JCC Supes Discuss Buying More Greenspace
The James City County Board of Supervisors discussed purchasing land or conservation easements of land within the county but could not come to a consensus on whether the time is right at its Tuesday work session.
The county has $3.9 million available in the Greenspace account and $637,000 in the Purchase of Development Rights account. The county is looking to purchase four properties for Greenspace and has six pending PDR applications. If the pending negotiations are successful, excess funding would be required. The assessed value of the four Greenspace parcels is more than $11 million, but the cost could be less if easements were negotiated rather than outright purchases.
Staff said the deadline for borrowing the $14 million the county was authorized to borrow in the 2005 referendum is November 2013, but the county can request a two-year extension from the Circuit Court. Staff thinks the board should acquire additional land and should borrow the funds now because of low interest rates.
According to a staff memo to the board, if the $14 million was borrowed now, the debt service would be about $800,000 per year over a 20 year term.
Staff suggested hiring a “limited-term employee” or making a “contractual arrangement” to negotiate land sales or conservation easement sales. Current staffing levels don’t provide for effective work at purchasing land, staff’s memo to the board read.
Ultimately, the board did not agree on how the process should go, if at all.
Roberts Supervisor John McGlennon said though he recognizes certain aspects of the program need to be assessed, he believe it makes sense and sees a number of reasons to pursue the program. Jamestown Supervisor Jim Icenhour wanted to know the costs involved with getting extra manpower and what processes could be executed to generate citizens’ willingness to sell land or development rights.
Berkeley Supervisor Mary Jones was opposed to the idea of buying more land because, she said, the county already owns 36 percent of the land in the county. She said she has concerns with the timing and whether it is right to spend $14 million on more land.
Stonehouse Supervisor Jim Kennedy said he wants to see what the cost is for purchases before moving forward. The problem with the referendum is the county decided to borrow money without a spending plan and now there’s a deadline.
Kennedy said he is concerned about the economy and is going to look at things as a business person. With business closures around the county with no rapid improvement, he is unsure it would be wise to spend money where it is not necessary and wants to make sure the new employee hired to negotiate land sales is working in the county’s best interest.
McGlennon said it is important to keep in mind that while the economy has changed, land value can only increase because no more land can be made.
Posted by Brittany Voll
on January 23, 2013. Filed under Local News.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
4 Responses to JCC Supes Discuss Buying More Greenspace
Leave a Reply
Hmmm
January 24, 2013 at 5:22 pm
The voters did approve a referendum, it also was voted on to expire in 2013. The fact some are calling for an extension is short sighted and skirts the foundation of the agreement.
The County has funded a position for Greenspace/PDR for 12 years now, the position was made part time some years back when no one would sell their property. We are targeting property that is not slated to be developed, and does not have zoning in place.
The citizens in 2007 voted out the supervisors that raised fees and taxes, especially the tax on rain. The rain tax was then put on a referendum, again rejected overwhelmingly by the voters, just 2 years ago. I note that even now the old supervisor who was voted out, Bradshaw, is pushing to tax the rain again, and the 2 on the board whom feel we don’t pay enough in taxes support it.
There was no plan to spend the money borrowed, we borrowed $20 Million Dollars and had no where to spend it, the democrats that want to spend it had 2 years of the majority to do it, why didn’t they? Easy, they didn’t have a plan.
Amazingly disconnected with reality
January 24, 2013 at 1:39 pm
I voted for this and still support it, however this referendum passed 7 years ago and expires in November for a reason. It was never intended to be permanent.
Real problem is certain members seem utterly confused what “up to” means but to suggest that anyone is unaware of these programs after already having full time staff pursuing this boondoggle is simply ridiculous and quite frankly disingenuous
Seems more like a solution in search of a problem – not fiscal responsibility or good governance some profess
I am also sick and tired of those who say “the people wanted this” especially when refusing to listen to actual citizens often ridiculing and dismissing their comments but to further state that land value only increases just shows how completely disconnected with reality one truly is. Most of US actually have to live and work in the real world where property is worth half what it was just a few years ago – not just be leeches on taxpayers backs – then again they did just spend $1.3MILLION to someone who paid $900,000 a few years ago to prevent the possibility of 9 houses being built at some future point – whatadeal!?
BTW – Nothing supposed about the 36% cited by staff report on “preserved” land protected from development – well other than it’s currently much higher today
Interesting how many times the very simple question was posed “what’s the goal”
Funny how those pushing their Agenda never seem to answer simple questions
Real question is how can someone represent US while being so completely and utterly out of touch with reality
Voters Approved Referendum
January 24, 2013 at 11:34 am
Sincerest thanks to our supervisors for putting this topic back in the public forum. The County did NOT decide to borrow money without a plan. The voters approved a referendum with enough dollars (and incite) in hopes of balancing the deleterious effects of rampant suburban sprawl and environmental destruction of thousands of acres in just ten years. We also voted millions for Parks and Rec- yet no one questions that these monies as well had “no plan” in place. The plan to expand our wonderful park system unfolded as opportunities arose. Would that Ms. Jones would clarify what the 36% of supposed county lands includes. Are acres all greenspace? Schools? etc. Acres for Parks and Rec ought not be counted in her numbers as those lands are compromised and are not natural passive open space. Wonderful for all of us, but not useful as greenspace. They are playing fields (70% of rain runs off these grasses, parking lots (100% runoff) and do little to buffer our waterways from pollution. We urge our supervisors to continue working on the public’s wishes for preservation of natural space by applying for the extention past Nov. 2013 and acting upon staff’s recommendation to hire a greenspace/PDR coordinator/negotiator- a position which was in the county years ago and was allowed to go unfilled.
All of James City
January 24, 2013 at 10:03 am
Thanks to the Supervisors for considering the Greenspace that makes Williamsburg the place everyone wants to visit and live. Greenspace is one item that gives the community a better quality and sets it apart from other areas.