|
MArch 25, 2008
STAFFORD COUNTY PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS COMMITTEE MINUTES March 25, 2008 The meeting of the Stafford County Purchase of Development Rights Committee for Tuesday, March 25, 2008, was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Chairman Tom Coen in the County Administration Office Conference Room of the County Administration Center. Members Present: Coen, Clark, McClevey and Kurpiel Members Absent: Apicella, Silver, and Hall Staff Present: Neuhard, Baker, Schultis, Keyes, Knighting and Stinnette Others Present: None Minutes of February 26, 2008 Mr. Coen stated the first item on the agenda was the minutes of February 26, 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. Mr. McClevey seconded. The motion passed 4-0 (Mr. Apicella, Mr. Silver and Ms. Hall absent). Staff Update FY2009 Budget Mr. Neuhard stated that he provided cliff notes for the budget from the County Administrator, Mr. Romanello. He stated that Mr. Romanello had proposed no new programs, no expansion of programs and no people, and there are zero new dollars in the PDR program in the budget. He stated last month $100,000 was cut from the current budget and Mr. Romanello was trying to maintain government service at the lowest cost possible at this time. He stated they were holding a budget meeting tonight concerning public safety and CIPs, and they were going to hold a public workshop with the schools April 1 and there were other issues that would come forward. He stated in Mr. Romanello’s presentation last week concerning the budget, he acknowledged that PDR was one of a list of items that was not funded and he did get some questions back from the Board of Supervisors. He stated that Mr. Romanello’s proposed budget was based at 89.8¢ on $100 which was up from the current 70¢ tax rate. He stated the full budget was on the web and he noted Code and Planning combined cut $1 million this year. He stated they cut 7% over the original budget and they took the lesser of the operating expenses over what they projected they might need. He stated that except for the operating expenses for the new buildings and a small amount in Social Services, the agencies are flat and their operating expenses are at or below the current year’s level. He stated the proposed budget does include holding 5 vacancies in Code and Planning. He stated he did not see, in the general fund budget, that there would be any money for PDR right now. He stated they still have $600,000 with the state match. Ms. Clark stated she thought it was ironic that land values have gone up so much that it was the landowners that would be making up that shortfall and yet the one program that could help them was getting cut. Mr. McClevey asked if the tax rate would offset the shortfall. Mr. Neuhard gave a brief status of the budget and stated the assessments were down about 15% for residential structures, but were up in vacant land and commercial about 18%, making the overall net about 4% down. He stated the major new expenses this year were debt for new buildings, which take about ½ million in operating costs, and Social Services. Information Brochure Mr. Schultis provided a draft hand-out and asked the Committee to review and asked the Committee to forward comments to him. Mr. Neuhard stated the one thing missing was any reference to tax help which the Committee would need to resolve and there was a placeholder for numbers but they had not established the value. He stated they had started on the “frequently asked questions” and maybe by next meeting they would have the draft FAQs. He stated that when the brochure was complete, the pictures would be color. Mrs. Baker stated that Mr. Schultis did plug in a number, but it was just a placeholder number. Land Conservation Legislation Mr. Neuhard stated at the last meeting, PDR was discussed. He stated Senate and House Bill 477 passed which would now require local PDR programs to make the dollar match for each dollar advanced, which was a policy, but was now law. He discussed the report Open Space Preservation and he discussed that report. He stated it reduced the level of support for use by Virginia Land Conservation Foundation by $1 million each year and also reduced the proposed increase for the Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF) by $225,000 per year and the VOF would receive a total of $1.5 million in operational funding each year. He stated it retained $500,000 in the first year and $1 million in the second year from the introduced budget to provide state match for local PDR programs. He stated it will eliminate $500,000 of the $700,000 each year that was included in the introduced budget for the Office of Farmland Preservation in the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. He stated that $200,000 would be retained each year for the base operations of the Office of Farmland Preservation but not the additional funding previously proposed to expand the state matching program for local PDR programs. Mrs. Kurpiel stated there was a half million this year and a million the following year for local PDR programs which was the bottom line as opposed to $4 million which was the match last year and 2008. She stated that was about ten percent. Mr. Neuhard stated there was also a $30 million authorized bond for Open Space Preservation and that they were asking for some of that money for Crow’s Nest, to purchase the second part. He stated there were still some efforts in conservation money and efforts for Crow’s Nest. Draft Committee Report Mrs. Baker stated the draft was sent out last week and she handed out comments received from Mr. Coen. She stated some of the information was put in as a placeholder and they brought most of the information from last month’s meeting as well as the original draft of Mr. McClevey’s memo from that meeting. She stated a lot of it was word for word from his letter and they were open to any additional comments or thoughts. Mr. McClevey stated this was their program and they just wanted to move forward. He stated he wanted to add that it was the consensus of the PDR Committee that the Board should place a high priority in moving along with the program. He stated the current budget shortfall might suggest that this program be placed on hold indefinitely, however, he felt the long term benefits of this program outweigh any increased burden that the county might carry in the short run. He stated that county staff has worked hard to move this program forward. He stated several members of the Board made strong pledges and commitments to constituents to proactively resolve issues of the protection of the county’s rural character and natural resources. Mr. Neuhard stated this was the Committee’s report and the Board has not heard from the Committee since it was formed. He stated this was the first opportunity to get your hand in the door, make sure the Board knows you are here, that you are working, there was progress being made and funding was an issue. He stated the funding does not necessarily have to come from the general fund and there were two general obligation bonds that the Board was researching, with one of them being a parks bond. He stated he did not know how open-minded the Board would be, but there may be some opportunity to take advantage of coming up. Ms. Kurpiel stated she probably would have some additional suggestions, but she did not bring them tonight. She stated something that concerned her in reading the recommendation was the three staff members. She stated that might be appropriate but with limited funds she thought they needed a more solid, longer term projection in order to say what the staffing level would be. She stated her comments would be more financial and she would get them to everyone the next day. Mrs. Baker stated they could certainly reword it. Ms. Kurpiel stated she would like to put some numbers together to address the 20% preserved land and subtract the amount already preserved. She stated she would then compare that to the cost of proffers. Mrs. Baker stated once she had received comments from everyone she would try to incorporate them and then resubmit back to everyone.
Mr. Coen stated they would put that aside for the moment and move on to unfinished business. Unfinished Business Easement Valuation Mr. Neuhard stated there were two things. He stated first of all they talked last month that proffer value might be something to look at, and will have Kathy talk about how they do it now, what course they were in and she had some hand-outs. He stated that the Commissioner and his staff were not going to give them a value. They had come as far as they could with them and they were going to continue to support them but they believed that they needed to bring some outside independent source in to either come up with a methodology that was different from theirs or provide an evaluation of what they now know as development right. He stated that he had been searching around and he had other names from the county attorney and some suggestions ….. bring in to talk about that and deal with that. So in terms of that, that was kind of where they were, they were only a few steps further than they were last month and in talking with some, including some folks that day, they still might step out there and take a chance. Mrs. Baker provided a hand-out from proffer guidelines that were adopted in 2005 and stated that they had not looked at updating the new proffers yet. She stated that they wanted to wait until the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) went through so that they could base new numbers on the CIP. She stated that there was still some hub-bub about what was going to happen with proffers in general from the state level. She read and explained the figures that were adopted November 1, 2005, and stated however, they did annually increase those based on what they called the Marshall Swift Index which she also handed out. She stated that it was updated in 2006 and again in November 2007. She stated that the current proffer money per single family lot was $43,145 and that was the high number. She explained how they came up with the single family number. She stated that Parks and Recreation had a standard number at the time, that 20 acres of useable land per 1,000 people was the number and they figured out the cost per acre based on two of the current projects that they had in the CIP so, at the time, 161,000 was what they used as a number to acquire and develop one acre of park land. She stated that based on that household size per capita they came up with this formula that came up with the total figure for the parks. She stated that they did a similar calculation for each category, schools, libraries, fire and rescue, transportation and general government. She stated that typically each of the different departments or agencies gave them numbers to work with. She stated that they had been increasing each year. She stated that they will be looking at that now that the CIP was out and will be looking at the new proffers and whether those will go up. Mr. McClevey asked if there would be a category in proffers under PDR. Mrs. Baker stated that that had been part of the discussion, whether that was something that they could actually include in proffers and she was not sure if they had gotten direction on that at that point and whether that would actually be a category or if it would be legal to do that. Ms. Kurpiel asked if someone had asked for a determination. Mr. Neuhard stated that the County Attorney believed under the current guidelines that were modified … open space in there but they do not know what was going to happen. He stated that it was still the law. He stated that the real issue was that this was a place that you start by looking at the impacted development and that perhaps that was one of the ways that they could have a formula behind what a development might cost. He stated that if they look at $43,145, based on what they were talking about if they took those averages from the test cases they did, it was a little higher in the $50,000 range but that was not to say that when they adjust proffers again that would not be what would happen but that would be as was suggested one way to look at that potential valuation. He stated that he would say that it was more than what Fauquier has right now. He stated that the only other thing they could suggest as a rationale at this point was to have someone come in with them and talk about a potential formula. Ms. Kurpiel stated that she looked at the information from Mike (COR) from the last meeting. She stated she put it on one spreadsheet so she could look at the four properties that were evaluated and she thought it was a good sample. She stated that it compared a fixed payment with a fixed percentage. She then explained and discussed the spreadsheet. She stated that she was trying to think about the idea of using proffers and what would substantiate that. She stated that she had an analysis from Piedmont Environmental of how to calculate the tax benefits of a development right and she gave an example. She stated that every time an owner takes money for a development right from Stafford County, that would be a taxable event and that her example was all before the owner would recognize any capital gain. She stated that she wondered why there was so much variation in the value of the development rights. She stated that Mike had talked to appraisers from around the jurisdictions and they all found the same thing in their jurisdictions so apparently there will be a big variation in the value of the development right. She stated that she thought they should get the same return, and rather than making a fixed payment, pay them a fixed percentage of an appraisal. She provided another handout and explained it. Mr. Neuhard stated that what she was doing was going back to the two appraisal methods with a fixed percentage. Ms. Kurpiel stated no, not necessarily. She stated that she did not think an owner would agree to a fixed payment of any amount without knowing the value of what they are giving up. She stated that she thought they would go out and get their own appraisal. Ms. Clark stated that that assumed everyone made $50,000 per year and she asked if those numbers actually changed based on household income. She stated she thought it would be hard to explain and that making it more complex they may lose some people. She stated that each individual household income varies and their tax benefit was different. Ms. Kurpiel stated that it would not change the fact that under the fixed percentage everybody was getting the same value. Ms. Clark stated that she was not sure everybody would go out and get an appraisal. Ms. Kurpiel stated that for the second method to work they would have to get an appraisal. Ms. Clark stated which adds money and time along with complexity. Ms. Kurpiel stated she was not particularly sold on it herself but she did think it was much more fair. Mr. Coen stated that when they discussed who would do the appraisal, one of the concerns was if they did it, it would be higher, and if we did it, it would be lower. Ms. Kurpiel stated that she did not think that any one of those transactions would close without that owner getting an appraisal and she thought they would be remiss if they did not tell every owner that not only should they get an appraisal, but they would need to talk to their tax accountant and family, which are three critical items. Mr. Neuhard stated that throughout the state they are doing it a number of different ways and they know in talking with them that each way was working in their own jurisdiction. He stated that whatever they settle on the Committee needs to feel good about it. He stated that they need to make sure that they are being fair to the landowners. Ms. Clark stated that one of the appealing pieces to the Fauquier model was the speed with which they had been able to secure rights to land. She stated that they needed to get started soon. Ms. Kurpiel stated that Fauquier had a completely different demographic than they did in Stafford County. Mr. Neuhard stated that they definitely had different zoning. He stated that it was very interesting when they went down this road considering all this because you could really see the strength in each person’s approach. He stated that the problem they were having was how do they value that. He stated that if they stick with that method of coming in between what Fauquier had done … He stated that he definitely thought there were a lot of things appealing with that and that he was very much in the handle it individually because there was a lot of flexibility there. He asked if they wanted to look and think about other properties. Ms. Kurpiel asked that when you look at the first display and they see what the value of the development right is, do they all agree that they need to keep the price below the lowest one otherwise they are paying more than what they had. Ms. Clark stated that there will always be outliers and that if they were going to go with a flat fee per development right, she did not think they were obligated to go below the lowest. Mr. Coen stated that one of his concerns was the clock. He asked that if they go back to the drawing board and reconfigure from the last meeting, how far would that set back the timeframe of everything they were trying to do. He stated that the State was going to cut back on what it was going to use in future years but that this year was okay. He stated that he was leery that they would miss the boat. Ms. Kurpiel stated that the Board could not take the money, that it came from the State. Mr. Coen stated that the State part they could not take it but the other half they can, that they only have it for two years. Mr. Kurpiel stated that they have to face that as a real risk. Mr. Coen asked what was it that the outside people could tell them that they had not already heard. Mr. Neuhard stated that they are developing a program and they were on schedule. He stated that the issue they were facing was money. He stated that they can do some calculations but depending on what method they take and how much they value it at was to how far it was going to go and what they were going to be able to do. He stated that he thought whether they decide this month or next month, it will not be that big a deal. He stated that they could go back to the board and say they are ready to open it up June 1 guidelines, no big deal, and that finance said there has to be money to do this no matter which method you choose to pay out. Ms. Kurpiel asked if they should not be in such a hurry since they do not have a continuous stream. Mr. Neuhard stated that he wanted to have this thing boxed so that they can be ready to go. He stated that he very much wanted to do a pilot and he would like to try a pilot and sell it and that if they do a pilot, they have one shot at it. He stated that everybody he had talked to had said to start with $1 million. He stated that the successful programs have a source of money, even if it was a little money. He stated that once they establish valuation, they are done except for the funding, that the rest they can work through as they go through a pilot. He stated that he was really concerned about funding Ms. Kurpiel stated that ¾ of a cent would give them $1 million and that would change every year because the base goes up and you would need less. Mr. Neuhard stated that the downside of that was that it would be up to the Board of Supervisors every year to reauthorize that. He stated that they had to get started somewhere and they had to ask for a commitment. He stated that they had to pay the debt service somewhere and that they can leverage that. Ms. Kurpiel stated that if they were going to leverage it, they could ask for less. She asked what the other sources of financing were besides bonds and money on the tax rate. Ms. Clark stated development and proffers. Mr. Schultis stated that the General Assembly was discussing having proffers go away. Mr. Neuhard stated that there were a couple different ways to borrow money but that becomes very difficult when you borrow money other than GEO Bonds. Ms. Kurpiel asked how many acres were in Stafford County. Mrs. Baker stated 277 square miles and that included Quantico. Mr. Neuhard stated that they told him the number of acres in A-1 property. Ms. Kurpiel stated that there were 23,000 lots in A and 98,000 acres in A-1. Mrs. Baker stated there were 60,000 acres in A-1 and A-2 over 20 acres. Ms. Kurpiel stated 20% of the whole county was a good way to start.
Mr. Neuhard stated that his suggestion would be that they need to get an opinion of someone else of how to formulate a valuation. He stated that they need to hear from their financiers and that they need to find a source of funding. Mr. Coen stated that he would rather spend the money to get land and that paying somebody was not necessary because he did not know if they could give any more information. Mr. Keyes stated that the difference that the land owner would receive would have to do with the different qualities of his property. Ms. Kurpiel stated that they were paying more for less real value in that land. Mr. Keyes stated that like any purchase, they had to decide what that development right was worth and whether it was a good program. Mr. McClevy stated that it was a voluntary program and they had a matrix that they prioritize which properties they want and which properties would come into the program. He stated that he thought the higher value was a better way to go and that he was not worried about how much they pay property owners, he just wanted them to come out happy. He stated he was in favor or moving ahead and fixing the value. Ms. Clark stated that that was her gut feeling also and that the question was how do they come up with the valuations. Mr. Neuhard stated that they had got past determining development rights and now they were trying to establish a value. He stated that it was another opinion, another view, but if that people felt comfortable with the work that has been done then if they were going to set a value then they need to look at the analysis done and say either use the proffer guideline or reach out and say based on this preliminary analysis they believe this was a good number that works. He stated that they had the proffer numbers and they had the analysis that had done with the range and that they could pick somewhere within that range that they believe was a fair number that they think will work, with all the risks that had been identified and perhaps paying more in some cases and less in others. Mr. Schultis stated that when he was at the PDR managers meeting, he probed on that issue with the other jurisdictions. He stated that each county was very different in their land values. He stated that in Cumberland County, $200,000 buys 40 acres. He stated that he was surprised to see the variations in every county program and that it illustrated to him that there was definitely no standard and no blueprint. He stated that they just do not compare to the rural counties. Mr. Neuhard stated that the only thing they have left to do was to get someone who appraises open space to see if they have any ideas about putting a formula together.
Ms. Kurpiel stated that they would come to the same conclusion as Mike. She stated that if they had a goal of preserving 20% of Stafford’s acreage, they would want to preserve 35,000 acres. She stated that there were 177, 280 acres in Stafford and if they wanted to preserve 20% which would be 34,000, that would be 7,775 development rights. She stated they would have to preserve 6,500 development rights. Ms. Kurpiel stated 1.95 to the 8th power which would be about 11 billion. Mr. Neuhard stated but that 11 billion over how many years. Ms. Kurpiel stated it would take 216 years. She stated that she would like to see them preserve 20% of the county. Mrs. Baker stated that they do need to look at other methods of that open space preservation and not just this as a sole means. Mr. Neuhard stated that others had a voluntary program as well which they do not have. Ms. Kurpiel stated that she and Mr. Coen were big advocates of rolling out the CE program first and she regretted that that was not done. She stated that in some jurisdictions they found out it was better to not get paid for it. She stated that the problem with proffer numbers was that proffers could go away. She stated that the county was looking at instituting impact fees on any agricultural area and if that was done there would be no cost for infrastructure because it would be paid for by impact fees. Ms. Clark asked who would pay impact fees. Ms. Kurpiel stated whoever develops ______________. Mr. Neuhard stated that the methodology for determining these proffers did not necessarily have to ever go away. He stated that what could happen with the impact fee issue, if they keep the ability to do impact fees they do not believe that those impact fees would pay. He stated that the delta is the cost of having the impact fee structure. He stated they could change the methodology if they wanted to do that. He stated that the question would be, based on their discussions, if $43,000 was not too high. Ms. Kurpiel stated $43,000 was too high. Mrs. Baker asked if anybody totally disagreed with Fauquier’s numbers. She stated that they had a proven program that was working and understandably their land values are different. She stated that maybe they could do a cost comparison, their land values versus ours. She stated that they have a sliding scale so it was really based on this many lots on a marginal parcel. She stated kind of like a 100 acre parcel would get about 6 lots in one of their districts. Mr. Neuhard asked if there was a sense of their assessed value versus ours. Mr. Keyes stated Mr. Neuhard stated that he thought $30,000 may work. Ms. Kurpiel asked how they felt about the number. She stated that 20 development rights was a place to start. Mr. Neuhard stated that there was only one way to do it and that was to try it. Ms. Clark stated that her gut feeing was that they needed to start getting the applications. She stated that if they got 20 applications and could only pay for one, that would still show the Board that there were 20 applications out there and maybe they would be willing to come up with some more money for the next time. Mr. Neuhard stated that the future would be based on how many people are interested and that the application is not that complex. Mrs. Baker stated that the State made the comment that they had to prove to the General Assembly that the localities are interested. Mr. Neuhard stated that they may be able to find matching money. Mr. Coen asked if there was a motion to set it at $30,000. Ms. Kurpiel asked how they felt about making this decision with just four of them there. Mr. Coen stated he did not feel uncomfortable and that Jerry wanted to move forward. Mr. Neuhard stated that they could move forward with what they had and change it if needed. Ms. Kurpiel stated that her reluctance with it going forward and with not having a continuing funding stream, she wondered whether the response on a pilot would be indicative of what was out there. Mrs. Baker asked if a public session would help to get feedback. Ms. Kurpiel stated no, that she thought it would make it worse. Ms. Clark stated that she thought when they advertised they could say limited funds this year but not to put an actual number. Mrs. Baker asked if they wanted to have a public information session. Mr. Neuhard stated that if they were running a pilot and they go with their original plan of noticing people, telling them it was a pilot, putting the information out there and advertising limited funds, he thought that was good enough. He stated to explain how development rights are calculated. Mrs. Baker asked what the response of Spotsylvania was.
Ms. Kurpiel stated that Spotsylvania had never funded their program. Ms. Kurpiel stated that she was sure it was based on money. Mr. Neuhard stated that some of the other programs did say that they learned a lot through that first round and in some cases they waited for their second round. Mr. Coen stated that the Board of Supervisors wanted to know how many people were interested. Mr. McClevey stated that several members got on the Board of Supervisors because of that reason, and that the citizens spoke out and said they were going to vote them in because they would make changes to stop the sprawl. He stated that he knew it was hard times with the budget but that he thought it should be a budgeted thing. Mr. Neuhard stated that there was a way to do this if they wanted to, that they could put it in a CIP or they could change the proffers. He stated that there were ways to commit without getting themselves in too deep. Mr. McClevey stated that they would like to have $1 million. Ms. Kurpiel stated that maybe the people they should be asking were the general public and how would they feel about it. She stated that one way would be to spend dollars to preserve some of the open spaces. She stated that maybe they were pitching the wrong people. Ms. Clark stated that they had to get a general agreement and that the average tax payer needed to understand that every acre of open space would require less tax dollars. Mr. McClevey stated that if on the state income tax form it asked if you would contribute $1.00 toward the PDR Program, he would say yes. He stated that there were ways of people voluntarily contributing. Mr. Coen asked if they wanted to make a decision on the appraisal rate that night. Ms. Kurpiel made a motion to set it at $30,000. Mr. Coen seconded. Ms. Clark stated she thought it was too low. Mr. Coen stated that they would take a vote and if it was a tie, they would carry it over to the next meeting. The motion tied 2-2 (Ms. Clark and Mr. McClevey opposed). He stated it will carry over to the next meeting.
Mr. Keyes stated he would try to found out what a 3 acre lot would sell for in Fauquier and he will focus on the southern side of Fauquier. Mr. Neuhard stated that now was the time to get a report to the Board of Supervisors. He stated that he believed they said they were interested in this idea and that they were very close to establishing a value and that they were going to establish that value by the next meeting in April. Ms. Clark asked if she could convince anyone to go a little higher. Mrs. Baker asked what her recommendation would be. Ms. Clark stated she liked $40,000 but would go to $35,000. Ms. Kurpiel stated that if they were going to err, to err on the side of too low. She stated if it was too low, they could always raise it but if it was too high, it would be harder to lower. She stated that $30,000 was very generous. Mr. Coen stated that for the sake of the report they could always say at least $30,000 because all members were not present. Ms. Kurpiel asked if it was cash up front or deferred payments. Mrs. Baker stated she thought it would be up to the owner. Ms. Kurpiel stated that if the payment was deferred, then the tax would be deferred. Mrs. Baker stated that a farmer takes $20,000 a year which is expenses on a piece of equipment. Mr. Neuhard stated that they could not guarantee the money to be there the next year and that they would have to invest to have the money. Mrs. Baker stated that they did address that and that there could be different options. Ms. Kurpiel stated to offer all case or amortize over 5, 10 or 20 years. Mr. Neuhard stated that a time payment is something to have in your pocket and for future obligations, simpler was sometimes better. Ms. Kurpiel asked if they would want that for the first round. Mr. Neuhard stated that they have to pay someone and that they would be willing to chance it for experience. Ms. Clark made a motion for reconsideration. Ms. Kurpiel seconded. The motion to reconsider the offer passed 3-1 (Mr. McClevey opposed). Mr. Coen asked how many were in favor of going with $30,000 and there were 3 yes and 1 no (Mr. McClevey opposed). Ms. Kurpiel stated she did not think they had any alternative but to pay it on the execution of the deed. Mr. Neuhard stated that the options would go in their report to the Board of Supervisors and he thought he heard them say that they want to encourage aggressive use of any of those options possible. He stated that the important thing was that they have some kind of steady stream of funding going toward this program so that they can build confidence in the community. Ms. Clark asked if they actually go as far as recommending the ½ penny. Ms. Kurpiel stated that she thought they should say how much money they wanted or what they think would be a minimum to run a program and that they thought the minimum was $1 million. She stated that as they go along they may find that that would be way too low. Mr. Coen stated that as far as the pilot, they would do the pilot with the money they have versus not doing it at all. Mr. Neuhard stated that what they might have thought about saying was that it was not enough to sustain a program although they believe it would be enough to at least initiate a pilot. Mr. Coen stated Mr. Silver and Mr. Apicella were of the same mindsets. He asked if anyone wanted to make a recommendation on the report and if the report only was going to the Board. Mr. Neuhard stated the report needed to go to the Board of Supervisors as soon as possible. He stated barring any other activities the public hearing was coming up and right now there was no workshop and he did not know if he could get a workshop in place for the Board members themselves. He stated there maybe there would be someone interested in having a short work session on this. Ms. Kurpiel stated she knew a number of people very interested in this and had been following it for years. She stated she could ask them to speak at the public hearing. Mr. Neuhard stated it was how you say it and what you say and how you introduce it. Mrs. Baker stated you did not have to speak as a committee representative, that you could speak as a resident. Mr. Neuhard stated your goal would be to inform the Board members about the report and what you are doing. He stated the report was very important. Mr. Coen asked when the budget hearing was. Mr. Neuhard stated the budget hearing was April 15 at Colonial Forge. Mr. McClevey asked if they had heard from the Marine Corps. Mrs. Baker stated they were celebrating the purchase of the property in Prince William. She stated Quantico was not going to take the lead on this, that they were trying to get someone interested in to take the lead in creating a regional effort. Ms. Clark asked if she knew what their approach was to buying Merrimac. Mrs. Baker stated she thought the family had interest and the property owners had interest and she was not sure exactly how they came across the program. Ms. Kurpiel asked if it was fee simple or an outright purchase. Mrs. Baker stated it was an easement and they had other partners as well. Mr. Coen stated it was brought up by one of the new members of the Ag Commission regarding carbon credit companies. He stated the theory on that was that you could rent or lease your development rights so that the landowner gets the money and the companies have the development rights of open space which helps with keeping the earth greener and it helps the landowner by getting them cash. He stated it was big in Europe and big in Australia. Mr. Keyes stated they would lease a farm. Mrs. Baker stated they would not actively farm in many cases. Funding New Business Next Steps of the Program Next Meeting Mr. Neuhard stated the funding folks would come in. He stated they would drive towards a consensus for setting up the pilot. Ms. Kurpiel stated whoever holds the easement would have the responsibility for annual inspections. She asked if they needed to allocate some money to Stafford County to do that or how would that be handled because that would be a real responsibility. Mr. Neuhard stated that was part of what was included in the staffing issue but in the interim, in the pilot phase, they would be doing it with existing staff. He stated it was a real issue for the future. Mr. Coen stated that it was something they needed to deal with. Mr. Neuhard stated they had a little more time to figure it out. Mr. Coen stated they meet again on April 22 which would be Earth Day. Other Business None Adjournment With no further business to discuss, Ms. Kurpiel made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Clark seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. |
|
Send this to a friend |