Supes Will Consider Future of Lake Powell Tuesday

Supes Will Consider Future of Lake Powell Tuesday

Saturday, November 20, 2010

James City County Supervisors are set to discuss the prospect of creating a new tax district and shelling out money to restore Lake Powell, but even if they agree to the plan there looks to be a bumpy road ahead.

The dam creating the lake blew out most recently in 2006 and hasn’t been restored by the lake owners. The owners tried unsuccessfully to make money off the area by creating a mitigation bank, and they’re now willing to consider selling it to the county. About 60 property owners with lots that would front the restored lake have petitioned supervisors to create a new lake area service district, which could increase their taxes by up to 12 cents per $100 of assessed valuation for no more than 20 years. This amount would raise about $1.4 million, and staff points out the county would be left to pay the remainder of the cost to purchase and restore the lake, and it would also be stuck with maintenance responsibilities in perpetuity.

In a memo ahead of Tuesday afternoon’s work session on the plan, staff points out the pros and cons surrounding restoring the lake. The pros include an improved vista for the public along Jamestown Road, which is designated a community character corridor, and the reestablishment of a popular bike and walking trail. Also, there could be recreation access created for residents to use the lake, and restoration could help the county make some headway with new federal Chesapeake Bay pollution restrictions.

The list of cons is much longer.

The first challenge staff lays out is the cost of the project. The cost of rebuilding the dam is unknown, and has just been estimated by the petitioners at around $1 million based on a similarly constructed dam in Gloucester. Staff says the property owners in the proposed lake service district would either pay a 12-cent tax increase or a one-time fee that would bring in roughly half of the cost, and the other half petitioners believe would be raised through the increased land values of their properties (which have sunk in value since the lake has emptied).

Current Republican supervisors have historically been opposed to tax increases of any kind.

The county (which currently owns four dams) would need to pay for the Lake Powell property and dam restoration upfront with greenspace funds and get reimbursed over time, and it would need to pay to maintain the dam. Future federal and state regulations could make this “problematic,” according to staff.

The Army Corps of Engineers has set a time limit for dam restoration of July 1, 2011. If building hasn’t started by then, there will be a stringent permitting process the county will need to go through to get the dam fixed.

Other challenges will be developing a legally definitive deed for the lake property (current residential deeds relate property lines to the high water mark) and finding lake access areas that have adequate parking.

If supervisors agree to go forward, staff will need to hurry to simultaneously negotiate the start of construction, acquire the property, and set a public hearing for the new tax district ordinance.

Supervisors will discuss the Lake Powell issue and also their legislative agenda at their next work session, scheduled for Tuesday at 4 p.m. in the government center board room at the county government complex on Mounts Bay Road.

Comments

0 #2 witchyrichy 2010-11-21 10:46

As much as I miss the walk over Lake Powell, I think restoration is the wrong way to go. Since I've lived here, the dam has blown out twice; seems like nature is trying to tell us something. All the pros seem to have to do with aesthetics and housing prices, rather than environmental concerns. The Save Lake Powell website also seems to suffer from inconsistency, suggesting that the Marywood subvision added more stormwater which led to the dam blow out. Yet, the next page says that the lake provides a settling place for storm water, which is a good thing. You can't have it both ways. Mostly, it's the smell, right? Sorry that nature isn't as sweet smelling as you would like. As for water access, there are plenty of places to put my canoe in the water or wet my fishing line so creating more water access should be a pretty low priority. Finally, I disagree about the vista: I love seeing herons and egrets in the wetlands and turtles on the logs as I drive over Jamestown Road. It's a reminder that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I suspect the only real issue is the housing prices (and maybe the smell) and I am sorry for those who bought a home based on the lake view. Perhaps they have learned a valuable lesson about the unpredictabilit y of nature and man's inability to control it.

Quote

0 #1 Guest 2010-11-20 11:34

If our County does get involved, then, "bailing out" Lake Powell BECOMES a PUBLIC ingress and egress throughout that water area, right? And what about the responsibilitie s of the original private family owners/develope rs who were paid for those later invidual properies in good faith?

Quote

Refresh comments list

Add comment

WYDaily invites you to join the community conversation. We expect civil discourse here. Personal attacks on others, indecent language and bad manners in general are unwelcome.

JComments