~by Janice Harbaugh for GreeneCountyNewsOnline
At the regular meeting on Nov. 6, the Greene County board of supervisors heard an update on the controversial Kading Housing project from Scott Weber representing Greene County Development Corporation. Weber spoke about questions brought up by the public and the supervisors over recent weeks at various forums.
GCDC has been in support of the Kading project and has reportedly offered the company free land to build on in the northeast part of Jefferson. The Jefferson city council is the body having responsibility for building projects within the city limits. However, the supervisors do allocate county money to GCDC and, in open forum at previous county supervisor meetings, concerned residents have spoken against decisions made by GCDC and the Kading project.
Board chair John Muir asked about the total number of units planned for the housing project.
Weber told the board Kading planned to build 160 units in two phases. He said all units would be rentals.
When asked if there was a need for so many units, Weber cited various numbers of possible job openings as employment opportunities grow in Greene County as people come to live in the county to find work.
Supervisor Dan Benitz said, “The buildings will be close to Landus Cooperative (an industrial area.) Is that the best place? It could end up a ghetto back there.”
Weber responded, “There won’t be back porches for storage or things to pile up. There will be rules about vehicles sitting around. Pets and smoking will be allowed.”
“This is called workforce housing,” supervisor Dawn Rudolph said. “The Kading website says Kading accepts low-income applicants. There’s confusion about these terms.”
Weber answered that Kading does accept low-income applicants.
At another point in the discussion, Margaret Saddoris, local resident and owner of rental apartments, said, “Kading accepts Section 8 (low-income) applicants. They play on words, making it look like the housing is for the workforce only. They accept low-income applicants but don’t pursue them.”
Muir returned to the occupancy question, asking, “Can we fill that number of units? My confusion is in the numbers.”
“Employers can give numbers of employees needed, but not everyone wants to live where they work. Those (estimated job) numbers don’t always work,” Rudolph said.
“This bothers me,” Benitz said. “The city won’t support a tax-paying thing but will support this?”
The board discussed information about whether Kading, or the city, or GCDC would pay for various costs such as a retaining pond, streets, sewers, and at what point maintenance of the area would revert to the city.
“How much involvement does GCDC have beyond the gifting of the land?” Muir asked.
“None,” Weber answered.
“I’ve heard concerns from the public about fire, EMS, and law enforcement calls,” Rudolph said. “Stress on our budgets being excessively high on these types of properties.”
“Why are there more calls?” Muir asked.
Weber said the increased number of people simply results in more calls but “property managers will have property management training” that should help.
Benitz asked if offers of tax abatement were from the city or the city-county. Auditor Billie Jo Hoskins told him, “Just the city.”
“There will be very few bucks going back into the community from (Kading) buying building materials here,” Benitz said.
In response to the board asking about various incentives offered to Kading to build in Jefferson, Weber said incentives were normal and necessary because “there are a lot of losses in economic development.”
Rudolph said, “We want growth, but we want it the right way.”
“We don’t want people crowded together like a bunch of rats,” Benitz said. “There are houses in the city limits that could be condemned and rebuilt (to provide more housing.)”
Muir said, “We love where we live so don’t want to take a misstep. But doing nothing results in nothing.”
When asked whether development agreements have been signed, Weber told the board no agreements with Kading have been signed, though he said a memo of understanding had been signed.
In summary, Muir said the board of supervisors’ position in the matter was “just to support GCDC.”
In other business, supervisor Pete Bardole told the board the Bell Tower Community Foundation has signed a 28E agreement with Greene County for the operation and management of the Bell Tower.
In financial actions, the board unanimously approved a resolution to transfer $69,342.50 from the tax increment financing special revenue fund to debt service fund in order to pay interest due on Dec. 1 to urban renewal capital loan notes.
The board also conducted a public hearing to amend the county’s FY24 budget and appropriate funds to cover normal adjustment of expenditures. There were no objections received from the public. The board unanimously approved a resolution amending the budget.
The board unanimously approved the sheriff’s quarterly report of fees for July, August, and September and approved a copier lease agreement with Great America Financial Services for office equipment for the IT/drainage and the ambulance departments.
IT/drainage clerk Michelle Fields told the board she has received inquiries from National Grid Renewables about the location of district tiles on the proposed development site near Grand Junction.
Muir said the board would like a written agreement between NGR and the county requiring NGR return any disturbed tiles back to their original position and state after NGR’s exploration.
Supervisor Bardole suggested local contractors be used by NGR.
