The meeting of the Stafford County Purchase of Development Rights Committee for Tuesday, February 26, 2008, was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Tom Coen in the ABC Conference Room of the County Administration Center.

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

Members Absent: None

Staff Present: Neuhard, Baker, Lott, Schultis, Keyes and Knighting

Others Present: None

Minutes of January 22, 2008

Mr. Coen stated the first item on the agenda was the minutes of January 22, 2008. He asked if there were any changes or comments. Hearing none he asked for a motion to approve.

Ms. Clark made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Ms. Hall seconded. The motion passed 5-0 (Mr. Silver and Mr. Apicella absent).

Staff Update

State Funding Program

Mrs. Baker stated today she received the official word from Kevin Schmidt stating Governor Kaine’s press office would be sending out a press release concerning the funding, and the localities that would be receiving funding. She stated the Inter-Governmental Agreements should be mailed out today and would have to be reviewed and returned within sixty days. She stated the two years would start from the date the agreement was signed. She stated officially, we are receiving $299, 242 in matching funds and she would be working with Mr. Schmidt to get thing finalized.

Mr. Silver arrived at 7:07 p.m.

Public Information

Mr. Schultis stated he spoke with the public information office regarding the brochure. He presented a rough draft but stated it was incomplete. He stated some items could be filled in after the meeting tonight. He stated he would research frequently asked questions (FAQ) on the internet.

Mr. Apicella arrived at 7:10 p.m.

County Budget Update

Mr. Neuhard stated on March 18, 2008 the County Administrator would be presenting the budget to the Board. He stated currently a two member Board sub committee was working with staff regarding the budget. He stated the budget was tough this year and did not expect any new programs or expansions of existing programs. He stated the committee would continue to move forward but he did not expect much more than $100,000. He then explained the budget cycle, revenues and the debt and operating expenses to the Committee.

Unfinished Business

Easement Valuation

Mr. Neuhard stated Mike Keyes from the Commission of the Revenue’s office would give examples of valuation.

Mr. Keyes gave a PowerPoint presentation of examples for each of the three methods presented at the last meeting with properties that have been developed. He explained in detail and compared the methods. He showed how the value would change from property to property.

Mr. Silver stated in his opinion, each case would require an appraisal. He asked how to determine the tax benefits.

Mr. Neuhard stated it would be up to the landowner to obtain an appraisal, if the landowner was looking for tax benefits.

Mrs. Kurpiel stated the tax benefit was only the gift value not the full value.

Mr. Neuhard stated Mike Lott would explain how he obtained the methodology for development rights.

Mr. Lott explained after attempts at other methods, he decided he would measure the square footage of the hydric soil by using the GIS mapping system and then deduct 5% for Right-of-Way (ROW) for the road system. He stated if he used this method, he could take the property size and subtract the square footage for hydric soils and ROW and find the developer maximum, but stated there are other limitations, such at slopes, resource protection area (RPA), other soil types and the original shape of the lot. He showed his calculation verses the actual lot yield for the same properties Mr. Keyes showed in his examples.

Mr. Neuhard stated it appears the surface method works and you can come fairly close to the number of lots. He stated at that point you can negotiate with the landowner.

Mrs. Kurpiel stated the comp plan steering committee used 4.63 as a factor for A-1 buildable lots.

Mrs. Baker stated if you use that figure to come up with a formula, you would be paying the same value for properties with wetlands and without wetlands.
Mr. Neuhard stated with this method, you would take properties with a large amount of wetland off of the table.

Mrs. Kurpiel stated the system does have some merit.

Mr. Neuhard stated the issue now is “how do we value a development right in Stafford”. He stated the value will have to be revisited every year or so. He stated the development rights for each property used in the examples were different and in his opinion an appraiser that was an expert , was needed to help come up the a value formula.

Mrs. Kurpiel stated it was a local issue, not statewide.

Mr. Neuhard stated now we have to choose a value for the property rights.

Mrs. Kurpiel stated this was more an issue as what the community perceives a fair number.

Mr. Coen stated in his opinion the unit method was better than the appraisal method.

Ms. Hall stated she liked the unit method because it seems to be implementable and most practical.

Ms. Clark stated she liked the unit method and thinks a person interested in buying into the program could get a quick estimate.

Mrs. Kurpiel stated practically points to the unit method, but if we were a rich county she would prefer the two appraisal method, but that is not realistic for where we are.

Mr. McClevy stated purchase by development is the way to go. He stated in his opinion a higher fee would be fair.

Mr. Silver stated he agrees with the reasons for the unit method. He stated the response will tell you if it too high or too low.

Mr. Apicella stated in his opinion the methodology was solid and seems easy to implement.

Mr. Coen stated he did not like the appraisal method.

Mrs. Kurpiel stated the current proffer guidelines are forty three thousand and in her opinion that was something to look at and pay equivalent.

Mr. Neuhard stated in his opinion more test need to be done to get a broader averaging capability.

After a brief discussion by the Committee and staff, it was decided by consensus that the method of appraisal was agreed upon and now a value method would have to be discussed.

Mr. Neuhard stated the next issue was if the Committee wanted to pilot this program based on the limited amount of funds. He stated in his opinion a course would have to be charted for the next eight months, because the facts are we would have to close with two years and currently we only have 600-700 thousand dollars, that half would go away if property was not closed on within two years. He suggested the committee go forward to advise the Board of their plans for the future.

Mrs. Kurpiel stated she would like to see the Committee go before the Board with a plan for a cash alternative based on the cost of infrastructure with a twenty year pay out.

Ms. Clark stated in her opinion time is of the essence. She stated there are some big land owners that may look into selling their land base on the increased tax rate.

Mr. Silver stated the payment would be inherited along with the land.

The Committee had a lengthy discussion concerning the price per unit, a bond alternative verses a cash alternative, the installment sale method, a dedicated amount of money for the program and the decision to move forward this year.

Mrs. Baker went over a list of start up funds for other jurisdictions.

New Business

Next Steps of the Program

Mr. Neuhard stated perhaps the Committee should make a motion to go before the Board and request additional money to have a million dollar program.

Mrs. Kurpiel suggested the Committee wait until the next meeting to get the program more solidified.

Mr. Neuhard stated he likes the idea of a pilot, but does not feel $700,000 was enough to pilot and the Committee would have to ask the Board for more money.

Mrs. Kurpiel stated what she is hearing is the Committee has to ask for $400,000 to $500,000 to have a million dollar start up.

Next Meeting

Mr. Neuhard stated the Committee would come back next month and have a report to present to the Board.

Mr. Coen stated the valuation would be done next month along with a skeleton report.

Other Business

None

Adjournment

With no further business to discuss, Mr. Silver made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Hall seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:09 p.m.