Consultants present Goochland County model showing major road, school and utility impacts under multiple southeast build‑out scenarios

Consultants hired by Goochland County presented a new scenario‑modeling tool at a public open house that forecasts infrastructure outcomes for the county’s southeast study area, showing large differences by development pattern and inviting residents to test assumptions and leave feedback.

The tool, developed by the Timmons Group and subconsultant 3TP, produces outputs for several metrics residents ranked as priorities — commercial tax revenue, acres developed, new housing units, water use and vehicle trips — under three illustrative 90% build‑out scenarios: a comprehensive‑plan/existing‑pattern scenario, an economic‑development (commercial‑lean) scenario and a mixed‑use scenario. Steve Schmidt, the Timmons project manager, said the modeling is “analytical” and not a land‑use recommendation; the model is intended to inform planning and is adjustable as conditions change.

Why it matters: the scenarios produce materially different infrastructure demands. Under the comprehensive‑plan scenario, consultants estimated roughly 4.3 million square feet of new commercial development and an increase of about 28,000 vehicle trips per day above today’s aggregated capacity; the mixed‑use scenario lowers commercial square footage to about 2.5 million sq ft but increases residential development and produces more than 70,000 additional daily trips in the study area; an economic‑development scenario produces a different commercial mix (flex/industrial) and roughly 47,000 additional daily trips. Schmidt cautioned these trip totals are aggregated across the study area rather than predicted on any single road.

The model translates land‑use mixes into measurable impacts using national and local inputs. Jeremy Goldstein of 3TP described the model as a transparent, spreadsheet‑based tool that applies land‑bay percentages, unit intensities (e.g., single‑family vs. multifamily), ITE trip‑generation rates and local utility guidance to estimate units built, water and sewer demand, trips, and assessed value. Goldstein said the tool is meant to be persistent: “we wanted this to be a tool that they could continue to use… it lives on in perpetuity.”

On utilities and schools: consultants reported the county’s overall water and sewer capacity — including existing intergovernmental agreements — appears sufficient in aggregate to handle projected demand at the study‑area level (the comprehensive plan scenario showed roughly 230,000 gallons per day of new water need and about 218,000 gallons per day of sewer need), though local line extensions would be required to serve specific parcels. For education, Schmidt said the comp‑plan scenario would generate about 40 new students (roughly three classrooms), the mixed‑use scenario about 250 new students (about 14 classrooms), and the economic‑development scenario about 80 students (five classrooms). The team noted Randolph Elementary School is at site capacity and cannot add trailers, which could necessitate redistricting or a new school if localized growth occurs.

Public safety and facilities: consultants used a 15,000‑square‑foot planning threshold for a new fire and rescue station. Under the mixed‑use full build‑out the county could need additional facility space beyond the 15,000‑sq‑ft station already planned for the West Creek area; under the comprehensive and economic‑development scenarios planned facilities would likely suffice.

Tax revenue and caveats: the team provided rough annual gross tax‑revenue estimates at full build‑out — approximately $6.3 million under the comprehensive plan, about $3.9 million under mixed‑use, and a higher but more volatile total under the economic‑development scenario (sensitive to presence of data centers vs. office/flex uses). Consultants clarified the reported tax numbers are gross; they did not present a net‑impact or fiscal‑impact study that offsets service and capital costs and said that analysis would be a logical next step.

Resident questions focused on methodology, assumptions and visualization. Attendees asked whether slides and outputs would be posted online (consultants said yes), whether the tax figures were gross or net (gross), whether parcel‑level or drone surveys were used (no — the team drove the area and used aggregated land‑bay assumptions with a 75% developable factor to account for constraints), and how the model defines multifamily (townhouses at about 12 dwelling units per acre for this iteration). The consultants committed to posting benchmark comparisons (for example, existing commercial square footage and comparisons to local centers) and to making the interactive tool available at stations after the presentation.

What’s next: the team invited attendees to try the model at three stations, leave written questions and ideas on boards that will be posted online, and return later for a Q&A. County staff and the consultants said the tool will be part of the county’s planning toolbox and can be refined with additional local input and further fiscal or parcel‑level study.

Sources and attributions are based on remarks during the Goochland County southeast infrastructure public meeting, including comments by Timmons Group project manager Steve Schmidt and 3TP consultants Mike Callahan and Jeremy Goldstein. The consultants cited external data sources such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip‑generation rates and population forecasts from the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center.