Board of Supervisors Work Session   7/10/2019

For the July 10, 1 p.m. meeting, today we are doing our prioritization of general government capital improvement plan projects and prep for our joint session with the school board on the fiscal year 21-25 CIP.

I will quickly introduce the members of the dais.

Thank you for being with us today, officer.

Sergeant Roger Snodgrass, thank you, sir.

And then today Andy Herrick is with us.

Of course the supervisors, County Executive Mr. Richardson, Lori Allshouse, and our Board Clerk Claudette Borgeson.

And then as Jeff mentioned, if you didn't overhear, Mr. Randolph is on his way.

Thank you very much Chairman Galloway, members of the board.

My name is Lori Allshouse.

I'm the director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Today we're going to be talking about fiscal year 21 to 25 CIP priorities in a work session basis.

So today's desired outcome, we're going to prioritize general government capital improvement plan projects.

in preparation for the September joint board school board work session on the fiscal year 21-25 CIP.

So here's how the agenda is planned for today.

I'm going to provide a brief recap of the May meeting with the school board and why we're here today.

Provide an overview of today's process.

We're going to speak about capacity for community initiatives consideration.

Then we're going to go into project reviews with staff members for question and answer panels.

So you'll have 12 staff members involved in this presentation and conversation today.

People will be coming up to the mics and sitting back and others will be coming.

It's really set up in a way for it to be a good discussion for you and for you to get all your questions answered before you do a prioritizing setting exercise at the end of this work session.

So I'll start off by just providing a quick recap of your joint meeting with the school board.

This was the one you had in May.

So in May, the board and school board approved a fiscal year 21 to 25 CIP development process that's very different than the one we've had in the past.

If you recall, we talked about starting off with an affordability discussion.

So you talked about affordability of the CIP very beginning of the process.

And then this time period between June and August is for the school board

are getting their results from the Long Range Planning Committee on their priorities and they're talking in work sessions on their priorities and we're doing the same thing.

General government is going to present some recommended projects to you today for you to prioritize.

This is being done so that when you meet with the school board in September you can have a joint meeting and share your priorities with each other and talk about what are your joint shared priorities for the community as we plan ahead.

Then in October, the advisory committee, which is basically the oversight committee as far as membership, will take the information from that joint meeting and then see some scenarios and do some modeling.

And considering the capacity cap or the capacity affordability piece that you've done ahead of this process, they're going to be taking that into account as they do the scenarios.

and then you'll have a joint work session again in November and at that point you'll also be considering the long-range operating plans for the county as well as the long-range capital planning and then you'll finalize your recommended five-year CIP and then you'll adopt your 2021 capital budget in April with the regular budget process.

The thing I wanted to add to this process that we didn't see in May is that you met with the city council.

You also did that in May.

and then you have planned another meeting with the City Council in September.

So I just added that to this process so that you can see it and you did talk about capital projects together and planning and budgeting together.

The other thing I wanted to suggest in working with staff from the Community Development Department is that the Planning Commission is very interested in what we're doing so we thought we would go talk to them in August and share with them the new process

and then again after the joint work session where you share your priorities also bring some information back to the Planning Commission at that point.

They may have another role in your process in the future based on their long-range planning and how they like to think of the county in the longest planning horizons and think ahead.

What about inviting them to attend the joint meeting with the school board?

The other thing that you did in May is you had a conversation and established, and I'm calling it the CIP affordability cap.

You looked ahead, you based on modeling scenarios and assumptions built in models, working side by side with the school board, you looked at where you think we should be in five years.

And again, this is for planning purposes.

And the guidance that we received to staff is to do not add more than $61 million in capital projects over the next seven years.

You might recall we looked at a seven year

at that point.

And there would be an equivalent tax rate potential, again, based on a lot of assumptions of up to 4.5 to 6 cents on the tax rate.

And then what we wanted to share with you today, now we're talking again about a five-year window.

So for the fiscal year 21 to 25 CIP time period based on the modeling, this would be about $55 million in that five-year period.

I'm sorry to break her rhythm, but I will, in the spirit of conversations I've had with Bill Letaria, our Chief Finance Officer, and we'll go back to that slide, if you would, one second, that we were just on.

And Lori said this, that we're modeling and we're making assumptions.

And so when we look at the parentheses of equivalent tax rate increase estimated between four and a half and six cents, that right there is just an approximation.

But even within that,

A better than expected performing economy could move that figure down and things that are beyond our knowledge base as it relates to our economy both nationally and at a local level

that our picture over the next 12 to 24 months it could change.

And we have experienced a nice growth and vibrancy in our community over the last several years.

But I just want to flag that for the board because I think if, and I'm not trying to be Bill, but I think if Bill were at the podium he would caution

on taking that in concrete because there are things that could happen to move it in either direction.

And I don't want that to sway this board unduly.

And so that's just what I wanted to say.

And from the positive direction, it is one of the reasons why we have a focus on economic development.

Okay, thank you.

I also wanted to mention that we have currently a fiscal year 20 to 24 CIP.

It has $207.6 million in it.

Thank you.

He's really watching the time.

I told everybody to be really thoughtful about time as we head into this meeting.

So the CIP, the current CIP has certain projects in it and what we're not talking about today is taking any of these out or exchanging anything in the plan.

That could be something that could be considered in the future, but right now that's not what we're talking about.

So the current one, it's in your appendix and the document I gave you to work with today,

Appendix 1 is your current CIP and that's just a reference document.

It includes maintenance and replacement.

It includes a courts project.

You may recall it includes a six million in parks and recreation projects that was improved as part of the last process.

Six million in bike ped projects.

four years of ACE funding.

It has a two million reserve for advancing strategic priorities.

It has your evidence storage facility study was funded in 19, but it's being done currently.

You'll be hearing more about that project today.

Someone to mention there was a study that was previously funded on that.

It has one year of transportation leveraging funding in the first year.

and it has a bridge year of water resource funding so just those are some highlights it has other replacement and other projects in it but just wanted to bring that to your attention before we get started.

Now I'd like us to move into the fiscal year 21 to 25 CIP program and projects.

And right before we begin, I just wanted to share a quick overview of some phrases we're going to use and some of the ways we're going to work during this work session together.

There's a term project that we talk about really easily.

We say this is a project, but a project could be a program or a project.

A project more technically is something that has a start and end date.

And sometimes we have programs in the CIP such as a transportation leveraging program.

So when we say project, we're speaking to both of those when you hear that term today.

Cost is something that you'll see that we put

Broad price tags on these items.

These are initial broad estimates for a five-year period, so it's not an annual cost.

It's a cost that it would be over the five years.

They're very initial.

They are a term that we're using scalable, meaning that you could move a

a program faster or slower and you could change the dollar amounts.

So there's a scalable element to most of these items that you're going to hear about today and many of them can be phased.

So you could take a project to a certain phase and not take it all the way to a final phase.

You'll hear some conversation about phasing in the Parks and Recreation time period today.

There's also a star that you're going to see on the slides, and it's also noted in the booklet.

If you see this gold star, it indicates a connection to a very specific strategic plan priority.

Your priorities are also an appendix in your booklet.

If you see the star on the right top side of your page, that means everything on the page supports your strategic plan priorities.

And there's some places where you'll see the star by a certain item.

This will be something you'll see on the actual slides as we move forward.

And the other thing I just wanted to mention, you're going to hear from a lot of staff members, the panels are for questions and answers.

and there'll be four panels.

We have a total of 12 staff members that will be interacting with you today.

The term is interacting.

It's for you to have discussion, you to get your questions answered.

It's not for us to present a lot of materials to you today.

So please feel free to do that.

We also are going to time these very carefully because we want to make sure that everyone gets a chance to have their questions asked and everybody has a chance to be at the podium and we want enough time at the end for you to have your discussion and wrap up.

So we'll probably be moving it along a little bit, so I just wanted to mention that as well.

Can you clarify the star piece again?

Yeah, I didn't use stars in the booklet but it actually is listed on every page.

So at the bottom of each page you'll see at the very last I think it says strategic plan priority and it shows how it hits the priority or not.

So it's more narrative in your booklet but each page has it towards the bottom of the page.

Yeah, Laurie, I hope also during this time we can talk about, given the staggering limitation of the capital capabilities of the county over the next five years, I hope we can also have a discussion about ways that this board and the county can leverage funds.

Thank you.

And that's another thing we've included in your booklet on each page.

When staff's identified grants or things that they know about, they actually wrote it on those pages for you.

I just wanted to say thank you because I found the strategic plan priority listing at the bottom of these, as I was going through and reading, that was really super.

To be able to connect.

So thank you for that.

So I just want to reinforce the process so to help kind of guide the board members because any one of these topics could throw this timing plan that Laurie has up off the rails easily.

So I would just say obviously we always are used to asking clarifying questions but then if there's real questions that are going to involve a pretty thorough answer those might be

you know, noted and brought back to us.

And then obviously there are some answers that we can get off quick that we can answer, but the idea is to try to get a lot of our input out and not necessarily get all the feedback yet, but know that it's out there so that we will get the feedback over the course of the whole time frame.

All right, so as we lead into this, we thought this would be helpful, and this again is on page four in the booklet that we provided, and it's your guiding principles, and these have been in place for a long time in the county, and they were actually the principles that led to, in the old process, the TRC had a scoring matrix.

They based that scoring matrix on these principles that we've been using in the county for a long time, so I just wanted to point out

some of the guiding principles as projects have been selected in the past in the county and I think this is still really relevant today.

So maintaining public safety, your principles also talk about supporting the strategic plan, the quality of life, the maintenance of our critical county investments.

You talk about providing facilities that enhance customer service and employee productivity, incorporating energy efficiency and technology into your projects, and as Rick mentioned earlier, pursue innovative funding approaches such as public-private partnerships, collaboration with schools, and even shared space with nonprofits was mentioned in these principles.

and then at the end it said leveraging federal, state, and other local funding.

So not only public-private partnerships, but partnerships with our federal and state public partners.

So I just wanted to share that, so you're gonna be hearing a whole lot, so those principles we thought were important as you think about these projects.

So now I'm gonna just move forward.

Emily Kilroy, Director of Communications and Public Engagement.

Thank you, Lori.

Members of the board, before we get a deep dive into the projects that staff have flagged as capital needs over the five-year planning horizon, we wanted to take a few minutes to talk about another group of capital stakeholders that sometimes come before you.

And broadly, we're describing those as community, whether those are residents themselves, agencies, or community partners.

As you know from time to time, capital requests come in outside of the CIP process and over the years those have included things like the YMCA, library projects.

Next month there is scheduled for a project for Claudius Crozet Park coming before the board that would also sort of fit under that banner.

And we feel like the NIFI program, if there was interest in looking at doing a similar process in the future, that that would also maybe fit into this bucket.

These types of projects can bring matching funds or even multiplier funds along with them.

And we see these types of requests as being somewhat distinct from what comes inside of the traditional CIP process.

So for planning purposes, staff is recommending that as you consider the five-year CIP that there's consideration for reserving some capacity for this category.

As you see on the slide, for planning purposes, staff are recommending

a range of two to five million dollars to achieve this and this would just have some capacity available for when projects came forward.

Again, sort of as we're planning out what the five-year CIP will look like for 21 to 25.

If the board endorses identifying capacity for community initiatives, then we would come back to you with a process by which we might be able to evaluate those types of requests.

So whether that would look similar to what we do with agency funding through the ABRT process or another model, but having some methodology to receive and review those types of requests.

Well, my own comment to this is I think we're putting the cart before the horse.

I think the horse that needs to go out on the track on this is a SWOT review of NIFI from 2016 and to look at the strengths, weaknesses, the opportunities, and the risks that were associated with it.

It was extremely staff intensive.

and before I think the board should venture into this because it will send a significant message if we say yes right now it raises expectations in the community that yes will be followed up with funding commitment.

Sure, and I think, I apologize if I've led us down a path.

That is one illustration of the types of things that might be looked at for this type of funding if it were available.

I'm just saying.

And I believe as we are, you know, we're probably halfway through the implementation on the NIFI projects.

So members of the board, the only thing that I would add quickly is that several years ago when we were looking at our budget strategy, we talked about sustaining a high-quality organization, and that really has to do with looking at more of the day-to-day foundational work, volume, customer service.

And then the second circle was reserving dedicated funding in our budget for moving strategic initiatives forward.

And then if you'll recall, the third was

retaining some level of capacity.

And Mr.

Chair, you had brought it up specifically saying, let's make sure that we do not commit all of our capacity.

And what drove us there was the biscuit run situation where about the time that I was coming on board, this board was working diligently and you ended up working with the state.

and that was an emerging opportunity that maybe no one saw coming over time.

And there's several other examples that are like this.

And so it's just something for the board to consider.

For us, would you like for us to go back and formalize it?

At the end of the last budget, as you'll recall, and we talked about it the other night,

We did reserve $2 million for strategic initiatives, meaning that after July the 1st, you can look at how we wrap up the strategic plan, finish the year.

And all of you are thinking about things that you may want to dedicate some of that one-time $2 million money to that's more board-driven.

I agree with that goal and objective but the way this reads to me with community initiated capital requests and a potential future program such as NIFI and could be funded with year-end funding if available

if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck and it looks like Niffy.

And I just, I will comment that I think government is very good at replicating programs that it's initiated, but we're not always really good at analyzing programs to determine whether they should be replicated in the same way the second time through.

and the second point here is as I think I've shared with the board earlier and I just said it again here we have to be very careful not unintentionally sending a message to our various CACs that there is a tranche of money that is going to be coming down the pike and heading in their direction because looking at this program we may determine that

If in fact we want to do something that is similar in terms of neighborhood base, we may do it much more competitively the next time around rather than having a dedicated sum per each master plan area.

It may be more competitive as often times happens out there in the funding world.

Others?

Just really quick, I would agree with Rick's assessment of this slide.

Yeah, I think we all agree with that.

But I do think it's a good idea.

Anyone else?

This is one of these things that we deal with after the audit.

That's right.

I agree we should keep flexibility.

The two NIFI projects in my districts did really well, so I'm kind of leaning towards positive.

I think they're hard to analyze in terms of just dollars and cents because it has a lot to do with community spirit and giving people a sense of they have a voice and planning.

But what I'm seeing here is what this is about a lot more than just NIFI.

This is about other community-initiated projects that could come up in lots of different ways, ever-changing technologies and so on.

So I think we should particularly look at ones that have some kind of payback, too.

A lot of environmental projects have a return on the investment, too, of energy savings and all.

It isn't just an ongoing expense that has to be taken care of.

I don't know which of the two buckets that Jeff described this belongs in, but for places that are not in the growth areas and the community CAC areas, Ned and I both raised a safety issue at an intersection in Earliesville where this VDOT has now finally, after five years of badgering, come up with an idea that if we can come up with $80,000 they will be able to implement something outside of the normal program to keep people from getting killed.

and so that type of thing is not on your list, but I think it's a really appropriate way that we could talk about ways to improve safety for people.

And I'd only add that I agree with your assessment of replicating programs but not analyzing them, but then we're also can fall into the trap of only following programs that are currently in existence.

The capacity gives us the ability to have a little bit more flexibility and react with more speed if something comes up that maybe doesn't rise to the emergency level, which is what the reserves are for, but is a pressing need that could be addressed and then we have the capacity to do something about it.

So when I see community initiated capital requests, that's what comes to mind.

Yeah, agree.

We'll proceed with that.

We'll move on.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So now Mr. Walker is going to come forward and we're going to move into the panel discussions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Doug Walker, deputy county executive.

I'm introducing two projects in the public safety arena.

The first is the police evidence processing and specialty vehicle storage facilities on page six of your booklet.

And simply stated, it is to construct a 7,200 square foot covered facility to store police specialty and seized vehicles, material, and to provide a place for forensic

Vehicle Processing, and I'm joined for your answers to any questions you have by Deputy Chief Casey Carr.

The other project in the public safety section is a fire rescue training center.

This is phase one, a replacement of the burn building, and it's to replace aging existing residential burn building, including improved parking and connection to utilities, including water, sewer, gas, or electrical utilities.

It is on page seven of your booklet.

and I'm joined by Deputy Chief John O'Pranby for answers to any questions you have about that project.

So I have now served my role in this particular process and I'm going to then step back and see if we have questions that these two subject matter experts can answer.

Alright, questions, comments?

I guess I'll jump in on the CAP committee several years ago when it was introduced about the vehicle storage.

Have you determined a location yet?

I'm very premature about my enthusiasm for this, but we all had great ideas of just making a nice covered deck over the current area by your building because the parking lot's already there, but I don't know if you have other ideas.

So the study is not done yet?

I see, okay.

Okay.

This is a question for about the fire training center.

We often hear or hear suggestions that with some of our older barns and buildings that we should just have the fire department go out and practice on those buildings.

How often does that actually happen?

And if you had a training center, which should we assume that you'll no longer be looking for those places that maybe people want to get taken care of and meet the qualifications?

Yeah.

More relevant for today.

John, could you explain to us, given that this is phase one, number one, how many phases do you see needing?

And John, please speak up.

OK.

Thank you.

So we had a study done last year.

That study broke the project down into four phases.

We're suggesting five phases.

The first phase would be both the site work and the replacement of the existing residential burn building.

The site itself was never master planned, and so it has just

So that would take care of all that site prep.

Replace the existing building.

In phase two, we would add a classroom and storage building.

That storage building is specific to all the training requirements.

So just one quick question for clarity.

When you say five million total, is that for phase one?

Thirteen and a half million total for phase one.

That's what I missed.

What we're looking for in this five-year period is five million.

And would you like to achieve that goal of having the whole $13.5 million expended over the course of the next five years?

Or 20 years.

Ten years.

Okay.

Okay, that's great.

Could you also clarify because we had the trailer that we bought on the CIP and then we were told that we didn't need that because the accreditation had been achieved on the new building, which was a surprise.

We expect that another renovation, about that same period of time, or another significant renovation is going to be necessary.

Last year we anticipated that that might be, we might be at that point considering the condition of the building.

What we found out, and so therefore we suggested, we need the new facility, we're going to need something in the meantime to use.

I appreciate it.

I've just been told there the mic isn't connecting to the system, so please come up to the podium.

Both of you don't mind if there's questions.

And what was the cost of the mobile facility?

The cost of the mobile, I was going to say around $100,000.

Other questions or comments?

So I have a general comment.

I don't think this is one that I'm looking for a response here, because this really, it came up when I was thinking of the evidence processing and specialty vehicle, that facility, but it really stayed as a through line for me as I prepped through all the projects.

And if it's in there, and I haven't scrutinized everyone for this detail, but are we looking at, you know, we spend 3.9 on the facility, what that gets us lifespan-wise?

Is there a way that in the analysis of these projects, like I think of the training facility, it's like, okay, for 3.9 or for 5 million or the 13 and a half, that buys us how many years of

of use before we outgrow that.

This comes up in past considerations where schools, where projects were reduced when we've hit bad economic times, and then we suffer because the capacity, we didn't get the capacity time frame that we were hoping for with original scope of projects.

So as I was starting to think of it, for whatever reason it came up with the storage facility, I was like, well you have a place now.

There were obviously circumstances that led us to outgrow that.

So it's like, OK, we're building a new facility.

I get what the reason is behind it.

But if I said, well, OK, $3.9 million, that buys us 20 years, 50 years.

I mean, I don't know if it ever can be a hard answer.

You don't know until you do it.

But I'm hoping that that kind of thought is being put through as a through line in all of our projects so that if we come back to something in three years or a future board comes back

and says, well, maybe we need to be thinking of pulling a project back because of current pressing dollar needs.

The only problem with something like police evidence processing, you have to do all of the things being equal because if the board and the police department said that body cameras were absolutely a value, then the whole process of storing videotape and recording, not recording on it, but recording where the tapes were, cataloging it, that is a significant increase in terms of

evidence processing and facility requirements.

So the police department currently can't project those kinds of things.

We may have other similar technology-based

expectations out there in police work where people will say, well, this is the cutting edge and should be utilized that we don't even know about today, that in five years it may become a requirement.

So I think your point is very well taken, but I think the whole dynamic of public accountability

and for police departments it's very much a, what can I charitably describe it Major, a subject to change and subject to altering community expectations and perceptions of police work and a need to be responsive and with tremendous burdens on local government as a result of that.

So, just a thought, I think you raise a good point, but I think it's hard for the police department to necessarily project what's going to be out there in five years time.

Certainly that would be something that we would look to on that feasibility study when it comes in because we're also looking at the opportunity.

I believe it was mentioned the Sheriff's Department has certain specialty vehicles just like we have that might be stored at that site or even with the fire department as well.

but then again trying to anticipate the future whether it's technology that would necessitate using the facilities that we currently have at the police department and shifting some of the evidence that we store there to that particular site.

We really focused again too on the vehicles and everything and if you bring out a good point where we're at now with the vehicle maintenance facility, that was actually established as a temporary fix.

for the accreditation part of it.

Thank you.

We'll move on.

We have several more projects.

That's all right.

Thank you.

Thanks very much.

So Mr. Henry is going to come forward and we're going to talk about facilities and environmental services.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, Trevor Henry, Assistant County Executive.

Soon we will have Lance Stort, the Director of FES, Facilities and Environmental Services, along with Greg Harper, the Chief of Environmental Services Division, come up to answer any questions that you have.

I will provide a kind of a surface level skimming review of these projects to then get out of the way so that you can ask the more detailed questions.

I would note that there are many projects listed here, but this is tying back to what Laurie defined earlier, many of these are programs which are suggesting a recurring funding that would then drive actual projects.

And I would also note that many of them are scalable.

The first one would be climate action plan implementation.

That should have two stars because that was the board's number one strategic priority.

Climate action plan work is underway.

Climate Action Monday, a lot of effort is happening.

That plan update will be in front of the board this fall with decisions hopefully later in the fall.

on kind of phase one of that.

Funding here is programmed to enable work with partnering agencies, incentivize private investment, as well as fund some really low hanging fruit to add energy efficiency to county owned facilities.

The second project or program is our TMDL, the Total Maximum Daily Load.

That program has been in place since 2014.

We've made great strides towards reducing our pollutant load as mandated by DEQ and in the Chesapeake Bay.

What's in there is, again, programming numbers to continue that effort.

We've had great success with drawing down some matching fundings from the state and I would anticipate we would be able to continue to do that.

The third on the list is the Drainage Infrastructure Maintenance Repair Program.

Greg and Lance will be in front of the board next Wednesday to have a work session and a little deeper dive into this.

Really looking at our development area analysis.

The bridge year funding is covering things like the video of the

of the current gray infrastructure that's happening now.

We're developing some options on levels of service, extent of service.

This is a programming number that would reflect that.

Street Sweeper, a year ago, our previous strategic plan identified increases in our levels of service within our development area.

And one of the things that was proposed and funded by the board was some money to do a pilot on our street sweeping.

Staff has been working pretty urgently with the city to try to partner with them on a pilot, one piece of the kind of the urban ring area.

We're making progress, but we still have not been able to get that across the board.

This really acknowledges what would really be our first step into kind of a public works arena where we would purchase our own equipment and then we would have control of where that service is provided.

Trevor, could I?

Yeah.

I don't mean to interrupt you, but just raise a question.

It does say purchase of a street sweeper.

Have we also looked at leasing a street sweeper?

And thirdly or secondly, are any counties utilizing or cities utilizing a private company

I think the answer to that is yes.

If you can hold that question for the subject matter expert that's sitting to my left, he can respond to that.

Okay, terrific.

Thank you.

Finally, we've added a programming project for a recycling center.

This would be what would be the third center in the count.

in the region, Juneau Ivy Materials Utilization Center through our Rivanna Solid Waste Authority is designing one for the ivy location.

This would be basically an opportunity to look north or south in the county to add this.

And finally, our facilities master plan work is getting underway.

There's a lot around that as far as our building, the county office building, and this is anticipating some recommendations that will come out of that to improve our facilities and to better optimize our customer service interaction with our public.

So I talked fast to get Lance and Greg up here.

Can I ask you a quick question because I think it's your level kind of question.

Absolutely.

VDOT does have a street sweeping program.

I think they come into our region maybe once a year and so they're managing the infrastructure throughout the state.

We have worked with VDOT to see could we leverage that resource.

Working with the city, we have looked at leasing, and so from a pure VDOT perspective, we could augment that without really any issues.

We do have a permit with VDOT that allows us to enhance the landscaping and the mowing in the urban ring areas, so it would be just a matter of coordinating with VDOT on any expansion.

I just wonder if we get any credit for that in some indirect way.

Not necessarily credit, but certainly a more frequent

Interaction allows us to have better customer service and feedback from the community.

Or maybe they offer supplies, you know, that needed.

Yeah, it could be part of the discussion.

Seed or something.

All right, other questions?

Good afternoon, Lance Stewart, Facilities Environmental Services Director.

I wanted to sweep back up to the two stars and the program in the middle, which is a bit of the monkey in the middle, or as my friends down in southern Albemarle would view this as the redheaded stepchild that's left out of a star.

But water quality, I think, is very

implicit in climate action plan and one of the things we want to try to do is improve the quality of the water that is flowing out of our tributaries and into the James River and into the bay and therefore it's intrinsically and interlinked to drainage infrastructure as well because all of that in essence, pardon the pun, spills over

It's a complex dimension, but I really would hope as we go forward that we would treat water quality TMDL similarly to the other two as part of our first objective

in terms of an action plan to address an environmental issue.

This is one where we can dramatically demonstrate results in very short order.

I was intrigued to see in the paper this past week that the James River Association attributed the increase to nutrient loading into the Rivanna and thereby into the James

and held the cities mainly responsible, indicating that there was all this runoff coming from urban centers.

When the reality is, as we all know, they are not phosphorus and nitrogen loading centers for the most part.

There is some fertilizer that of course comes from the suburban complexes, but there's also agricultural contributions that are there.

and therefore I think water quality is very important and I just hate to see, you know, stars above for climate action plans star below for drainage and we're leaving out the TMDL because I think that's also important and it's part of the other two.

It did say in there that you were investigating working with the city on the Street Sweeper and that you're still talking with them?

I will say that I've been sort of involved with this along with Lance and my impression is that this would be something that would really be good for our board to push in our joint meetings with the city councilors to get the city staff to the table working with us.

We were hopeful and didn't get exactly what we were hoping.

I have talked to two city councilors who were very interested.

Lance also has some thoughts, and I don't want to take us down into a rabbit hole right now, but for example,

One of the problems that we really have in the urban ring and what the Sweetsweeper addresses as well is just litter and trash and dirt.

Also we have trouble with grass and weeds growing up, unsightly intersections in the middles of the road.

Lance was explaining to me the other day that he'd done some work and there's a way that you can hire a company

I don't want to keep speaking for you.

To come in and actually seal the cracks.

And so all I'm suggesting is that we may really want to look at this as something that we partner a lot more with the city.

I agree.

We've been struggling for a good while, but I'm hoping they have a new city administration and maybe it's a new day and it would be something maybe to have on our joint meeting again.

Before you jump to that, if I may just finish a clean sweep on this topic.

I think it would be useful when we do discuss this in greater depth

if you can provide us with some insight if there are any counties or cities that have a lease arrangement on this kind of a vehicle.

I'm not so concerned about purchasing the vehicle.

I'm mainly concerned about maintenance of this kind of vehicle, having grown up in a city and watched these vehicles break down with regularity.

Part of it was Philadelphia that didn't put money into maintenance.

But they're also very subject to getting clogged because of whatever can be in the streets.

So looking at lease and then a third party contract arrangement of whether there are private companies that actually do street sweeping and they would come into the area and that would be an incentive.

for them to participate in what our annual costs would be.

Because 375, that's a sunken cost, and then each year we're going to have to pay for maintenance on it.

So- I can answer both of those now, rather briefly I think.

When we first learned that we were going to be getting funding for this before the funding ever landed, one of the first things we did was looked at outsourcing.

That was our intent and our budget.

It is rare for localities to hire street sweepers, but there are firms that do that.

They are located primarily in Northern Virginia and on the coast.

So the time for them to travel, set up, haul their machines.

The cost basically for a small subset of roads

The other side of things is if we were just saying, if we were to seek to go ahead and do a lease arrangement or a third party contract, it might be an entrepreneurial opportunity for somebody to set up a street sweeper business to meet the needs, especially if the city were to participate with the county.

I approached several contractors who I thought might be well suited to that.

People who have motor equipment operators that have the necessary licensure to do this kind of thing.

Are you remotely interested in a program like this?

And they all said they can't find enough people to stay, to keep their current jobs going right now in this market.

And I do have a meeting tomorrow to discuss this with them again.

I'm hopeful that we will at least get a small preliminary run through some key parts of the county to test some assumptions that we may base the pilot on.

For them, it's opportunity costs.

All of the roads that we want them to do is work that would have to be done early in the morning because street sweepers go 8 to 10 miles per hour and you don't want to stop traffic.

So their street sweeping program starts at 3.30 a.m.

so anything that they add of hours they would either need to do on overtime on a weekend or they would have to sacrifice the frequencies at which they sweep their own streets and that makes that's what we're exploring right now those opportunity costs not that there's not interest but what do they give up in order to provide service to us or is the possibility of doing overtime there for them it would still be very cost effective for us to pay

And people are looking for jobs.

Let me ask you a question.

Would it be helpful, because you are the person that's been working with the city on this project, would it be helpful if our board wrote a letter to city council and just requested that we were really interested in partnering?

I don't know.

Perhaps that's a question we could revisit.

I think Laurie's going to check in on time just for the board, and so we may want to move on.

I will make a point to reach out to the city manager.

I would like to say something about when I read through this recycling center I saw nothing about picking up trash or collecting trash.

What I've been talking about for the last few years

is a facility that would take recycling and trash.

We have a 720 plus square mile county with one place to put trash.

Which is why this is important to do.

And so I just want to be real clear that that's my expectation and if it's the board's expectation I think we have to get that.

In talking with Phil McKellip at RSWA, I do not think that the size of that facility will change much from what they gave us on price.

I think it's pretty much the same.

And I think that that is part of our interest in giving people another place to drop their trash so that we may possibly reduce our illegal dumping.

and I think the price of this is gonna, certainly the operational costs are gonna be reflected in where we decide to put it.

Even in the quantity of material, whether it be recycling or trash that we pick up, it's gonna be very different depending on where it's situated and that has to be, you guys have to work through what you think is the best place and I understand that.

But I just wanted to say that

And they don't have people at every single one of them, their need is a pin, we have tied our own hands by requiring that we have all the staff everywhere, which makes everything cost so much more.

Well, Nelson does have somebody there.

I will also just observe though that as we finish on this topic that once we make a commitment either that this new center goes north or goes south we will reignite the Civil War because whichever of the two sections of the county don't get the center will be urging the board to

to provide funding for a center in their area.

So if it goes south, there will inevitably be a constituency that says, what about us on the north end of the town or the county?

And so we just have to be realistic here that we will not be finished with one more center.

29 North is our designated growth area.

I don't think there's any question that it needs to be in the north and the south of town.

I think that's going to reflect in the size.

It's so good.

If you don't mind, we could continue or we could rearrange how we have our plan today.

I would like to make one comment about the climate action plan.

I just hope, when I look at the scope of it and read through it, your piece on improve efficiency of county-owned assets is clear to me where money gets directed and how it's spent.

This top part, the specific strategies, is less clear to me.

I think when we, since this is our top strategy,

when we're talking about putting dollars to it, that we are abundantly clear how that money, where it's going, how it's being used.

Because there's certainly, it's real easy from a political standpoint to support or deny climate action planning.

And you want to be able to back up regardless of where you fall in that argument.

Well some of it that you're including in here is for public buildings and public facilities and the number one bullet is for helping people with the way the program has been run so far to buy down the cost of the interest so that they can actually pay for, someone of limited means can pay for the improvements to their energy efficiency by their reduced utility cost.

But since it's been going on for four years already, we have all sorts of documentation about how that others have been investing in.

I'll just say briefly that we'll be coming to you in late August early September with our the initial findings of the climate action planning process and we discussed early in this process that there would be opportunities that were that were immediately actionable we hoped and that we would spell out so when we come back to you in late August early September we hope to have

We're ready to move on?

Thank you.

Trevor Henry back at the mic briefly.

I am not going to go through all the projects.

I really just want to introduce Bob Krickenberger, Director of our Parks and Recreation Department, along with Amy Smith, Assistant Director.

They can answer your questions.

I'll just note two things.

The board did fund in the work sessions this past year.

approximately $2.2 million towards Biscuit Run and really allow us to get into the park.

It's an entrance with some limited parking and really will allow us to do kind of that soft opening that we want to get to.

The master plan has been through the board.

The different phases reflect what that master plan entails.

and then the other, just a note, and it's really a work in progress under the Greenways and Blueways projects, one of the items on there is the connector for Two Biscuit Run from the urban area and staff is looking at a potential of

carry forward money that we might be able to accomplish that one piece of it.

So it would be, and I don't have the number on top of my head, Laura, I think it was around 200,000 or so.

260.

260.

I think it says 260.

That might be able to be used to accomplish at least that piece of it, which does tie to Biscuit Run.

Trevor, I just think it's important for people in the audience and people seeing this currently that the figure under phase 1B and 2 and phase 1B 2 and 3 is cumulative.

Yes, sir.

and there was a logic to that.

It may be confusing on the slides and I apologize, but we wanted to make sure the board understood you couldn't, the way the phasing is laid out, you couldn't do phase two without the previous phase.

So it's just, so the board would understand the scope.

We're live, yep.

Okay.

Thank you.

Well, hopefully we can answer any of your questions.

Well, one quick clarified.

No, that's scheduled for 21.

Okay.

And well, here's an off-the-wall question, which you can write down and answer later.

We've talked for four or five years about improvements to access at Sugar Hollow to control the crowding and the impedance of emergency vehicles and a possible parking lot and gate closure for the Northern Road, et cetera.

So I will just put that on.

I don't know which category it would belong in.

I mean, it certainly belongs to public safety as much as it belongs in parks, but

put that in a list so that if there are shared costs that need to come forward for that lot with Rivanna and the city that we have thought about it a little bit.

Board, I've got scheduled this Saturday, the county executive's office and the police department are going out and we're going to re-familiarize ourselves with that entire layout.

I've also had a discussion with the Rivanna's director and so the police department is looking to learn from this trip that we'll take this weekend and then we will report back.

I think that would be great.

I completely agree with Ann bringing that up, and I will just say, having been out there this weekend, you still need to have some boots on to keep your feet dry, or be willing to take your shoes off to get to the south fork of the Mormons, not the north fork.

So we're on any of the park pages, is that right?

For questions and stuff.

Okay.

You show on here pickleball courts.

Sure, yes, the Pickleball Club has formed two years ago, about two and a half years ago, and they raised $9,000, no $6,000, excuse me, and they've done a design for pickleball courts for Darntall Park.

and they've also ran a two day a week at Agner Herd, an indoor program for our department so we didn't have to pay a supervisor to run it and we've collected $4600 in that program and we had about 2300 participants in that program in the last two and a half years.

Okay, so there's tremendous fundraising ability for them because I know the tennis courts at Darden Ty were paid for by the tennis players so I just want to bring that up and make sure that that the public understands that this is very much a total community engagement thing as opposed to taxpayer thing that can move these projects forward.

Right.

but that's not hard and fast.

I was using the tennis courts particularly because that was the original plan was to convert those and the tennis players had raised the money for those.

So the Darden Town courts originally.

That was a very specific question.

Could you also update us if there is an update on the public-private partnership which apparently some negotiations are in process for Western Park?

The information that I have up to this point is that yes the board has adopted it and that the finance department is in touch with Dave Rockman and those details and things are being worked on and negotiated as we speak.

Now I don't know if Bill LaTerri is here, he may have

I just wanted people to, when you see the prices, and I think it goes for many of the prices of these different top pages in here, is that they need, my brain, I can only consider them in phases.

Well, exactly right, Ann.

But now that we have those principles in place for a private-public partnership, that was really what was holding the process up.

Thank you.

When is the soft opening for Biscuit Run?

Tentatively, we're looking at design to begin in August of September of this year, with construction beginning in April or

probably April of 2020, excuse me.

And I'm assuming that, well, I know you already have people working on trails and whatnot.

Cambic I'm sure is, and others are probably very involved in that.

Liz, I don't have the exact mileage of current trails on the ground now.

There is a tremendous amount.

What our staff will do with volunteers is begin making some improvements to those trails and making a decision as to which trails they remain open and others that won't.

I'm just going to do another time check.

We have one more group and then we want time at the end for your discussion.

Just a closing comment on Phase 1B for Biscuit Run on invasive plant removal, potential neighborhood connections.

Rick, you're exactly right.

We're currently working very closely with the Rivanna Master Naturalist to help us develop that.

It's an invasive species management plan because we have to submit that to DCR.

However, some of the control and removal is going to be out of our hands as well as voluntary.

We've got Boos on the ground as we speak.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

All right, are we okay with moving to the last group?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, members of the board, Doug Walker, Deputy County Executive again, introducing the last panel.

These are community development and economic development projects.

Three different categories.

The first is the transportation leveraging program.

Kevin McDermott, you're very familiar with us here to answer questions that you have specific to that.

I will call out

to you that how this has been reflected as choices, $10 million and then greater than $10 million.

As you know, in talking with Mr. McDermott most recently in establishing priorities, there's a number of opportunities that the board has to use local money to leverage that against state and federal money.

Generally, we talk about that in the context of the transportation revenue sharing program and the smart scale program.

The amount of local money that is attached to these

to leveraging opportunities determines how many and how fast these projects can be moved forward.

And so it is entirely scalable, but we represented it in these choices so that you have some context.

Kevin can speak to details, but in general, it is represented that for $10 million over a five-year period, or $2 million a year,

that the county should be able to advance its top priorities as identified by the board at your most recent meeting.

So I just want to call that to your attention.

And the others, the implementation of master plans and the Rio 29 small area plan catalyst projects.

Rachel Falkenstein is here to answer questions about those projects.

in an economic development arena, the economic development funding for public-private partnerships, more specifically reflected as obtaining site control over key properties, as well as the implementation of the Broadway blueprint economic revitalization plan, and Roger Johnson is here to speak to those projects.

I'll just piggyback on what Doug was saying.

When I was looking at this book and all these projects, the transportation leveraging program was the only one in here that does meet four of our strategic plan priorities.

And if you go over and look at the economic development funding for public-private partnerships, it's the only one in the book that meets three of our strategic plan priorities.

That's all I was going to say.

I think that this, Kevin's presentation that you made, there you are, at the last board meeting was incredibly well organized and I actually asked, got my hands on the PowerPoint so I could continue to look at it, but other counties have chosen to draw many more state dollars down because they've, I mean there were some years when we didn't even put up the million dollars, much less to do more than that and so I would,

A very high priority for me if we could swing it would be to have more than two because the top three things that Kevin proposed on the revenue sharing are all incredibly important.

One for economic development, one for pedestrians, and another for connectivity and delivery of emergency services, North, South, and Crozet.

I just want to figure out a way that we can instead of moving one of those forward a year to figure out a way that we can

to do more than one in order to get those ambulances south of the creek faster.

Because waiting another five or seven years, in addition to having other bridges in Crozet taken out while that's happening is going to make the whole place come to a screeching halt.

And it's very scary.

So I will encourage people to think about, I mean I was very happy when I saw the five million annually as even if we leverage it and borrow some of it to expand those dollars.

I agree with what you're saying.

Not these.

These won't even qualify.

But overall, as a county, we are at least advantaged by the fact that we have three different approaches that we can take.

However, I totally agree with your first point that we need to be looking at more than one project a year.

We do have buckets we can seek after, but if we don't put money in the bucket, we're not going to get any back.

That's all.

I guess I'm going to ask, I'll put Kevin on the spot, Ann has rightly kept bringing up the Eastern Connector and I'm not, I certainly have no intention of arguing that, but could you explain a little bit about why it's ranked where it's ranked?

Yes, I think that on the ranking that we had, and I even had provided this previously, it scored highest under that land use category because of both the existing residential development

and the proposed or up and coming residential development in that area of Eastern Crozet that currently has very few access points.

And relative to that, we've seen with some of the transportation impact analyses that were done for Barnes-Lumber,

that the Crozet Avenue is experiencing fairly high levels of congestion, particularly in the AM and PM peak hours, as is the 250 corridor in that area, and all those result also in safety issues, so we have some fairly high numbers of crashes around there as well.

so by providing this other alternate access point you would be able to relieve some of those issues off of Crozet Avenue and provide the access to all those homes that currently have very few points of access.

It also does include bike ped facilities on it so it was receiving points for building out the bicycle and pedestrian network.

and we have with Barnes-Lumber coming up and some existing things there is economic development opportunities in the area.

But it went down with your— Well, up above it are things that are—if you're looking at page 19, it's confusing to me in our packet because some of the—they're all different categories in there, so it's very difficult to figure out how number seven in one category compares to number two that's in a completely different category.

I appreciate that.

Eastern Avenue was ranked at number eight on our list of all the projects in the county.

This is just the southern portion of that connector.

If you look at this page, though, this page contains the projects that we hear the most from our community about.

This is the page.

Which is why, again, it has four of our strategic plan priorities.

Why it needs more than $2 million a year.

It's where the action is to some degree.

I think it's more like a bronze, but we've got to get it.

It's basic.

Yeah, the ones we were talking about were mentioned in the fiscal year 20 program in Kevin's thing last week.

So, Micah, I would like to just echo a point or a couple of comments from last night.

as it relates to the Rio 29 small area plan catalyst projects and then the next item economic development funding for public private partnerships.

So last night reinforcing economic developments input into Rio 29 catalyst projects but I think Julian made an excellent point about the location of the library where the current neighborhoods are and access to that.

and that has had me thinking relative to this in that catalyst project, how does micro or micro transit or something else with the current state of things, getting people to be able to move through those quadrants, even with the current state of businesses from those residences, that could in and of itself be a catalyst project.

And I wonder if that, is there scope or room for that in this type of work?

I don't think the transit for the willow tree is part of the CIP, it's part of a different program.

But I'm trying to figure out, it may have to be through something similar to get something like that in existence.

And if you go back and look at last night and we were prioritizing, you're exactly right.

So I have the opportunity with you both sitting to be able to because you know Rach was that you know we're focusing but I really see for the Rio 29 smaller plan success that economic development and community development have got to be working hand in hand on that and then the strategic property acquisition

at some point, not today, but I need a reminder of reminding of how that works.

Do we wait for opportunities to come to us or how proactive are we in searching for things?

And if I've got that wrong and just how I've stated that, but funding to obtain site control of strategic property and how that might connect to the Rio 29 small area plan relative to greenways or green spaces that could be catalyst projects.

I hope that when we think about that we don't get so focused on how people get transported but really looking at the infrastructure that's necessary for them to be transported because otherwise I think we're losing an opportunity here.

The real issue is given the no man's land that gets constructed with 29 cutting through, this whole redevelopment area,

building bridges across that become the means by which connectivity can occur.

I'm thinking of Minneapolis and St. Paul where they built bridges across the interstates and then they had connectivity established

with their bike trails, and once they built the bridges across, they were able to extend the bike trails and open up communication and therefore pedestrian and bicycle access where before there hadn't been any.

So I agree that how you get there is important, but I think really the fundamental issue is this infrastructure to assure that the infrastructure is in place, as we're already talking about Zan Road, and we need another bridge

further to the north where Rio is, but dedicated just to pedestrians and bicyclists to be able to get across there to ensure safety and that kind of cross-fertilization from east and west.

Well, and just to follow up on that, to get out of the fixed route transit mindset.

Right.

Because the current infrastructure, I mean, good grief, getting a bridge, this Ann Road Bridge, we'll see how that plays out, but getting any sort of pedestrian or bike only bridges under, or tunnels under, that, who knows when that can come to fruition.

But right now with the current, the current setup, a different

view of how transit could work can make it work now that could entice both what Roger's looking for and his public-private partnerships and what Community Development's looking for for catalyst projects.

Good point.

Are there other questions for the panel?

I think just one pile-on sentence to what these gentlemen were saying.

The creating the destination that people want to go to was what I was thinking of when Julian last night talked about the plaza amenity and how it really needed to be on the east side where there was space for other things to be around it.

To have it at the library means you wipe out the only handicapped parking we have, and that didn't seem to be understandable to me.

But I just thought more thought is needed about where it's going to be and having, as we all know, a little business hole in the wall in the back of the beyond.

If people want to go there, they'll find a way.

So creating the location with the public amenity investment as we know is needed for the plaza gathering place because that's not something we can expect private enterprise to be able to do since they can't go to the bank and borrow on it.

It's just not a possibility.

So I just wanted to make sure we were thinking about other locations for that than just the one that was suggested here.

I just had one quick question about that.

I have a question for Roger.

Members of the board, I'm Roger Johnson, Economic Development Director Albemarle County.

Supervisor, there are numerous ways you can gain site control instead of outright purchase.

There are extended due diligence periods where you would have the ability to purchase at a later time, but you have a three month or a six month window to conduct your due diligence.

Before purchasing, you actually have site control during that particular time.

There are lease to purchase options whereby you would simply do that, lease to purchase at another time.

And there's also putting money into an escrow account and locking in a price to purchase at a future amount of time should you not purchase those escrow accounts usually get lost to the

property owner because they have given up the right to sell that property during that time and you forfeit those dollars if you don't exercise that right.

Would you say, is it revenue neutral normally, or to do some of those kind of things?

It depends on the public elements, most importantly, supervisor deal, meaning if

If you want additional public elements, it doesn't always operate in the black.

You can develop a built environment that will operate in the black, but usually it requires less public elements.

It's been my experience here that this community expects a high degree of public amenities, so we would try to go cost neutral in most cases of that nature.

and concurrently build the transformative projects that are already in plans like the Rio 29 for an example.

You ever work with one developer and let's just say there's a piece of property, commercial property that's underused that you can talk to somebody who wants to buy it and for whatever reason they can't negotiate directly in a comfortable way that you act as an intermediary and maybe participate financially some?

Historically, I have not pursued that particular option.

We as economic developers try to stay out of competition with commercial brokers, so to speak.

We try to be a catalyst for future development, not necessarily competitive from a government standpoint.

So we've not necessarily pursued that avenue or I haven't historically.

Now I have worked with master developers, which is a term which means there's one developer for a large number of projects that would result in a campus style investment where I would help the master developer find potential partners to develop under some campus style development.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions for the panel?

Well I just I guess had a comment about the Broadway blueprint and that was that I hope that it would be allowed to just organically grow and not have something that's swept in there to make some radical plastic change.

I want to thank everyone.

So thanks everybody.

I'm going to move to the last part of this work session.

We have about 20 minutes left.

This is probably a difficult part of the work session because everything that you heard is very compelling.

This time was set up for you to have some more discussion.

You've had a lot of discussion during the work session, but for you to have any more discussion you'd like to have on any of these projects that you heard from today,

And then also, if there was something that you didn't hear, that we didn't put in front of you, we definitely prioritize and brought to you what we felt was the high priority projects from the staff perspective.

But if there's something that is not being discussed that you think should be considered, we'd like you to identify that and we can add it to your board.

As you can see over there to the side of the dais, we have these projects listed.

18 of them.

We don't have the first project that Emily spoke of because we thought that was more of a thinking of it in a broader way.

But all the rest of the projects are listed on those papers.

And we're going to ask you to do a prioritization for us.

And this of course is leading us to that conversation we're going to have with the school board because they have their projects also prioritized when they come to speak with you.

So the way we've set this up for today is that you will be receiving some dots from Tia and she's going to give you nine, three green, three yellow, and three blue.

And they're basically high, middle, and your third priority.

So after the discussion then we would ask you to go over to the board and place your dots and then we'll talk a little bit about the results and then just basically end the meeting at that point.

So the terms over there are going to be the titles of the things in our packet.

That's correct.

Yeah, and the thing that I want to mention too, the Parks and Rec ones that you heard Mr. Henry talk about the phases, we actually listed the phases.

So on a couple of those when you see some specific subcategories on them, we'd like you to place your dot closest to the phase that you think is the appropriate phase for the next five years.

Could you explain what you mean by 10 and 10 and above?

I'm looking at transportation leveraging program.

Yeah, Mr. Walker's coming back in to share his suggestion on that.

It's an order of magnitude that reflects an annual contribution per year over five years.

So the $10 million represents $2 million per year over five years.

The amount that was originally contemplated was $25 million, which is $5 million per year over five years.

and so the thought was to put the board in a responsible position to understand that it is scalable and that the more local funds that are available to pull down non-local funds, the more projects can be accomplished in a shorter period of time.

But obviously there's cost constraint and so we did not want to just throw out to you, well it's 25 million over five years or nothing.

So this was a way to try to put you in a position to recognize that there are many priorities that are competing for those limited dollars and what's the right level of investment.

But to say that is to say that the more local money invested, the more of these transportation projects can be accomplished in a shorter period of time.

That's what that meant.

Thank you.

And other projects are also scalable, but we didn't actually break those apart on the board.

Just remind me, the projects that you have in the book that we've gone over today, what was the total cost of those, your estimates?

You mean everything in the book?

Lance did a summary, and he probably has it in his head.

The numbers may have changed since my initial draft, but it did highlight it.

I think it was about $108 million.

I'm sorry.

108 million.

108.

Yes.

Yeah.

Yeah, and also this is for a conversation with the school board.

Well, and remember, we have a school system that has a lot of facilities as well.

What's the bumper sticker?

Forget World Peace.

So if there's not, what we'll do is you take your time.

Tia's over there.

She'll pass out your dots for you.

You can go ahead and place your priorities at this time.

We have about 15 minutes.

He's got the dot.

OK. Hello again.

Think about it.

And blue is.

.

.

.

,

yep

Thank you.

It has to be natural, isn't it?

The smallest package of what it's called, whatever it is, that kind of dries you up a little bit.

She's walking around.

Well, thank you all very much for working with us in the prioritization exercise today.

We just got a high-level summary of some of the top priorities of transportation leveraging, economic development, public-private partnerships, climate action plan, water quality program.

The details we'll provide to you at a later date.

We'll total it all up number-wise.

and provide that to you.

But I really want to thank you for participating in this exercise.

We're down to just about four minutes left.

So this is the same slide we saw earlier in the day.

The next thing that we'll do is, again, summarize this information, get it back to you, and we will also be updating, as we mentioned, the Planning Commission on just about the process in August.

You'll be meeting with City Council in September.

You'll be meeting with the School Division in September.

So we'll be pulling this information together for you for that next meeting in the process.

And thank you very much.

This is very different than how we've done our CIP planning in the past.

based on the oversight committee and the board's direction, so I appreciate your involvement in it and support as we work our way through this.

Thank you.

Quickly, Mr.

Chair, I would first of all thank this board.

This is our third meeting in a stretch run of 14 days, and so this board has been asked to, in addition to what you ordinarily do during your busy week, you've been asked to spend additional time here in this building,

various board meetings and and then second thing I'd like to do is look out and thank the staff earnestly thank the staff for the hard work Lori had mentioned it earlier but significant work to get us ready to answer your questions today and to put these 18 projects

in front of you and hopefully in a meaningful way and we certainly will be open to feedback after today as to what things you want done differently, things that you liked, didn't like, but there was not misses today for a lack of effort.

Our team worked very hard and we have been working long hours to get ready for today.

So Mr.

One comment, I just think the homework was so well done and everybody obviously read it and wrote all over it because that was why we couldn't keep our mouths shut when it was time to go over anything.

But just really great preparation and everybody being here really helped it too.

And I love the dots because at least people can share what they think without having to have a debate about it.

It's really neat.

I'd say just as a structural thing, I don't have a solution to it, but I think there's got to be a better way to do things like the police facility and the fire facility.

Those are the kind of things that are always going to come in, you know, just below the line and there's got to be a way where we can commit to doing it, you know, within five years or something.

It just, I don't know, that's all I can say, but it's imbalanced.

My only note on that, Norman, would be that even though they may not have received a three or a two or a one, it doesn't mean that they won't get funded in the CIP in the coming five-year time period.

But I'll also observe that in the past, going back eight years to maybe three years ago,

anything that was related to master planning or economic development did not get funded in the CIP.

And now we're seeing funding for truly programs that I think not only are critical as public safety is absolutely the number one objective for local government.

We can't do anything more important than ensure

Public Safety.

But now we're also looking very closely at projects that contribute to enhancing the quality of life of people living in this community and attracting people to this community to help it grow, continue to grow in a productive manner.

So those investments are absolutely critical and I think the priorities that I saw identified with the 3-2-1 reflect

a shift in the way the county looks at priorities that are dramatically different than where they were eight years ago when I first was involved with the CIP.

So I think we've come a long way and an individual that I attribute a lot of that growth to is Laurie.

Thank you again for all the work that you do on the CIP and the oversight committee and working with the board and then additionally with the planning commission but most critically with the school board because I think the county is now in a position where all portions of the community

understand the imperative of the CIP and its primacy.

We never did anything like this in the past and to my knowledge on the board and the exercise we did today and we're really teeing up now to be incorporating the comprehensive plan with our strategic goals and objectives for the next five years with objectives with the city

and with our capital program so we have a symmetry between all of those which indicates where our energy needs to go.

But Norman, it doesn't mean in any stretch of the imagination I think that the county will now ignore those other projects.

I think they will get funded out of the oversight committee and by this board.

but we're seeing a shift there which is an overdue shift in my opinion and a much better equilibrium now of balancing urban ring issues and the need for us to be planning our future rather than looking to a buy right future by which we previously operated in investing

our good faith and economic prosperity on strip mall development.

And I just want to echo Ann's comments on the homework, especially how you did the summary sheet with the packet.

That was incredibly helpful to dive in at this level, then get in deeper when you know where it was at.

So thank you for that.

I do want to mention Tia Mitchell in the audience.