Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge accountability for county JDA, warn of proposed asphalt plant and development impacts
Summary
Multiple residents at the Camden County 2027 budget hearing urged greater transparency and accountability from the county Joint Development Authority (JDA), raised concerns about a proposed asphalt plant near Route 17 and said county development and tax abatements risk shifting costs to local taxpayers.
Several residents used the public comment period at Camden County's 2027 budget hearing to press for greater oversight of the county's Joint Development Authority and to raise concerns about local development proposals and tax impacts.
Steve Gross, a resident and frequent commenter, said the JDA is operating without adequate transparency and said he had reviewed JDA meeting discussions that suggested the authority was facilitating a "modern asphalt plant" near Route 17. "They're going to want to run... you could be talking in an 8‑hour day 500 trucks," Gross said, arguing truck traffic, dust and odors would harm nearby communities and that the tax gain would not offset infrastructure and quality‑of‑life costs. He also said, "my understanding is over the next 3 years they've been promised $3 million a year from the county," a claim he urged the board to review.
John Wojcik of Clarks Bluff Road said he shares those concerns and called for more accountability and clarity about the MOU that would add $500,000 to the JDA's funding request. "We need a little bit more accountability from these people," Wojcik said, adding that taxpayers need to see what the JDA has produced in return for county funding.
Rick Maner of Bullhead likewise criticized what he described as wasteful spending and said property assessments and taxes felt unfair to long‑term residents, stating his mobile home's assessed value rose by 54% in one year. Other residents suggested starting a citizen process to dissolve or limit the county JDA, and several asked for documentation such as the JDA MOU and information on tax abatements tied to development projects like plans discussed for St. Mary's and Kingsland.
Speakers also flagged the Gilman property cleanup as an obstacle to development and questioned whether remediation funds (for example, Superfund or other sources) are being pursued; one commenter said developers will not buy contaminated property until cleanup costs are addressed.
The board did not provide a detailed response during the public comment period; the hearing proceeded to adjournment after closing remarks.
Ending: Residents pressed the board for records and next steps on JDA oversight; the public hearing closed and the board will next consider the proposed budget at the scheduled special meeting.
