatever businesses on there not in all cases because e economic opportunity is a very broad category it allows quite a lot of things economic opportunity but still business related it's all business

as opposed to housing related beyond the senior housing right but even that's a special use permit So correct. So if we feel that's we feel like the residents up there don't want that as a fit then then we wouldn't pass that as a right that's our control. It's our control but we should have some idea of what we would like to see and that's what a plan is supposed to do. Why didn't why was this not included in the because that was enough work that the team had gone four years already and didn't want to take it on. Did they I mean did in that you were on that committee, right? I sat through every one of the meetings. I was not on the committee. Was a property owner ever approached about what they wanted to get done? I do not know.

The property owner needs has to be involved in this. I mean, this is not something that I do not know if when's the next owner every five years, right? You got to be starting to get close start. Would you like to weigh in on this? Please. When is the next comp plan? Hear whatever they whatever you say. Earl just said we we're going to start the 5-year comp plan next year. 2027. We'll be begin the process with approval in 2028. That will meet your 5year review time period. Okay. So then do we emphasize this piece of property in during the normal comp plan development cycle as opposed to doing it separately? that work.

It is a possibility. There was also a possibility in the interim somebody will come in that you don't it's it's going to be highly uh active in the in the interim. So they come in so that but that's their choice the owner. So what's your vision of this is to take the whole it's about a square mile up there right? Yeah. And so, so the whole vision is to um outside of the comprehensive plan to come up with some concept of what we want what we'd like to have done there. What what would we like? What segments would we allow? You and I and the board can sit here and draw up some.

You guys come up, get your committee up there, and they come in and just drop a drop a piece of paper and say, "This is what we'd like to see there." Now, what I'm saying, I mean, that's that $400,000. you just draw up something and give it proposed here. But but and then we can we can put in whatever plan we want. But I mean that at that point it would be interesting to see what what the uh property owner does. That's ex that's the issue. you know, the property owner says, "What what are you guys doing?" And uh and then so obviously you have to get the property owner involved in this and we can sit down. We can sit down and it doesn't take a didn't take a genius to draw draw a couple lines on a map. Right.

That's correct. So this is I mean I I just Is it worth getting the property owner involved now? Oh, absolutely. It's their land. Why that isn't done? They own it. I don't know why they're not done. Yeah. I mean, you own Smith land. Go ahead. The 71 or 77 acres I we got over there in my district and you tell them they're going to do something and not involve George L. Smith. You'd be in court the next day or you would get something filed on you the next day. I feel like we need to have some input from the owner. We do property. We do, but there's multiple owners now. So this is this is not for this year's money. We're not talking this year's money right now.

No, it's talking to moving from FY20 to FY27. Move it into keep it to 28 and then gives us a year at this point. If we don't, you know, we don't come up with something a plan, then we we I don't know. I I still have the same problem. We just need to get the owners together, the property owners together, get them in a meeting and talk about what their thoughts are and then come back. Let's figure out what it is. I can tell you right now those if you've ever dealt with the owners up there, I'm tell you two of them, you could be one into this building to the next with a plan. You need to know that they don't give you any eventually. Yes. And and so they're sitting there right now going, you know, it's economic opportunity.

And so that's what they're doing. They're just sitting on it right now. It's economic opportunity. And you got builders or developers wanting to come in there and and uh and and build on it because we've zoned it economic opportunity. I mean, that's where this is where this is it. This is where it stands right now. What do we The 400,000 we spend on this is not not going to change anything. No.

It's literally not going to change anything legally. I don't know how you can even possibly do it. I mean, Doug, I don't I don't Well, tell me. I don't know how you do it. I mean, because you're going to have to have an individual zoning of a property that's that is the only piece of property around there. And then there's two individuals and you'll need to work with them. I agree with that. And those two individuals should be given options. What is a county looking for? What would they like to see in terms of the development of this land? And how could we arrive at that solution? And we don't have that. and I've been asked for it.

We can also approach the homeowners and tell them, "Hey, look, you know, you got this piece of property. I know you want to sell it, so you're not going to sell it. I mean, you're not going to put certain businesses on it unless you get these things done." Okay? Here are here are some options that might make it easier for you to sell your property. But again, that property owner. So I don't I mean I guess I'm I hate to do this to you to to push it, but I think maybe what Tom says is is to move it to the next Well, I think and in the interim we need to

I think you break it up. I think maybe you put a 100,000 forward this year and see what you can do internally. I'd be I'd be I'd be willing to go that way and push the rest back to 28. What would you do with $100,000? Call up Tim Cross.

Well, I mean that's actually makes sense because then we would know what we're do. We have a better idea of what we're doing. That's true. And that would get something kind of moving. I guess I'm a little confused. Like if I buy a piece of property or own a piece of property and I want to develop it, I I should know some I should have some indication of what I want to do. You shouldn't have to go to the county and say, "Hey, what do you want me to build here?" If I have a by right, you don't have a by right. I mean, you have a by EO.

That's a that's a wide spectrum of what you can put there. So, I'm saying you got a clear canvas to write whatever you want to write on that. If I owned a piece of property a mile by a mile, as a owner, I would either be looking to sell it to someone lock, stock, and barrel or I would develop it and I'd come up with my own development plan and I would pay for that. You have

I used to buy pieces of property and come up with the house to put on it. I paid for all that. I didn't go to the county and say, "Hey, what kind of house you want me to put on this?" So, I that's why I'm confused. As a developer, I should know what I want to put on that property. And if I don't know what I want to put on the property, put it up for sale and let somebody else figure that out and let somebody else pay for it. It is in the and then come to the county and say, "Hey, this is what I'm thinking we're going to do. Let's do it." And that's normally how it works. Let them come to us and say, "Here's what we're proposing." And and then we'll give them our feedback. We'll save ourselves $400,000. Aren't the current owners of the properties the historical owners of the property?

The wife is was married to uh Maloney. They're the own and she is the owner of the property. So, last time I checked, it's not like it's been recently bought and it Oh, no. It's they've had the property. Chinese owner of the on the other side. She's okay. Okay. More complicated. Is Jimmy part of this? No. All right. So, well, yes, he is because he's controlling all the decisions. So,

so I think in this case, you have a property owner that's that's owned it for a long time and now and had used it for one thing previously. They're out of that now. So, now they're looking what do I do with it? Do I develop it myself or do I sell it to somebody? And I'm sitting on a piece of property that's EO. So, they're marketing it in in that manner. And we want to come in and say, well, hey, here's a vision. Let's talk. And if they're agreeable to that vision, we could move forward with it. Or they may go, "Nope, I got perfect buyers I want with EO and I'm good with that." But again, I think we can get to that point in in house. Okay. So you have Google Maps and you have AI now. Go to Google Maps with an AI and go we got a acre prop one mile piece of property. give go find pieces of property in the United States and give us 50 different options.

That's all you got to do. I and you pick the option you like and you take three of them to the owner. If I It doesn't take any money. The problem is the trans is the is the roadway. Is that not the roadway is the most significant issue. The roadway is the most significant issue. That's the most for anything you try to build. has been cuz I know you haven't been happy with it since day one and that's why you got rid of the wall wasn't happy with it either. No, he wasn't. Right. So, but that's a bottleneck. That's that needs that's what needs to be ironed out to make the property. But hasn't that always been a developer issue? If they want to build something, if the road infrastructure doesn't support it?

No. This is this is now this is where this is where VOD really really steps back. They'll go, "Okay, yeah, they approve you a plan and the next thing you know is that you you got a traffic jam from hell and you 10 to 15 years to get if you're lucky about working through so that what you what I see this it it tells me that what we're trying the only reason it's been $400,000 would be reszoning the property forcingly forcefully reszone forcefully. Okay. resoning the property because without a homeowner, if I look at it, I look at it the worst case scenario would be that we spend $400,000 to reszone the property.

I understand without without the property owner's input because and based on my experience with that property up there, this this thing could float. Okay? They they're not going to they're not going to buy putting themselves in a box, but the county put them in a box. And so we would spend $400,000 and it could end up with nothing or back right to our original starting point. So if you want So how many thousand homes do you want in there? Don't don't don't try to put me in a corner. It's not my property. I am putting you in a corner. No, you're not. Because it's not my property. I'm not We have said economic opportunity. How many businesses I want in here? Well, whatever whatever we think's appropriate.

Well, and and that's what will come back. and and and what types of businesses would we accept in there and what would be the best fit and the best use and how would you have access to the roadway? A lot of those answers a lot of those answers are based on our zoning. Okay. It's simply based on our way we set up our zoning right now and the processes we have to bring things before the board supervisors. Okay. Okay. I don't think we have a concern about housing though, do we? Yes. What? That's the proposals that we're seeing. What are the proposals right now? But it's not zone for house unless it's unless it's unless it's we're not going to res for that. That's what they're going to bring to Well, then see, we don't have to buy it. We don't have to buy it.

And we and we fought that battle here recently, too, and just said, "No, it's not a good fit." And didn't happen. So, I mean, I get I I get they want to do that and why they want to do it, but well, you know, the community doesn't want that up there. Look at the look at Ralph English's property on off of 17. Okay. we've we have done everything we can to try to change that and he tried to sell it. They wanted to put Publix in there. Okay. And then that then the that was not going to float because it wasn't profitable for the company. So then to make it profitable, the most profitable part would be the multifamily housing, right?

And I was hell no, we're not putting multif family housing. What did we do? We told him, "No, you're not going to don't bring it up here because it's not going to go." And so Publix walked off and went up to Fort Eustace, but that then and Mr. English there he he now has had a problem. And so they got another potential proposal, okay, that may come before the board, but it's not housing. And so we do not have to accept housing. And the only way they ever even try to bring housing in with more housing done is they well they offer because that's a business and that's a yeah but that's also limited too.

All right. It's a different kind of business and it is a business but it's a different kind of business. It's not the one that generally drives up school cost or drives Well, it does drive up ambulances. Drives ambulances and police. Do they come they come for for multi for senior housing or something like is it senior housing or is it it's got to be age restricted then right no one under 19 so we put we put so it's specifically age restricted but it's still a special use permit so it still comes special use right now right so I mean we we still have guardrails up to that

okay my recommendation is we move 100,000 and see if we can't internally resource I still don't know. Okay, I'm I'm go with 100,000 just to get up get past this thing, but I don't know what we're I don't know what we're spending 100,000 on. Well, is that just a marker? Not maybe we'll spend it, maybe we won't. Maybe we don't spend that if we do it internally. I would like to see it done internally if we can. That's the money that we put forward to be able to do it. Okay. need if it needs funding that's the funding pool you pull. We're now saying 100,000 at at year 28 or

27 27 27 It's imminent that we get ask questions on that. I think we should be ahead of it. All right. Does it have to be 100,000? Could you not do it 50,000 or something like that? I mean I mean I I just look I we don't want to make this we don't want to make this into I can go to 200,000. I'd be okay with that. We don't make our baby because I guess should we go say 256? I guess the question is if we if we're going to do it in house, what funding do you need to do it in in house? You have to hire somebody. No, no, no.

I'm just I don't I don't know. I mean, what would you use that if you're doing in house with just in personnel and is just in resources? What would you need to use that money for? So, I think I would say that I have concerns about in-house at this time. We have a very new staff and this would be a huge ask for someone who doesn't have that experience. Okay. So, what are you saying? You said we have to hire somebody. Saying I'd prefer not to do it in house. So, what's your recommendation? 400,000 for what? No way.

I don't know what it will cost. And I I wasn't involved in in this number. But when in the last six months, we've lost three senior people. Is that fair? And while we have been able to attract one person with some significant experience, the other two are fairly new. And is that a fair assessment? Yes.

I I don't want to misspeak. Okay. So to do something of this magnitude and to take them offline, it will also slow everything that comes to the board. Whether they're economic development projects or housing projects, they're both going to get slowed down because our staff will be I tell you, Doug. Okay. Whoever comes up here with a project, you don't like it, you let me know and I'll vote against it. Okay. How's that? And that's and that gets you to the same spot where you that we you know because this is the the 400,000 is only you're going to get reszoning. That's all that's what you got to be working for. Otherwise, you can't I I'm not I can't support that.

So, but we have a process already that works. We have limitations on the process. We're not going to get a road built. I mean, we're not going to get a road bill through the property unless they want to do it. I mean, you have to build. How long is that road? A mile. At least a mile. Sure. Through the property. Oh, on the property. So, I thought you talking about the public road. The public road is the issue, right? So, you're not going to get that road bill. I just I can tell you the reality of the financing right now. We do not have money for primary secondary roads, which is why you would want to restrict what you put up against that road.

And that's what I'm telling you right now. You're, you know, you're the I will I will go with the supervisor for that district because you represent the people up there. All right. I mean, that's generally what I do anyway when it comes to something like this. Pull it. Okay. All right. Now with that plan, when it comes up, it better be it better be addressed. Very difficult. Well, it should be start next year about 10. Okay. Supposed to be every five years. Yeah. And it needs to be five years. Not not six, seven years. No, we did have a little pandemic thing in the middle of that.

That didn't help. That didn't help. Nice try. That was I wasn't part of this. I'm not I'm not making excuses for me. You know, I know this is an issue up there for you guys. That's a big one. And I look at what James City County is doing here with that that what is it 1,200 homes or something putting in there and we don't want that. So this is this is commercial property on the same road and it needs to be we don't want to be have to be building new schools, new hospitals or anything like that. So property. Yeah. But it's a private owned. You remember that conversation we had with Miss Larson about that area in particular? Yeah.

Yeah. She had some real concerns about transportation, new housing being built, etc. because the traffic as it is right now is disastrous unlikely. Yeah. And I don't think I don't I don't know if there's anybody here that wants has a vision of I know of of housing going on that property or any any substantial housing. I don't I think the one you you had the warehouse one was the one that I remembered that was property and you didn't want that. Well, I didn't want the traffic associated with uh right. We don't want to put semis in the middle of the traffic traffic flow. And I agree that's a it's a nightmare. Yeah, that's a nightmare.

And that's also detrimental to to the business because then that they can't their goods don't flow when they're get when they're stuck in traffic either. So it's unless we get somebody like Bush or some some company like that comes in there, some big uh I don't know, data center or whatever that wants to put a interchange in there. I mean part of the issue before we approve it. Well, they it can be done vot. Okay. And just to let you know about an intersection of what today, but we don't because I've been working really hard on Fort US that that for Fortis when they pulled it out

of the widening of 64 that interchange, but just that one interchange alone was almost almost a billion dollars. Okay. All by itself.

Mhm. All right. And it was I mean well not quite that much but it was it was like $900 million or something. It was a huge amount of money. It today would easily cover that. And so we do it with we do it with grants and whatnot. There have been they TPO is trying to to address that. So these roads and again just to kind of go to this because it's really important there is no primary secondary road money. Okay. because this is what we were trying to get with that 3/10 of a percent of increase to the taxes to add on it. They would allowed us to do this. They would that would have that would have allowed us to do that.

So the general assembly shot us in the butt with this. So we're not it's not you can't do it. There's no funding. There's no place to put the money. So we're right now can do little bitty projects like widen one lane stuff like that. Okay. Okay. So, it's that's that's it's that's it's interesting how it's tied together, but right now, you bring whatever comes up. You guys let me know. Okay. And I'm Okay, Susan, back to you.

All right, moving right along. Um, this is just a summary of the preliminary proposed CIP and then the re the revision based on the changes we just talked about. So, we'll have to make some more changes to that based on the discussion here today. What I wanted to illustrate here is the total is is different by $20 million. And again, that was just a a placeholder amount of what we could afford within our current debt policies um to put toward the courthouse building. We don't know what that estimate is yet, but that's just a placeholder. Okay.

Um this is just to show you that with those changes, um we are still within our debt management policies. Here you can see what it is for the six-year plan. still um the one we typically talk about is the 10% of the fund expenditures and we're not exceeding. That's the max. That's the max. Yep. And so we're within our policy here. But you do see it's going up because of course we're adding some of those those larger projects. But this is also why we're talking about doing the 12. Yeah. All those things, the annual assessment, the additional revenues, the policy potential changes. All we're still forecasting to be a percentage below the max all the way up to 2032 also. Right. Yes. Yep. Forecast to be below it. Why is this showing at the max? No, it's not.

I thought 9% was the max. 10%. I know that. Why did I say that? You were just testing. Yeah, I'm just getting locked on these numbers. Thank you. So, did you address that? April 16th. All right. So, so let's have a comp plan discussion on April 16th. That's and a serious one too. Um serious. We kind of let that we let that that last one just float float too long.

No, actually what I what I would I in terms of CIP, as I mentioned earlier, you you've had several uh looks at this. I feel like with the information you've provided tonight, we can wrap the CIP up. You had already cancelled next Tuesday's meeting. Tuesday. Thursday. Tuesday. Tuesday 14th. And so what I was going to suggest is Mr. Drury that we cancel next Thursday's meeting. I can't make it. So exactly. So

you wouldn't cancel one. I no that's not how that happened. So what I would suggest is that we we cancel Thursday and we can continue on with the regular schedule after that. Right. So we're canceling I can what what were we going to do that meeting? We just had it as a placeholder in case there's any leftover things but we made a lot of progress. Thank you discussion one night and the CIP on it. We handled both. Right. So, I think we're in a pretty good place right now. Okay. Let me get your two meetings. You cancel the 14th and the 16th. Both meetings are next week. Tuesday and Thursday. The 14th.

14th. Yes. So, our next meeting will be April 21st. That's when we'll have our public canled. Yes. Yeah. 146. 146. Yep. And everybody got your taxes meeting that night though. The 16th, I think. No, that's right. No. No. 15th. As Susan said, the next meeting after tonight you'll have will be the 21st, right? That'll be our public hearing with the regular schedu. Well, that clears one meeting out for that day, that evening. So, that's good. Cancel them for us on And you're going to state of the city on Monday?

Yes. Right. I have a sir. I believe that wraps everything up. So, no other comments. I'll uh close the meeting. I want to I do have a comment. I want to make sure because I I I know Susan wants going to harpoon me on this. Um but we have got to make sure that Yeah. You got to make sure it's a whale. Yeah, you got to make sure that when you ask questions of the county administrator and Susan on this. Well, because we're going to go to that 28, we're going to go to the flatline tax rate.

Thought we were there now. I wish we were. I wish we were. Yeah. I mean, it's convenient. And uh and so so we better collect them first. So you be so we better get and you're going to give us somewhere along the before ne we roll into next year what that that number is going. We we we are already talking about next year's budget will process will not look like the last two or three we've done. This will be different because there are lots of considerations. the uh single-year assessment

if there's adjustment to the tax rate all those kinds of things will need much more consideration so I envision this this process next year will look somewhat different because there there as you have already pointed out there are a lot of pieces and they all need to fit together and to make them fit together we need to communicate those and so what what does that look like. One of the first things I've done is to share with you all because on top of all that, it lays on top of the election. So, I shared with you all the timeline on the election.

I'm also going to share with you all in appreciate that, too. I'm also going to share with you all in the near future a timeline on what the single-year assessment would look like, when it kicks off, when it would be reported, when the first bills would go out, etc. So that we can lay all those things on top of each other and the budget process and see where they all play out because this will be something very different than what we've seen in the past. I'll be so happy to see it happen. Well, the process the process is going to be important and I think it's going to be very doable and understandable. Okay.

The reality of the situation is next year when you come up with a tax rate number

that is going to be the bomb because it's 78 cents isn't going to work to fit this plan. I don't want to I'm not going to say what I think the number is going to be, but it's not going to be 78 cents. And it's going to be in an election year. And it's going to be hard in an election year to go down there and jam a large tax rate down the throats of your constituents. And I mean, just sitting here, I I'm just Do you want to have a food fight now or do you want to have a food fight next year during an election year?

And and so I don't want to break the process. I think we want to go. I like the idea of going to a single flat rate system. We saw it work in handover or whichever one that was and and I think it's a great idea. It helps people understand. But to climb that hill to get over that, we're going to have to agree to a significant change in the tax rate or or it's phased in. It's phased in. We don't do it all in one year. We don't we don't eat all at one time. It may take two or three years to phase into it. Yes. Yes. Yes, that's what I envision. And we're going to phase into it. I don't think it's going to happen overnight.

I know. But to get there, it's still going to be painful. I don't care how you cut it. Okay. So, I want you thinking about that now because that staff's going to be busting their ass trying to make this thing work and this puzzle. And if we don't we don't step up and and address that tax issue as soon as we can. Yeah. Then we then this is it's going to be we're not going to do it. We just have to stick with a two-year process or we phase into it. Well, if you can, that's I'm really I'm really concerned about I'm optimistic. So, okay, we can do that. Other people have done it and we can do it, too. Thank you for that wonderful input. Positive.

Is that okay? Heat. Heat.