LEXINGTON, Va. — On Sept. 25 the Lexington Planning Commission reviewed CPA 2025-01, the comprehensive plan update’s local economy (and related governance) chapters, and directed staff to correct data, clarify language and return a revised draft.

Jeremy Cruz, assistant with the Shenandoah Planning District Commission, presented the draft local-economy chapter and the results of an online survey. “As of last week, we now have 163 responses,” Cruz said, summarizing resident priorities including retail and shops, renovation of existing buildings and mixed-use development.

Why it matters: commissioners said the chapter shapes long-range economic development, affects revenue forecasting and informs decisions about downtown redevelopment, city-owned properties and city services. Several commissioners raised concerns that data errors and unclear wording could mislead residents or potential investors.

Substantive points and staff directions

- Data verification: Commissioners identified multiple numerical or labeling errors in chapter tables. They asked staff to recheck employment and employer tables and correct totals and source years. Cruz acknowledged a mismatch in totals and said he would “go back and relook at that” for accuracy.

- Employer classification: Commissioners asked staff to clarify how large local employers are classified in the data source (for example, whether universities are reported as state government). The draft lists Washington & Lee, VMI and Carilion among top employers; commissioners asked staff to trace which categories (educational services, state government, etc.) produced each table value, and to add an explanatory asterisk or note for readers.

- Education and comparative language: Commissioners debated wording that compared Lexington’s educational attainment to county and state rates. The chapter currently reports 57.3% of Lexington residents hold a bachelor’s degree (age 25+). Commissioners asked staff to remove loaded qualifiers, present the raw percentages clearly, label the comparison (county/state) and ensure the phrasing does not read like an editorial judgment.

- Survey presentation: Commissioners requested that survey response items be ordered by frequency (ranked) rather than by the original survey order so readers can quickly see top priorities.

- Tables and citations: Several tables were published in 2025 but appear to contain 2024 data; commissioners asked staff to add the data year to table titles. They also directed staff to correct table 5.1’s total employment figure and reconcile other tables where subtotals did not match the stated totals.

- Program and incentive checks: Commissioners asked staff to verify references to economic programs named in the draft, specifically whether the city offers a commercial tax abatement, whether the HUBZone designation applies locally, and the current status of Opportunity Zone designations. Staff was asked to confirm eligibility and citation language and to remove or correct items that are not city-administered tax programs.

- PILOT and tax-base language: Commissioners asked for clarification of a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) reference tied to a local university, noting the draft phrase “to offset a portion of its impact on city revenues and services” may not reflect the full or partial terms of any existing PILOT. Staff was directed to confirm whether PILOT payments offset the city’s loss in full or in part and to revise the text accordingly.

- Main Street and downtown priorities: Commissioners asked staff to confirm Main Street Lexington’s priorities and to avoid implying order-of-priority where none exists. They also requested clearer language that streetscape and pedestrian improvements be considered for other commercial corridors as well as downtown.

- City properties and land-use strategy: The draft strategy to “sell, lease, or otherwise leverage underutilized city-owned properties” prompted questions about which parcels are meant (Spotswood, certain VDOT parcels, the water-tower parcel, Brushy Hill) and what “leverage” means in practice (sale subject to conservation easements, lease for development, etc.). Staff was asked to list examples and to clarify allowable outcomes.

- Broadband and implementation updates: Commissioners noted the city’s broadband status is largely complete and asked the draft be updated to reflect maintenance and ongoing network stewardship rather than as an outstanding build objective.

Fiscal and governance recommendations

Commissioners asked planners to add or strengthen strategies under the governance chapter that explicitly address municipal fiscal resilience. Suggestions included a policy to maintain an operating reserve/rainy-day fund above minimum state guidance and a second strategy to maintain robust financial controls/audit standards. Commissioners asked that the current “advance fiscal responsibility” objective be paired with an additional, citywide budgeting and reserves strategy.

Decisions and next steps (directions vs. formal actions)

- No new ordinance or formal vote was taken on CPA 2025-01. The commission approved the meeting agenda and minutes as amended earlier in the session (motions carried unanimously) and closed the new-business discussion with staff follow-ups.

- Staff directions (summary): verify data sources and table totals; add or adjust table years and source citations; clarify employer classifications and PILOT language; confirm program eligibility (HUBZone, Opportunity Zone, commercial tax abatements); reorder survey results by frequency; adjust wording on education comparisons; confirm Main Street priorities; list and clarify options for underutilized city parcels; update broadband status; add two fiscal-resilience strategies (reserve policy and financial controls). Staff agreed to circulate revised chapter text for review and to return with a corrected draft at the next commission meeting.

Context and background

Cruz said the local-economy chapter follows the plan’s typical format: planning context, human-capital/workforce indicators, industry and employer overview, partnerships and initiatives, needs assessment and goals/strategies. Commissioners spent an extended review of text and data, requesting relatively precise wording and citation changes rather than substantive policy reversals.

Quotes (selected, verbatim)

- Jeremy Cruz: “As of last week, we now have 163 responses.”

Meeting follow-up

Staff committed to produce a revised draft that incorporates the data corrections, clarified language and the requested implementation steps. Commissioners indicated they expected another review before the chapter is finalized and incorporated into the full comprehensive plan.

Ending

The commission closed the new-business discussion and moved on to other business; no formal action was taken on the economy chapter at the Sept. 25 meeting. Staff will circulate a revised chapter and corrected tables before the commission’s next meeting for additional review.