Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press county on apartment development impacts and school spending transparency
Summary
During the subcommittee session, residents asked whether new apartment projects shift net costs onto the county (schools, fire/EMS) and pressed for clearer line‑item transparency from the school system; County Administrator Gary LaRue said the major Roanoke Road redevelopment represents substantial private investment and does not appear to be a 'loss leader.'
Residents at a Botetourt County budget subcommittee meeting urged clearer accounting of school spending and questioned whether recent apartment development shifts costs onto the county.
Several speakers asked whether developers are required to contribute to costs such as school services and fire protection or whether the county absorbs those service costs. One resident asked bluntly whether the developments are a “loss leader” for county finances. Gary LaRue, the county administrator, responded that he did not believe the Roanoke Road apartment project was a loss leader and described it as substantial private investment; he estimated a per‑door investment the developers reported and a total development investment in the tens of millions of dollars and said the taxable value for county receipts would be calculated from assessed value and the property tax rate.
Speakers also called for more transparency around school budgets. A participant said the school system often requests the same items year after year without showing how funds were used; the meeting record shows staff directing residents to the school board and school system for detailed line‑item explanations. LaRue said school budget specifics are the responsibility of the school board, noting that some school figures are treated as placeholders early in the cycle and that the county sometimes appropriates funds in proportionate installments to ensure operations continue through the summer.
Public commenters asked whether the county could publish more detailed departmental or school spending data ahead of review sessions. County staff and communications personnel committed to posting the departmental review schedule and supporting documents on the finance web page and to providing links so citizens could prepare for scheduled sessions. Legal staff reminded the group that posting agendas or materials to private social media before official publication can violate the Freedom of Information Act and must be avoided.
The meeting did not resolve the underlying accounting questions: officials offered to provide property and revenue lookups (for example, using GIS) to establish how much tax revenue a specific development produces, but no new requirement for developer contributions or changes to school accounting authority was adopted during the session. The budget subcommittee proceeded instead to schedule department reviews and to ask staff to post supporting documents for public review ahead of the sessions.
