Same UDA talk

since the deadline is more than a year away but sense was that the PC was not
“on board” with the basic concept… not comfortable with the concept… leery of
unintended consequences, lots of questions without totally satisfying answers.

One of my concerns is if the county designates a UDA – are they committing to
the infrastructure needed to service it?

For instance, traffic generation – another area that the county is still behind the
curve in anticipating the impacts that growth will have on existing roads.

If you designate a UDA – you are designating traffic also and, in turn, affecting
the capacity of the roads and that will require the county to look at the impacts
of designating density – how much more road (and/or transit) capacity will be
needed, and figure out how it will be paid for and built.

Most of the road projects in the pipeline from the referenda are ..the result of
not anticipating just how much the transportation network would be affected by
growth.

The county has gotten a pretty good handle on schools and
libraries/fire/rescue impacts and roads around commercial with the use of CDAs
and Transportation districts but road/transportation for residential is still an
issue especially since VDOT is essentially out of the road-building business for
all intents and purposes unless there is a state or local level gas tax increase
of fairly substantial proportions – 10 to 20 cents and I just don’t think that’s
going to happen.

So…we get the proffers for schools… but figuring out how to move all those
folks in those UDAs …if they work elsewhere – like up in NoVa like a lot of
Spotsy residents do… is going to be an important issue – I would think (hope).

Tricord recognized this with their proposal that got turned down. They had
calculated the road infrastructure but the county did not like the proposal in
terms of who would pay for it… a TIF-type arrangement if I recall.

The TIF would be like a transportation district LITE in that the increase in taxes
due to the development would have been dedicated to pay for the
transportation infrastructure and … not for other infrastructure ..like schools
and the like….

Sooner or later.. the county will need to deal with the issue of how to do roads
that are needed to serve new residential growth – and the UDA discussion at
some point.. ought to involve that issue.

It could be something simple – like enacting a policy that any/all UDAs created
will also have a transportation district created with the same boundaries.

She may not be well.. I dunno.. the last meeting.. was a little weird I thought…

but I would have liked to hear her opinion on the 3202 concept of UDAs.

The BOS passed on the other 3202 opportunity – UTSDs which would have allowed them to
put comprehensive impact fees – countywide on all new homes – which would have, IMHO,
gone a long way towards dealing with the issue of growth paying for itself, designating
growth areas… and worries about growth in “by-right” areas.

see: http://www.hb3202.virginia.gov/urbantransportationservice.shtml

I don’t think I have ever heard a concise reason why the UTSDs were rejected nor a bill of
particulars brought back to our reps at the GA to repair the parts about the UTSD that fell
short.

then less than a year later… they expand the by-right in the county.. without impact fees.

the Lee Hill District BOS (who appointed Mary Lee).. looks like a real cat-fight come the next
election… at least 3 – all strongly opinionated about taxes, government and growth.