JCC OK's Budget Amid Concerns of Borrowing for Growth

By Desiree Parker Wednesday, May 12, 2010

James City County supervisors adopted their two-year budget without much to-do Tuesday night, but there were some words of caution on the county’s future economic well-being.

The budget contains about $3.5 million in overall reductions to cover another year of slumping revenues, and nearly 35 full-time equivalent positions will be eliminated, mainly through attrition.

The board, generally split down party lines when it comes to weighty votes, was unanimous in their vote and congratulated one another for working together without squabbling during this budget cycle, though it was another round of cuts and reductions across the board.

Supervisor John McGlennon, echoing the comments of fellow supervisor Bruce Goodson, said this year’s budget decisions were a “collegial effort” and saw amongst supervisors “a very high degree of consensus.”
One large item supervisors all agreed on was to reject the budget’s proposed transfer of $2 million each year from money set aside to preserve land in order to cover costs for stormwater projects. Instead, they decided to craft a bond referendum for $30 million to cover costs of all the needed improvements in stormwater over the next several years.

Though language on the referendum isn’t set yet, and the county hasn’t officially announced how much the debt would raise taxes, supervisors all agreed it was necessary. Republicans who generally refuse to accept any extra tax or fee liked the idea that the voters would have the ultimate say in taking on the debt.

Supervisor Jim Icenhour shared some words of caution, however, at Tuesday night’s meeting.

He had done some quick calculations, he said, and the county’s total debt has increased 145 percent since 2001. The higher reliance on borrowing was a worrying trend, Icenhour warned, especially since the county population is growing at the same time the county continues to trim its budgets.

He pointed out that in this newly adopted budget, capital improvement funds are mostly going to fund maintenance of existing infrastructure – but with the 2030 population projections in the current Comprehensive Plan (a figure he thinks is low), this won’t be feasible spending.

With more than 109,000 new residents, the county would need to fund about five new elementary schools, one new middle school and one high school, Icenhour estimates. This would mean roughly $325 million in construction costs in addition to operational costs.

“In the future, we need to think in the long range,” he said, and supervisors will need to figure out ways to raise some additional revenue. “Does growth pay for itself? No,” he said.

Generally adding residences adds to the economic burden in the county due to increased safety, school and other infrastructure costs.
Supervisor Mary Jones said she shared Icenhour’s concerns over the increased debt. She pointed out that the county had come up with several efficiencies and consolidations and had done a good job reducing spending, though she said she didn’t want to pass any increases on to citizens in the future.

Chairman Jim Kennedy, who pointed out he had said in 2008 that the coming years would not look good economically, agreed that “we are faced with a grim reality – we have declining revenues.”

“Mr. Icenhour’s numbers are true and concerning … as we continue to grow,” he said.

On a more positive note, outgoing County Administrator Sandy Wanner told the board that the county’s bond rating had improved, and that in the most recent analysis from the three largest raters, all had increased the county’s rating and one – Fitch – had moved the county to AAA status.

Other business
One area where supervisors didn’t agree Tuesday evening was on the proposed methodology for the alignment of current county ordinances with the new Comprehensive Plan. Icenhour and supervisor John McGlennon voted against the methodology staff had set because they felt it didn’t include citizens enough.

Also, McGlennon said, “I find the priorities in the methodology aren’t my priorities or the citizens’ priorities.”

Jones argued there is plenty of time for public input, and Planning Commissioner Jack Fraley addressed the board at the end of the meeting and said the commission had thought the same thing, which is why the commissioners had added two more public meetings and agreed to bring the plan before the policy committee first to give it another shot at drawing out public comment.

Of the five cases supervisors had on the agenda for public hearings and one case up for board consideration, three were deferred.

One case that was deferred, which includes a portion of the Candle Factory property on Richmond Road, has been on and off with the county for years, often due to postponements by the developer.

Candle Development, LLC, is looking to rezone 64 acres behind where the current Candle Factory shops sit along route 60 in order to allow for a mixed use development that would have about 175 residential units, 30,000 square feet of commercial and office space, and a 90,000-square-foot assisted living facility. The plan first came on the books in 2007, and had some issues to address after the first visit to the planning commission. Last April, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning.

Supervisors had decided to defer decision on the property until they could hear from developers working on a plan for the other part of the property, which would include a CVS drugstore and Food Lion. Supervisors wanted to make sure the two plans gelled, even though different developers were working on the projects.

The CVS/Food Lion developers were on hand to present their plans, which included lots of environmentally friendly plans and an agreement to get LEED certification for the Food Lion, which would make it the only Food Lion in the state with that distinction. They had also won over one group of stakeholders, members of a church across the street from the planned development, who had earlier not liked the plan. After working with members of the church, the developer brought the board a new letter of support from church administrators.

Candle Development, though, asked for another deferral for their case.
Supervisors agreed to wait one more time to hear the two cases together, with the plan to go forward to consideration at their next meeting with whichever developer was ready.