Bill to acquire Oak Hill for state park reported out of Senate Finance Committee after testimony on $52M funding package
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Senate Bill 157, presented as the O'Kell bill, would allow the Department of Conservation and Recreation to acquire roughly 1,200 acres known as Oak Hill in Loudoun County for a new state park; supporters told the committee about roughly $52 million in combined public and private commitments and a feasibility study the patron said shows no long‑term general‑fund cost.
Senate Bill 157, carried by the patron described in committee as the O'Kell bill, would authorize the Department of Conservation and Recreation to acquire approximately 1,200 acres known as Oak Hill in Loudoun County and establish a new state park that sponsors characterized as preserving a founding‑era presidential home.
Sen. O'Kell told the Senate Finance Committee the property is "the presidential home of America's fifth president, James Monroe," and framed the acquisition as an opportunity to protect a nationally significant historic landscape while expanding outdoor recreation. He said supporters have assembled a funding package of about $52 million to cover acquisition costs, citing contributions including Loudoun County ($22 million), the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation ($2 million), the Land and Water Conservation Fund ($6 million), the State Parks Acquisition and Development Fund ($10 million) and roughly $13.5 million from private philanthropy.
Support for the bill came from a range of local and statewide organizations. Jeremy Bennett of the Virginia Association of Counties said the measure has been a VACO priority for five years; representatives from the Virginia Municipal League, Arlington Public Schools, and multiple local school divisions and planning districts voiced support in committee.
A feasibility study referenced in testimony was described by the patron as projecting the park could operate without an ongoing general‑fund expense. Surveying return assumptions, sponsors said an 8% return on set‑aside funds could produce annual distributions in the low‑millions that would help cover operating costs.
The committee voted to report the substitute for SB 157. Electronic voting was opened and recorded in committee; the transcript records the committee voice/electronic vote as "Eyes 15, no 0." The bill will proceed to further Senate consideration with the committee substitute and any subsequent fiscal committee notes attached.
The next steps for the proposal include any required land‑transaction approvals, finalization of acquisition details between the Commonwealth and sellers, and any fiscal or operational analyses requested by the Senate before final floor action.