Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Viva White Oak topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff says $40 million for Viva White Oak roads is fully appropriated; developer targets late-November groundbreaking
Summary
County staff told the Economic Development Committee the $40 million road participation commitment for the Viva White Oak project is fully appropriated, and MCB Real Estate said it expects to break ground in late November or early December pending permit approvals.
A county staff member told the Montgomery County Economic Development Committee that the $40,000,000 committed under the road participation and development agreements for the Viva White Oak project has been "fully appropriated" for several years, though the timing of expenditures has been adjusted across fiscal years.
The change in the expenditure schedule does not remove the appropriation, the staff member said, and county reimbursements will be made on a pro rata basis as the developer submits monthly draws for roadway work. "So, all that to say this, which is the $40,000,000 in the expenditure schedule and in the 6 year CIP has been malleable, over the years and we've played with it," the staff member said.
Carlos Bonner, senior managing director with MCB Real Estate, told the committee his team is tracking permits and expects a permitting milestone around Nov. 20 that would allow "late November, early December" mobilization for the first phase of construction at Viva White Oak. "The date, don't hold me to it, is around November 20, which will give us enough time within a week or two to mobilize to the site to start the first phase of construction," Bonner said.
Why it matters: the county’s commitment of $40 million for road work is intended to ensure infrastructure is in place as the master-planned community develops; confirming the appropriation reduces the risk that the developer will face funding shortfalls for road construction, while the reimbursement approach means the county pays as work is completed rather than pre-funding construction.
Committee members asked whether moving $30 million into FY26 would affect other CIP projects; staff said no other projects must be scaled back and that encumbrances roll forward if a project is delayed. The developer cited an economic-impact analysis prepared with the University of Baltimore that estimates roughly 27,000–30,000 jobs over the life of the project, a mix of construction-phase and permanent positions; Bonner emphasized many are temporary construction jobs.
The committee expressed no objections and accepted staff’s recommendation to move the item forward for council action; staff said a revised CIP expenditure schedule for FY27–32 is expected during next year’s CIP process.
Sources and evidence: County staff explained the appropriation and the pro rata reimbursement mechanism during the briefing; the developer provided the projected permitting and mobilization window and cited an economic-impact study for job estimates.
The committee moved on to other CIP items after accepting the recommendation; the briefing included only procedural acceptance rather than a recorded roll-call vote.
