JCC Budget Suggests Moving Greenspace Funds to Cover Stormwater Projects

By Desiree Parker Thursday, April 22, 2010

In James City County’s two-year proposed budget released last week, County Administrator Sandy Wanner recommends moving $2 million each year from funds set aside for purchasing green space to help cover the county’s increasing stormwater costs.

The county has two funds set aside for preserving green areas and rural lands: a Greenspace fund used to protect land important to the county’s character and appearance and a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) fund to pay landowners who want to keep their property from being developed without giving up their ownership rights. These used to be funded by a penny of tax money which was sent to each, but a few years ago supervisors decided to suspend this payment.

Right now, the two funds have a combined balance of about $6.5 million. In 2005, county residents voted by referendum to finance $20 million in future debt to “preserve agricultural, forestall, or environmentally sensitive lands in the county.” The county would use the money through PDR and Greenspace funds. According to supervisor John McGlennon, the county could use the existing balance to help finance the debt payment when the referendum dollars are tapped.

When he presented the budget draft to the press last week, Wanner said the proposed $2 million a year would go to pay for environmental-type projects like stream restoration. The stormwater division is requesting $2 million a year, which is the amount of work staff can do in a year, according to Stormwater Director Frances Geissler. She says there are over $11 million in high-priority stormwater projects in the county, and almost twice that in medium- and low-priority ones.

Manager of the county’s Financial and Management Services John McDonald says his office suggested the transfer of funds because the usages were somewhat similar. “We thought there was a close enough link, with the expectation that the money goes to improve the quality of county property” through dam restoration, stream restoration, and flood control and mitigation, he says.

He also says the county wasn’t really using the $6.5 million available in these two funds, though after this is moved to the stormwater budget it’s likely the county will have to use the referendum debt to finance future large purchases of development rights or greenspace.

Board of Supervisors Chairman Jim Kennedy, who spearheaded the push for PDR years ago, points out that in some cases, the county has not been able to purchase the land it wanted through the PDR fund because some landowners aren’t interested. He also says when greenspace is purchased it means those areas will no longer be a source of tax revenue for the county.

The unused balance in these funds has recently been tapped by the county to pay for burying utilities on Ironbound Road, though some citizens argued that supervisors weren’t using the funds in a manner consistent with the original intent to preserve land.

Supervisor Jim Icenhour says he’s already gotten quite a few calls about the transfer of PDR and Greenspace funds from residents who are concerned the money might be used for a purpose other than which it was intended.

He points out the county used to collect a stormwater fee of $4.95 per household, which generated more than $2 million a year to go towards stormwater projects (many of which have to be done due to state or federal mandates).

He says the Republican majority on the board voted to get rid of the fee, which he says they called a “rain tax,” in 2008. The plan was to use ordinary tax revenues to cover the projects, though funding for this area has decreased as the county budget has tightened.

Supervisor John McGlennon says the county was aware that stormwater was a significant cost, which is why the fee was introduced in the first place. He also says “the citizens made it very clear that they placed a high priority on greenspace and PDR” when the referendum passed.

If the current balance is depleted, McGlennon wonders how the referendum dollars can be used without funds to repay the debt.

“I understand we are in difficult economic circumstances and have to do things in the short run,” he says, “but I’m opposed to the idea that we are going to completely eliminate these funds” without replenishing them.

He also believes purchasing green space and development rights is not the same thing as completing stormwater projects, “and it’s not how we advanced [the funds] to voters.”