[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6345815,"mediaKeyId","2248457-62c3551d9339fdfe69df619a20473142","parentId",2248457,"title","County presents five-year CIP and proposed software purchase; staff flags tax pressure and borrowing for fire station","audioSeconds",3668,"startMs",3518000,"endMs",7186000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2248457-62c3551d9339fdfe69df619a20473142&start=3518&end=7186","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2248457-62c3551d9339fdfe69df619a20473142/thumbnail_3518000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6345815/Gloucester-County/Virginia/County-presents-five-year-CIP-and-proposed-software-purchase-staff-flags-tax-pressure-and-borrowing-for-fire-station","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345815-0cc5c16c8eb3f2995765f8187d1a7b49/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140090&Signature=WWh6Cd5U5mun6VegU2EPjdcCww~sbeOgmgMKo2bbNmHSjtwGpZUrVB73M2OqpQynXuqRzAgBvxdQ673lfZngmqOtIJE1WxAXD0w59GkOEK5QBmrNar9JNkuJm0B8pc8JbA8EThsChHSllvGVeHgk1qKGpAe8NXl4Im3c4Q9TSTo1NaffJ6gfcd7HskZr4b74Td8hvqULGGPUEBYCVqRv0cdwEXjKesRWsq6YF-zxcsrmQyC8RHuklgE9MSwR4P0~bj3AqvsrLqbenbxmwaKinDd87K2p~uR9o7ztuYynDNFHglhHuW2NueTox3wQ3rPw84n9fGh7LcMq8M6FWWkd7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Gloucester County, VA","date","2025-02-07T16:07:18Z","article","Gloucester County administrators presented a draft five-year capital improvement plan and an update on a proposed enterprise software purchase during the Board of Supervisors meeting on Feb. 4, 2025, saying the county faces a multi‑million-dollar gap in PAYGO funding and will likely need a mix of borrowing, use of reserves and a modest tax increase to meet near‑term capital needs.

County Administrator Steele led the CIP presentation and told the board the combined five‑year plan showed large capital requests that exceeded current PAYGO capacity. Staff and the county’s financial advisers have run multiple scenarios. Steele said borrowing for a proposed new Gloucester Volunteer Fire and Rescue Station would increase the real‑estate tax rate by “approximately a penny” and that, overall, the county would likely need a combination of postponed projects, use of a school‑sales‑tax reserve and a tax increase to close the funding gap.

Why it matters: staff cautioned that postponing capital projects raises costs over time and risks service losses such as playground replacements and other deferred maintenance. The proposed CIP captures asset, paving and building needs across departments and includes projects staff said were partially or mostly grant‑funded, such as shoreline work at Gloucester Point Beach.

Steele and finance staff also described a vendor quote for an enterprise finance/HR/utility software package that county staff have been evaluating as an alternative to legacy systems. Staff reported a vendor purchase quote totaling about $798,000 — presented in the meeting as three payments described by staff as $558,000 in the first year, $215,000 in the second year and $24,000 in the third year — and an annual subscription that staff described in the presentation as “year 1 would be $4.99, year 2 $6.56, and year 3 $7.04” (units were not specified in meeting materials shown on screen). Steele said part of the cost picture is one‑time PAYGO versus ongoing operating expense and that staff were still finalizing exact numbers and financing scenarios with the county’s financial adviser, Davenport.

Steele said the county could use existing reserves — lowering the fund balance modestly — to purchase the one‑time software licenses and avoid short‑term borrowing, while the annual subscription cost would have to be covered in the operating budget (and would require additional revenue or expenditure reductions). She presented a scenario in which the fire‑station borrowing would require roughly one additional cent in the real‑estate tax rate; she also referenced an earlier staff discussion of an additional 1.5‑cent figure tied to operational and utility pressures, though she emphasized the exact penny impact for specific debt items had not yet been finalized.

Board members asked for more detail and for written backup before committing funds or approving contract language. Supervisor Hudson said the board must decide how hands‑on it wants to be on operations versus letting staff handle routine program decisions; Supervisor Gibson said she liked the potential ROI if the new software helps tourism and economic development but asked for the full policy and contract terms.

Public commenters used the CIP hearing to raise operating and capital concerns unrelated to the software quote. Residents urged disciplined budgeting, questioned replacement schedules for school buses, pressed for better water‑system repairs, and urged transparency and preference for local contractors for capital projects.

Staff said they would provide the board with the revised CIP materials, the vendor quote and a detailed cost/benefit analysis and would return during the formal budget process with recommended financing language. Steele said staff could prepare scenarios that would allow the board to weigh whether to use reserves, borrow or raise taxes for the recommended capital program and that staff would present more detail on utilities separately.

Votes at a glance: The board approved routine consent items earlier in the meeting (approval of minutes, agenda and the consent agenda) by voice votes recorded as “Aye.” The board approved a reappointment to the Colonial Juvenile Services Commission — a motion to reappoint Lisa Kursing passed by voice vote during the county attorney items portion of the meeting. The meeting included a resolution to convene a closed meeting under Virginia Code §2.2‑3711(a)(19); the board took that action and later reconvened in open session with a roll call that recorded members present and voting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Gloucester County Board of Supervisors Meeting, 2/4/25","oneSentenceSummary","Gloucester County presented a draft five‑year CIP and a vendor quote for enterprise software on Feb. 4, 2025, saying a mix of borrowing, reserve use and a probable tax increase will be required to fund priority projects.","taxTitle","Gloucester County, Virginia","taxId",30980,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6345820,"Gloucester County staff outline AI use and Placer location analytics; supervisors press for privacy, cost and contract details",2913,406000,3319000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2248457-62c3551d9339fdfe69df619a20473142&start=406&end=3319","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2248457-62c3551d9339fdfe69df619a20473142/thumbnail_406000.jpg","/articles/6345820/Gloucester-County/Virginia/Gloucester-County-staff-outline-AI-use-and-Placer-location-analytics-supervisors-press-for-privacy-cost-and-contract-details","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345820-8c1c0be0a369a2bc20965a863541f93b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140090&Signature=BeDcHEIfs6J5A2GKfjK79LO0JIf-r8T-1X9LSOb0sjPFS7pBq~7O67iQ2AFVeRHWwF5rglGUzz-XBd25xpANHWsIFel4TvOHUkTZ-4Hz9tGNJadcVOMH~6NwwcVBdQi8UJupEH9RKCddckSen1Hk48Rg18HMscg9nDjR4NDBEtbyHfz2IxUgp0gTGgsf1EgpVz5VOjnCq2APsGRuaJWjP2Vkqxm28ZeUzQ-puB5n617VOCIEn1yolmVsVDeOv9dFEAJzNiU0I47AjH0o6mLOhcMR5jbR2NjNp1z1jCtLjTMzu3TqvqucG0Ka9geiJi4N5wUAJ3ugBUpsPtLfSF4Urw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Gloucester County staff presented the county’s current and planned uses of artificial intelligence (AI) during the Board of Supervisors meeting on Feb. 4, 2025, outlining both general AI tools such as ChatGPT and specific services the county is piloting, including Placer, a location-analytics vendor that aggregates mobile-device movement data to estimate visitors and patterns.

The presentation, led by county information-technology staff and department directors, described safeguards the county is using and proposing — onboarding and training, monthly review meetings, and a policy approved by the county attorney — while staff acknowledged limits and risks including hallucinations, biased outputs and the presence of third-party data collectors. Supervisors repeatedly asked how Placer obtains data, whether children or sensitive sites can be identified, how accurate the counts are, and how much the subscription costs.

Why it matters: county staff said the tools provide faster, broader data than legacy methods and help with event planning, tourism marketing, grants and traffic planning. Critics said the data collection is largely out of residents’ control and pressed for transparency on data sources, partner lists, contract language and whether the county should continue the subscription.

Britton Hogg, a software analyst, gave the technical overview, saying, “AI is already here whether we want it or not,” and described general AI services county staff have experimented with, including ChatGPT, OpenAI’s Operator and Deep Research, Microsoft Copilot and Google’s Gemini. Derek Beach, the county’s chief information officer, urged “responsible” adoption and said membership in a government AI coalition helped staff craft rules and training.

Placer’s product, described in the presentation, combines aggregated mobile-device data and “differential privacy” routines and is sold to governments and businesses for use cases such as estimating event attendance, drawing trade-area ZIP-code maps for economic development and informing park management. Matt Barber, director of parks, recreation and tourism, said Placer allowed staff to estimate event counts and visitor behavior: “What we can do with Placer is draw a diagram around what we consider the event site, and then we get the accurate counts for in that area,” he said, citing staff examples such as counts staff reported for the Daffodil Festival and other events.

Economic development staff said the tool supplies trade-area ZIP-code breakdowns and retailer-visit estimates useful to small businesses and recruiters. Sherry Spring, director of economic development, presented 12-month visit totals for a local shopping center and specific retailers drawn from Placer data, stating numbers in the presentation (for example, a high number of visits reported for a large retailer), and emphasizing the tool’s usefulness when writing grants or marketing the county.

In response to board and resident questions, staff said Placer does not give identification data for individuals and that the vendor requires aggregation thresholds (staff said at least 50 devices must be present in an area before a data point is produced). Staff also said Placer’s partners strip personal identifiers before aggregation and that the vendor prohibits knowingly supplying data on minors or on certain sensitive location categories, though board members pushed staff to provide the vendor partner list and the contract clause language that define the limits.

Supervisor Cristo said residents lack a practical opt-out from Placer’s underlying data collection and asked whether the county’s purchase makes a material difference, saying, “I don't have that option. I either have to turn my phone off and not be counted or I don't have an option to not use Placer as a citizen and an end user.” Staff replied that the county did not provide Placer with individual device data and that Placer acquires data from sources such as mobile apps and data brokers.

Accuracy and cost were repeated concerns. A supervisor asked whether Placer figures are tested against in-person counts; staff said they have discussed validation with the vendor and that the vendor compares some outputs to store sales and other benchmarks but that independent, public validation was limited. On cost, staff gave a first-year subscription figure described in the meeting as roughly $20,000; board members cited other cost numbers during the discussion, including travel and membership costs for a government AI group, and asked for a written cost breakdown before the board decides on continuing the subscription.

Board members and members of the public asked several specific follow-ups: they requested a copy of the county AI policy (staff said the county attorney approved it and staff would distribute it), a copy of the Placer contract and vendor partner list, documentation showing the methodology for device-aggregation and the 50-device threshold, a cost-benefit analysis tied to concrete use cases (for example, tourism grant success or avoided survey costs), and the possibility of a Placer representative presenting to the board. Staff said they would provide the requested materials and that, if the board instructs them to end the contract, they will do so.

The presentation and ensuing debate left the board without an immediate policy change. Staff said they will supply the policy and vendor materials and that they are prepared to end the Placer contract if the board directs it.

Ending: Board members offered two paths at the close of the discussion: some said they wanted more information and a written packet before deciding, while others reiterated privacy and opt-out concerns and asked for quick access to contracts and policy documents so the board and public can judge whether the county’s use of location-based analytics is acceptable.

Votes at a glance: The AI discussion produced no formal vote to authorize or terminate a contract during the meeting; staff indicated the current Placer subscription is a pilot-year subscription and that continuation would be considered after the board reviews the requested materials.","County staff demonstrated how Gloucester County is using artificial intelligence across departments and presented examples from Placer AI location analytics. Supervisors and residents raised privacy, accuracy and cost concerns and asked staff for the vendor contract, a policy copy and a cost-benefit analysis.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

County presents five-year CIP and proposed software purchase; staff flags tax pressure and borrowing for fire station

Gloucester County staff outline AI use and Placer location analytics; supervisors press for privacy, cost and contract details