The meeting of the Stafford County Purchase of Development Rights Committee for Monday, December 3, 2007, was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Chairman Tom Coen in the ABC Conference Room of the County Administration Center.

Members Present: Coen, Apicella, Clark, McClevey, Kurpiel, Silver, Hall,

Members Absent: None

Staff Present: Neuhard, Baker, Lang, Gregori, Schultis,

Others Present: Milde

Minutes of October 18, 2007

Mr. Apicella made a motion for approval. Mr. Silver seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

Review Revised By-Laws

Ms. Lang read the by-laws. She stated the second page of the by-laws stated the Commissioner of Review or designee would be the Chair of the Appraisal Committee. She stated in the event of a tie vote, the issue would be deferred to the following meeting.

New Business

Mrs. Baker stated she spoke with Kevin Schmidt, State Program Manager, about the matching fund amount of $300,000. She stated she did not have a date for when the money was available.

Mr. Silver asked if the funds were use or loose.

Mrs. Baker stated yes, the time limit was 2 years. She stated the property would have to be settled on prior to a specific date.

Mrs. Clark asked if the money would go to any extra projects or would all of it go to the purchase.

Mrs. Baker stated she would assume the money would go to the purchase price.

Ms. Kurpiel asked how the Committee would know how much money was available.

Mrs. Baker stated when the paper work was signed.

Mr. Coen thanked staff for their work.

Mrs. Baker stated Hugh Muir, The Free-Lance Star, wrote an article about the formation of the committee. She stated the County Public Information Officer place information about the Committee on the County cable television channel. She stated the Department of Planning and

Zoning would place information about the Committee online as soon as possible and there would be two web pages, one of the PDR Committee and another about the PDR program.

Mr. Neuhard stated information on the PDR program would be mentioned in media announcements.

Mrs. Baker stated the minutes would be posted online. She stated notebooks were passed out to each Committee member with a list of frequently asked questions, a PowerPoint presentation from the previous meeting, the survey and results, a model PDR program, and a pamphlet on land trust.

Mr. Neuhard stated the process could be discussed piece by piece or as a comments open for discussion.

Mr. Coen stated questions could be presented afterwards.

Mrs. Baker stated the timeline would be a year from application submission to closing on a piece of property. She stated the application deadline would be June 1 each year. She stated 90 days would be allotted to receive background information and criteria, including the soils work and referencing the Commissioner of Revenue records. She stated the applications would be forwarded to the PDR Committee by October, followed by the Board of Supervisors meeting, after which the appraisal would take place and be submitted to the Appraisal Committee for review.

Mr. Neuhard stated the timeline was Ordinance and practical based. He stated they would not know how the process went until they tried it.

Mrs. Clark asked if there would be a pre-application meeting prior to the application deadline.

Mrs. Baker stated staff would meet with the applicant to make sure they had everything needed to apply.

Mrs. Clark asked if the funds rollover automatically.

Mrs. Baker stated that would have to be discussed.

Mrs. Clark stated applicants would want to have an idea about how much money the County was willing to pay for the development rights.

Mr. Neuhard stated he agreed that funding was essential. He stated there would be a briefing about funding sources. He stated the fair market value of land differs from one place to another and the funding program would have to work in concert with the price negotiations and what the County could afford to pay. He stated the program would need a continuous stream of financing and staff was currently looking at financing options. He stated the County needed to explore possible financing options and needed to have a bank with funds available.

Ms. Kurpiel asked if staff knew what one development right was worth. She stated, in her opinion, $600,000 would not go very far and the Committee should know where they were heading with the program. She asked if the development rights could be paid out over time.

Mrs. Baker stated as the state becomes more involved, staff would have more information and the options could change.

Paul Milde, Aquia District Supervisor, stated the County could not incur debt or bank roll the funds.

Mr. Silver stated Virginia Beach conducts their PDR program a certain way because they are a city, not a county.

Ms. Kurpiel stated her concern was that the County may not be able to afford to purchase the development rights once the property was appraised. She asked if the Office of Farmland Preservation was proposing any legislation. She stated, in her opinion, it would be unrealistic for the County to pay full value for approved property. She stated it would be helpful to have information on approved tax credits.

Mr. Milde stated Fauquier County paid $30,000 per development right.

Mr. Coen stated there could be a timeline for future agenda items.

Mrs. Kurpiel stated, in her opinion, the appraisal process was so far down the road in the application process. She asked if an appraiser could meet with the PDR Committee to discuss their concerns.

Mrs. Baker stated the appraisals would be completed later in the application process because it was more expensive to pay for it in the beginning of the process. She stated further into the application staff and the Committee would be able to tell if there were any serious problems.

Mr. Apicella stated the Committee needed to be conscious of the direction they were heading.

Mrs. Clark stated, in her opinion, at the pre-application meeting there needed to be examples of the process for the applicant.

Mrs. Kurpiel stated she was troubled with the idea that the County would pay for the appraisal, in her opinion the property owner should pay for the appraisal and be reimbursed at a later time. She stated the application process could be very expensive in terms of the appraisal.

Mr. Neuhard stated any time the County purchased land there were always those questions. He stated there could be more debate about the appraisal. He stated agreed that the County did not want to spend all the money on an appraisal.

Mr. Milde stated Stafford County was not the first County to do this and the process would work.

Mr. Apicella asked how the Committee could figure out the best properties to pursue.

Ms. Kurpiel stated, in her opinion, there needed to be a fixed price and the appraiser would provide a number of development rights, not just the price.

Mr. Coen asked staff to provide information from other localities.

Mr. Apicella stated the Committee needed to know the budget for the program.

Ms. Kurpiel stated there was a problem with the ranking criteria; forested land would have a low ranking and cannot compete with farm land.

Mrs. Baker stated silva-culture was the same as agricultural property.

Ms. Kurpiel stated some ranking criteria could not apply to all properties.

Mr. Coen stated the ranking system was part of the overall program which was approved by the Board of Supervisors and to examine it now would be difficult.

Mr. Neuhard stated the ranking criteria was pulled from models and combined to fit Stafford County.

Ms. Kurpiel stated there needed to be a healthy debate on how to rank property.

Mr. Neuhard stated just because the cycle started in June would not prevent the Committee from looking at property in September. He stated the program was designed around the Ordinance. He stated the Committee needed the administrative process and timeline to provide to citizens. He stated when the year came to an end there would be things which may need to be reviewed.

Mrs. Baker stated there would be an annual report for the state at the end of the year.

Mr. Neuhard stated funding, tax credits, grants, banks, development rights, briefing and education on financing would be on the agenda for January and February.

Mr. Coen asked that the appraisal aspect be a topic on the agenda as well.

Ms. Hall stated the County only had $600,000 for this year and could not accept an application for more than that.

Mr. Apicella stated the County was moving into a new budget cycle and post July 2008 there could be more funds available.

Ms. Hall stated the process would be driven on how to get people interested in the program.

Mr. Coen stated the timing of the appraisal was written in the Ordinance and could not be changed.

Ms. Kurpiel stated the Committee would have to see how the process worked.

Mr. Silver stated it would take 13 months to complete the full application process.

Mr. Neuhard stated the number of applications would dictate how fast the process went.

Mrs. Baker stated Virginia Beach takes eight to ten months with the application process and they have the most experience.

Mr. Silver stated sometimes one doesn’t have 13 months to wait for the process to go through.

Mrs. Baker stated right now there was not a lot of flexibility.

Mr. Silver stated development pressure was ranking criteria that helped move a property to the top of the list.

Mr. Coen stated Mr. Silver had a legitimate concern.

Mr. Silver asked if April 1 to June 30, would be a set time period for submitting applications.

Mr. Neuhard stated June 30 was written in the Ordinance.

Mrs. Baker stated the application process would coincide with the budget year.

Mr. Milde stated June 30 was the cut off for state and federal tax credits.

Ms. Kurpiel stated the state was spending a lot of money on tax credits.

Mr. Coen asked staff to review the draft application.

Mr. Schultis stated the application was modeled after other Planning and Zoning applications. He stated the information requested on the application was modeled after James City and Isle of White applications. He stated the application was in the preliminary stages but did cover all bases.

Ms. Kurpiel asked if the Committee was discriminating against properties which were mortgaged.

Mr. Silver stated, in his opinion, the lender would have to approve of a PDR program on a mortgaged property.

Ms. Kurpiel stated that would limit who could participate.

Mr. Coen stated the Committee members should look over the application and email Mrs. Baker with any questions.

Mr. Silver asked if all the owners on a piece of property must sign the application.

Mrs. Baker stated someone could be an applicant as long as all property owners sign the application and the necessary information was provided.

Mr. Coen stated the Committee needed to discuss the Appraisal Committee.

Mr. Neuhard stated there were two positions which needed to be filled on the Appraisal Committee and there were no recommendations at the moment. He stated the recommendations could be deferred to January or February.

Mr. Silver made a motion to defer discussion of the application and Appraisal Committee. Mr. Apicella seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

Mr. Coen stated the Committee should discuss future agenda items. He stated the committee needed to deal with money issues. He stated there could be an organizational meeting in January.

Mr. Milde stated the County needed to find out what they would possibly be paying for development rights.

Mr. Neuhard stated staff would try to get experts to talk about development rights, funding, and what other jurisdictions were doing.

Mr. Coen stated it would be beneficial to know what development rights look like in plan.

Ms. Kurpiel stated the price of property and development rights were different in each jurisdiction. She stated Virginia Beach paid everything over time.

Mr. Coen stated that was why it would be beneficial to know what other localities do.

Mr. McClevey asked if the new Board of Supervisors would be oriented to the program. He asked if the funding could be a line item in the budget, as to not have to scrape together money.

Mr. Neuhard stated the new Board members would be oriented to the County programs and there were a number of mechanisms for reporting to the Board. He stated the PDR Committee was a committee of the Board. He stated the staff was prepared to brief new committee members.

Mr. Milde stated the County would not waste opportunities to promote the PDR Committee.

Mrs. Clark stated she was assuming the new Board of Supervisors members would nominate new people to committees.

Ms. Hall stated this would be a good time to send something from the PDR Committee to the Board.

Mr. Apicella stated he would like to discuss funding at the January meeting.

Mr. Coen asked staff to give the new Board members an update on the Committee.

Mr. Neuhard stated it would be a very limited update. He stated January, February, or March may be an appropriate time to send something the Board.

Mr. Milde stated the PDR Committee existed to study and advise the Board on funding issues.

Mr. Coen stated the Committee needed to select a meeting date for January. He suggested January 22, 2008 for the next meeting date.

Mrs. Clark stated the Committee needed to find a way to reach the land owners.

Mr. McClevey stated the County could utilize the tax system and perhaps include a mailing in the tax process.

Mr. Milde stated advertising on utility bills was a great idea.

Mrs. Clark stated the Stafford County Farm Bureau would do a mailing to their members.

Ms. Kurpiel stated the County needed an outreach plan to the land owners.

Mrs. Clark stated an outreach plan needed to be discussed in February.

Mrs. Baker stated the state program was evolving and they were looking at various approaches for funding.

Mr. Milde stated he would like to thank everyone for attending.

Mr. McClevey asked which county was the best to contact if the Committee had questions concerning PDR programs.

Mrs. Baker stated Stafford County used James City’s program as a model. She stated there was a PDR Managers meeting on Friday, December 7, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. in Richmond.

Other Business

None

Adjournment

Mr. Apicella made a motion for adjournment. Mr. Silver seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m.