[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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",[32,75,87,99],{"_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",6159516,"mediaKeyId","5454497-e1947ad9bfa48e70da4ef5536c8c108b","parentId",5454497,"title","Board approves ‘no objection’ to sale of conservation‑fund parcel to National Park Service, one supervisor objects","audioSeconds",116,"startMs",2484000,"endMs",2600000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5454497-e1947ad9bfa48e70da4ef5536c8c108b&start=2484&end=2600","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5454497-e1947ad9bfa48e70da4ef5536c8c108b/thumbnail_2484000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6159516/Floyd-County/Virginia/Board-approves-no-objection-to-sale-of-conservationfund-parcel-to-National-Park-Service-one-supervisor-objects","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6159516-a59f9e5a8e9752724757d27cf6378a16/orig.mp4?Expires=1771229797&Signature=mCZ~JFGYQj~Rq~a55gDxG1nbBI8qH3sxxtAFmzcKKs8EUZeN-4aHAvB-QOPuCH8fkjML9ykpSswvxe3OFltjhncIyIa6d~xuz4f3hN8fNAGqlQNx8OVJzZVA~NC40k1S9VMBJZFkX0XR2tV30HQLi52P8aimOYXy8cLj7WxgLwfwN~bBkhfgHq6tkm9Ymg5-2~iOvxGmiOesdxG1dO2falLHlBGqu7vO0LH8xBlYSmULg9HmiBEkZhsRC40NT80Z7~pJSipI4jo8mAe2vKN-ao27Rw5Xb6zfEKFNN0PIasFZDFWmA2YKYF5QlqstkPVS2FgegGMqsBtCTnPcbWdrog__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Floyd County, VA","date","2025-07-23T19:03:45.277Z","article","Floyd County supervisors on July 22 approved sending a no‑objection notice for a proposed National Park Service acquisition of a Conservation Fund parcel (Parcel 66‑48, known as the Simon Thomas Farm) adjacent to the Blue Ridge Parkway.

Staff told the board the acquisition covers multiple adjoining parcels across state lines (the materials cited approximately 603 acres proposed for acquisition, of which the county‑relevant portion is smaller) and that the transaction is structured to meet Land and Water Conservation Fund requirements for the Park Service. The board voted in favor of approving the requested “no objection” communication; the roll call recorded a 3–1 vote with one supervisor voting no (Supervisor Cookenbrook) and the others voting yes.

Why this matters: The National Park Service acquisition would add private inholdings to park holdings, changing landownership and management adjacent to the Blue Ridge Parkway; the Conservation Fund’s proposed conveyance to the Park Service typically accompanies federal recreation and conservation funding requirements.

Supervisor requests: One supervisor asked staff to circulate Heather’s earlier email and the complete Park Service correspondence; staff agreed to forward the full packet to the board. During discussion staff clarified they were not aware of a direct monetary exchange to the Conservation Fund for the parcel in the county portion; the record indicated the Conservation Fund had owned the parcel and was working to sell it to the Park Service to meet federal grant requirements.

Action taken: On a motion to approve the county’s no‑objection letter for the sale, the board recorded votes as follows: Ms. Bechtold — yes; Mr. Cox — yes; Ms. Cookenbrook — no; Mr. Terman — yes. Staff will forward the Park Service correspondence to board members for their records. The vote does not itself transfer property; it expresses the county’s non‑objection as requested by the Park Service and Conservation Fund.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Floyd County Board Of Supervisors Regular Meeting 07/22/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The board voted to send a no‑objection letter for the Conservation Fund’s proposed sale of Parcel 66‑48 (the Simon Thomas Farm) to the National Park Service for inclusion in the Blue Ridge Parkway holdings; one supervisor voted no and several asked for the original email and supporting documents to be circulated.","taxTitle","Floyd County, Virginia","taxId",30973,"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},6159520,"Architect outlines three procurement methods for county renovation; supervisors ask for scoring matrices and cost ballparks",219,1673000,1892000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5454497-e1947ad9bfa48e70da4ef5536c8c108b&start=1673&end=1892","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5454497-e1947ad9bfa48e70da4ef5536c8c108b/thumbnail_1673000.jpg","/articles/6159520/Floyd-County/Virginia/Architect-outlines-three-procurement-methods-for-county-renovation-supervisors-ask-for-scoring-matrices-and-cost-ballparks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6159520-2df9dbbd352bcbf05067104386042533/orig.mp4?Expires=1771229797&Signature=YKJq2DlDval2YJvaK9rmTEcW5WcaNL5RjMokADLfY1uSEPFCf4MZb5zyWE8OQo-5ZGcTHaP9hpnRFfp~24uCZnG71vAUs7WkTne~QDTAFyIwdxGrcfAR5TggrbTJlV3rwZbMgZ42lb0m-Fd8cZB8v2VSFaMsEZS8IwOq2VPMGiIMvQWl7Vx3f5OqPh22a-oFSMTi-f2gAP0rwDUeAWOzbR-7xh-FXKz93b-UDAssHP6ZhX6LXfanlnWIcNtOuHEIHqMo7rGvu84tm62hwHjB1i8~Z2b7iarUwN~JDGIbKCU8SEE15CTSl7JHsfQHp6BsXu-dJGMIqovyChRAqz1Y3A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Architect Yancey Powers of WMA Architects on July 22 presented three delivery methods for the county’s renovation of an acquired bank building and advised supervisors on the tradeoffs among cost certainty, contractor selection and owner control.

Powers described the traditional design–bid–build approach (design completed before competitive bid), progressive design‑build (contractor selects the design team; typically faster but reduces owner control) and construction management at‑risk (CMAR), where the owner selects a construction manager early for pre‑construction services and guaranteed‑maximum‑price negotiation. The architect said several Virginia school districts and local municipal projects have used CMAR successfully and recommended it as a strong option for complex renovations because early contractor involvement can reduce unexpected change orders and lower the risk of large overruns.

Why this matters: Supervisors have already purchased a downtown bank building for county administration and are considering renovations to relocate offices and services. Choosing the procurement method will affect overall cost certainty, the owner's influence over design choices, the pace of construction and the county’s exposure to change orders.

Board requests and next steps: Supervisors asked the architect and county staff to share scoring matrices (evaluation criteria) used on other comparable projects, and to provide rough ballpark cost estimates and a matrix comparing pre‑construction fees, overhead and expected timeline for each delivery method. Powers agreed to share sample scoring forms and prior proposals used in nearby projects. No procurement selection or contract award occurred at the July 22 meeting.

Supervisors also requested that future planning include input from affected stakeholders (for example county offices that would occupy renovated space) and a security and ADA review; county staff said they would coordinate a follow‑up that includes courthouse security and emergency-management personnel. The county will return with comparative cost estimates and evaluation materials to help the board choose a delivery method.","An architect hired by the county reviewed design–bid–build, design‑build/progressive design‑build and construction management at‑risk (CMAR) procurement approaches for renovating the county's recently acquired bank building; supervisors asked staff to provide scoring matrices and ballpark cost estimates before choosing an approach.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6159524,"Board tables tire-fee proposal after staff outlines heavy operating loss; supervisors ask for phased approach",676,2664000,3340000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5454497-e1947ad9bfa48e70da4ef5536c8c108b&start=2664&end=3340","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5454497-e1947ad9bfa48e70da4ef5536c8c108b/thumbnail_2664000.jpg","/articles/6159524/Floyd-County/Virginia/Board-tables-tire-fee-proposal-after-staff-outlines-heavy-operating-loss-supervisors-ask-for-phased-approach","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6159524-4c5b659aa4dfca59eadc2b49604e5697/orig.mp4?Expires=1771229797&Signature=H3bIvmWPZqqwOXSGMKFv5I8O5stAa8PIA4WIdb7VoOUe22d6EG8gXDUn9ScLpgaTXfbauzxNq0xC5BqApdgCfCCN4ZL4Din3QZQRkcDVmVI8wFRcc7gO~Wag13WBYtARWvzCd6Xj6t52GJM68bQzQkO~NrEZKkFmxAspo5AkXMc4-~cEhpBe0AmBLj~1mr5dI8WBC0hhuRxoU5H8rnzYBiCK7oqcBasjvO~280UEGT5sJJb6vL5AX4TWvD7Qb5CSLHZeCV1NYGdNeq-9cmmIgma7w5wE1nln7CPRaC7mMJ-ZYTIgzcyKWu-1hRJCkCL5MqQjVvrYpDtdMhaKObN5dg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Floyd County supervisors on July 22 reviewed a staff analysis showing the county’s current tire‑disposal service runs at a substantial operating loss and discussed options to reduce the shortfall.

Solid‑waste staff presented a worksheet that compared three fee models: current practices, a per‑pound fee and a flat per‑tire schedule. Staff said the county’s current annual revenue from tires is small (examples shown in the presentation included figures in the thousands) while direct disposal and hauling expenses run much higher (the staff estimate presented an illustrative annual expense near $146,000 under current operations).

Staff recommended a per‑pound fee — the presentation modeled a 19¢ per‑pound rate that would approach break‑even under optimistic capture assumptions — and discussed a higher 21¢ per‑pound option. They warned that accurately capturing pounds requires staff handling and weighing and would increase labor costs if the county tried to quantify and process every tire brought to the transfer station. That tradeoff is important because manual sorting and weighing of bulk deliveries could require adding employees, which would worsen the operating picture unless per‑pound rates were higher.

Why this matters: The county’s transfer-station tire program is systemically loss‑making, and the board must choose between raising fees, adding staff to track and weigh tires, or accepting the subsidy as part of solid‑waste service provision. Staff said a per‑pound fee set at roughly 19¢ would bring revenue closer to current expenses under full capture assumptions; board members suggested starting at that rate and revisiting after monitoring.

Board action: Several supervisors asked for time to consult with the county attorney and with absent board member Jerry before finalizing a change. The board voted to table the solid‑waste fee review and directed staff to return with detailed cost and implementation figures at the Aug. 12 meeting. Staff also said they could publish guidance for businesses and residents showing average tire weights and a flat-rate equivalent for common passenger and commercial tires to ease transitions.

Community context: Businesses and residents attending public comment expressed concerns about per‑pound pricing because it may raise costs for operators who already pay for hauling; staff said the county could provide conversion tables (for example, an average passenger tire equivalent) and keep a small flat‑rate option for residents bringing only a few tires.

Next steps: Staff will produce a detailed cost estimate for implementation — including whether additional employees would be required for manual tire weighing and how to treat dumped or mixed loads — and return with numbers for the Aug. 12 meeting. The board did not adopt a new fee on July 22.","Floyd County staff presented revenue and expense modeling for tire disposal and recommended moving to a per‑pound fee to approach break‑even; supervisors asked for more analysis and tabled formal action to the Aug. 12 meeting.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6159528,"Floyd supervisors review three grading plans to reduce hauling, consolidate convenience centers",723,1911000,2634000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5454497-e1947ad9bfa48e70da4ef5536c8c108b&start=1911&end=2634","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5454497-e1947ad9bfa48e70da4ef5536c8c108b/thumbnail_1911000.jpg","/articles/6159528/Floyd-County/Virginia/Floyd-supervisors-review-three-grading-plans-to-reduce-hauling-consolidate-convenience-centers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6159528-998f5e117c20f021143055e0c43861c1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771229797&Signature=KdyPd2MJN7BdlpFg-gyFTMjxjQfg-HMDvyBdsoZiwPA0os9wr6r7Ar5hXEE8eIWEKIw1x2WjqFXU2BAC83P5kAdIYaa8XO8pR4XGmNZaOvxVwxcm06qhOIqBVt4IcuND0i1ialf9rDwhkNuoJDCr7HARUD85YwsdoXVt~4pD87a4CAz4HRrREiVXYJ7Mjb-IJ-3gwAhNMRymS9AjJVIMkhhDKLWkSbZux-paX6MBGMVusz6faum5nnteLU6vmcmJMMX4VysQjG3a99W5dUKjMZ7mBrWHMVdRRgImQLcaaFGsoByN60uOxuycaxzgyxosebhk2bAtkAVfMyfQ42SmFQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Floyd County supervisors on July 22 reviewed three grading and site-layout options for a proposed consolidated convenience-center near Willis aimed at reducing on-road hauling and maintenance costs.

The county’s solid-waste staff presented plans that trade off landfill-box (\"convenience box\") locations and counts against the amount of soil to be excavated and the number of stormwater mitigation credits the county would need to buy. Officials discussed options that keep between roughly 32 and 36 disposal boxes on the system and reduce the amount of cut material by tens of thousands of cubic yards depending on grade and ditching choices.

County solid-waste staff and the engineering consultant described how the most conservative plan (Option 1) included extensive ditching and required the most cut — the meeting transcript shows an estimate of about 46,744 cubic yards for the steepest section mentioned — while a middle plan (Option 2) reduced ditching and cut, and a third plan raised the allowed grade from 5% to 6% to cut earthmoving by roughly 34,000 cubic yards compared with the first scheme. That change also reduced the mitigation-credit requirement from about 1.24 credits to roughly 0.4 credits, the presentation said.

Why this matters: County staff said consolidating several dispersed convenience-box sites into fewer gated, camera‑monitored locations would reduce truck mileage and staff time, slow equipment wear, and lower recurring operating costs. Speakers noted tradeoffs for residents: some would travel farther to reach a convenience site. Officials repeatedly said the choices have implications for future expansion and for where the community places recycling roll‑offs, handicap access and site security.

Details and next steps: The plans discussed would move some boxes currently located at Willis Elementary, Union School and other community centers; staff counted roughly 31 existing boxes at identified sites and described consolidating some of them to new locations. Board members asked staff to return price estimates for each plan and to produce versions of the three options using a 6% grade (instead of 5%) so the supervisors could compare costs “apples to apples.” The board did not vote to adopt a site or plan; members asked staff to request cost estimates and to table formal selection until the next meeting.

Supervisor comments underscored residents’ access concerns. Several supervisors and the public noted Floyd County’s older rural population and said the board must balance operating savings against travel burdens for some residents. Solid-waste staff said cameras and gated sites have reduced illegal dumping at similar facilities and that consolidations could reduce routes and allow closing Sunday collection days, saving labor and fuel.

No formal land purchase or construction contract was approved on July 22. Staff will ask the engineering contractor (TRC) to price all three plans — including a 6% grade variant and a 32‑box and 36‑box scenario — and will return those numbers for board review at a future meeting.

Ending note: Board members asked staff to include the expected capital and operating costs, the mitigation‑credit cost differences, and the impacts on travel distance for affected neighborhoods when they return with estimates.","County staff presented three grading and layout options for a planned convenience-center consolidation near Willis that would reduce earthmoving, lower mitigation-credit purchases and cut truck mileage; supervisors asked for firm cost estimates and will revisit the plans at a future meeting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board approves ‘no objection’ to sale of conservation‑fund parcel to National Park Service, one supervisor objects

Architect outlines three procurement methods for county renovation; supervisors ask for scoring matrices and cost ballparks

Board tables tire-fee proposal after staff outlines heavy operating loss; supervisors ask for phased approach

Floyd supervisors review three grading plans to reduce hauling, consolidate convenience centers