Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board divided over $125,000 economic development site study and hiring consultants
Summary
Supervisors debated whether to pay for a $125,000 economic development site study and whether to retain outside consultants (Timmons); some members opposed spending and cited past negative experience, while staff emphasized procurement rules and the value of expert site identification.
A proposed $125,000 economic development site study prompted a contested exchange on April 16 as supervisors weighed whether to hire outside consulting help to identify developable industrial and commercial parcels.
One supervisor said the county already employs an economic development organization and expressed strong reservations about paying an outside firm, declaring, "I still have my doubts about that. I think that's a waste of money. I can't vote for that." The supervisor referenced a prior local project and said earlier consultant work had led to overruns in a Boykins project.
County staff defended the proposed study as a best practice and noted it would identify specific parcels, utility needs, zoning, and options for public–private partnerships or county acquisition. Staff reminded the board that state procurement rules require a qualifications-based RFP process for architectural and engineering services and that contracting decisions should be based on qualifications rather than price; staff also described Timmons as a well-regarded firm in Virginia for economic development work.
Supporters said the study could be a one-time effort (e.g., every five years) and might help the county market sites to regional partners, arguing the county's 3,300 acres identified in the comprehensive plan are too broadly described and need parcel-level analysis. Opponents urged first reviewing the county's existing maps and comprehensive-plan sites before committing funds. Staff emphasized the board could adjust line items before formal adoption provided tax rates did not increase.
The transcript records a voice vote called after the motion to proceed with the study, but the recording does not clearly capture a final, unambiguous tally for the $125,000 study during this session. Staff reiterated that an RFP and a qualifications review would still be required if the board chose to proceed.
