Should Tourism Taxes Fund Albemarle’s Conservation Easements?

By. Neil Williamson, President

In Wednesday’s (11/4) Albemarle County Board of Supervisors meeting, there was an exchange between supervisors regarding the potential funding of The Hatton Ferry Project in Scottsville.  After going back and forth one supervisor suggested the funds requested for the Hatton Ferry come out of the Acquisition of Conservation Easement (ACE) Program. 

It is a little known fact that since its inception the ACE program receives in hundreds of thousands of dollars annually from the Transient Occupancy (hotel) tax.  

That’s right, every time a traveler chooses to rest their head on a hotel/motel/campground  pillow in Albemarle County a portion of their transit occupancy tax goes to fund county government purchasing development rights.

The occupancy tax was developed by the General Assembly for promotion of tourism and is limited by Virginia State Code regarding the use of these funds:

§ 58.1-3819. Transient occupancy tax.

A. Any county, by duly adopted ordinance, may levy a transient occupancy tax on hotels, motels, boarding houses, travel campgrounds, and other facilities offering guest rooms rented out for continuous occupancy for fewer than 30 consecutive days. Such tax shall be in such amount and on such terms as the governing body may, by ordinance, prescribe. Such tax shall not exceed two percent of the amount of charge for the occupancy of any room or space occupied; however . . .  Albemarle County, Nelson County, Mecklenburg County, Gloucester County, Spotsylvania County, Stafford County, Loudoun County, Bedford County, Cumberland County, Floyd County, King George County, Wise County, Botetourt County, Prince Edward County, Rockbridge County, Caroline County, Dinwiddie County, Page County, Wythe County, James City County, Franklin County, Tazewell County, Augusta County, Prince William County, Craig County, Prince George County, Patrick County, Pulaski County, Halifax County, Montgomery County, Carroll County, Northampton County, Amherst County, Giles County, Smyth County, and Greene County may levy a transient occupancy tax not to exceed five percent, and any excess over two percent shall be designated and spent solely for tourism and travel, marketing of tourism or initiatives that, as determined after consultation with the local tourism industry organizations, including representatives of lodging properties located in the county, attract travelers to the locality, increase occupancy at lodging properties, and generate tourism revenues in the locality. (emphasis added – nw)

The justification for this spending has been that tourists come to Albemarle County to see the wide vistas and open space.  Further,  parcels that have utilized occupancy tax dollars have been “highly desireable”  tourist oriented parcels.

The Free Enterprise Forum sees this legal nexus as tenuous at best.  It could be argued tourist come to Albemarle County because of its rich history, safe streets or the connection to Monticello none of these items are funded from the transit occupancy tax. 

The Free Enterprise Forum believes tourism is one of the cleanest and efficient forms of economic development in Albemarle County.  The Virginia Tourism Corporation commissioned a study in 2009 that found on the state level:

Every $1 Virginia invests in tourism marketing generates $5 in tax revenue for the Commonwealth. That’s a 5:1 return on investment.

What has been the calculated rate of return on investment of the transient occupancy tax dollars siphoned off for the ACE program?

Why shouldn’t this targeted tax collection be spent generating new business for our local tourism industry who collected the tax in the first place?

If Albemarle County is truly committed to tourism, it should reexamine the funding of ACE from the transient occupancy tax.

Fluvanna’s Election Portends New Direction

By William J. Des Rochers, Fluvanna Field Officer

If the newly elected candidates are to be believed, and there is no reason not to, county government is in for some big changes. The Board of Supervisors will, come January 6^th, swing from a 4-2 margin that supported the liberal Chairman Marvin Moss on virtually all key issues, to a 4-2 against that philosophy.

Chairman Moss lost his bid for reelection to a second full term to newcomer Shawn Kenney, a conservative. The Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) Political Action Committee  provided Mr. Kenney with a campaign contribution. Kenney will join newcomer Joe Chesser who ran unopposed. Incumbent supervisor Don Weaver rolled over his opponent, Keith Smith, whose company owed substantial back taxes to the county. Mr. Smith also received a campaign contribution from CAAR.

Throughout the campaign, the issues focused on accountability, transparency, communication, and fiscal responsibility. Controversies over the new high school — and the debt it incurred – coupled with the controversy over the James River Water Authority (JRWA) were too much for Moss to overcome. He lost by just 53 votes (out of 981) but sources have suggested that a sizeable amount of his base sat out the race. Voting in the Columbia supervisor race declined by over 13 percent from his last election, while the vote for governor dropped by just seven percent.

The School Board also had a large turnover with three new members, two of which defeated incumbents. The issues primarily were the same as in the supervisor races with little campaigning regarding the quality of education offered to Fluvanna children.

The first meeting of the lame duck Board of Supervisors occurred on November 4^th, with only one passing reference to the electoral upheaval. Supervisors agreed to fund the JRWA an additional $20,000 in operating costs and also were briefed on an upcoming Comprehensive Plan amendment: a new chapter on fiscal responsibility.

Supervisors also were told that they would receive a briefing on refinancing the school bond debt at their next meeting. The staff has been monitoring interest rates with a view toward refinancing almost since the bonds were issued at a blended rate of just under six percent.

Greene County BOS Approves Revisions to the Sign Ordinance

By. Kara Reese Pennella, Greene County Field Officer

• Motion to award a contract for snow removal to Countryside Landscaping – Approved

• OR #09-004 Revisions to Greene County Zoning Ordinance Article 14 – Sign Regulations – Approved

• 
  

  OR #09-005 Revisions to Greene County Zoning Ordinance Article 21A – Wind Turbines – Deferred

   

The Greene County Board of Supervisors held its continued October meeting on October 27, 2009. Items discussed at the meeting included revisions to the Greene County Zoning Ordinance and several grant opportunities for the county.

First, the Board reviewed changes to the county’s sign ordinance. Most of the proposed changes to the ordinance were intended to clarify revisions made to the ordinance in March of 2008. Additionally, electronic message boards would be prohibited in the proposed version of the ordinance. The signs which were already approved would remain in place; however, new applications for the electronic signs would no longer be permitted. The ordinance also clarified that advertising vehicles are not permitted in the county.

Several citizens and business owners addressed the Board regarding numerous portions of the ordinance that might be confusing or unclear. Business owners were concerned that the prohibition on advertising vehicles might start the county down a slippery slope where business owners would no longer be able to park their company vehicles out from if they have business logos on them. Issues were also raised over whether language regarding the signs at entrances to subdivisions should be clarified.

Business owners also took the opportunity to discuss some of the unintended consequences of the March 2008 revisions to the sign ordinance. Many business owners who supported the revisions believed their signs and most of the existing signs in the county had a permit; however, it turned out that many did not have permits on file. Many owners were unaware that they did not have sign permits. Now small businesses are finding it difficult to come into compliance. Several concerns were also raised that county buildings may not be complying with the new ordinance and that this creates a double standard. Finally, questions were raised about businesses that had similar signs but might not have been notified of a violation.

J. Allen reiterated her position on the sign ordinance noting that so many business owners have already spent money complying with the ordinance that it would be unfair to make exceptions now. B. Peyton also noted that he was not in favor of adding a grandfathering provision at this stage but requested that staff investigate the specific questions regarding some possible nonconforming signs that had not been cited for violations.

The Board discussed some of the issues raised by the public regarding confusing language in the ordinance but ultimately decided to adopt the revisions as advertised. J. Allen moved to approve the ordinance revisions as advertised. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.

The Board also considered an ordinance revision that would allow the use of small wind turbines to generate power for personal use. Currently, there is no provision in the zoning ordinance to allow them. The proposed ordinance was created in response to increased public inquiries. Under the proposed ordinance, large scale commercial production would not be allowed. Wind energy systems that produced between 10 kW and 50 kW would be permitted by special use permit and would have accompanying set back requirements. Small roof mounted systems would be permitted by right.

The Board discussed the provisions extensively. J. Allen noted that the idea of these systems going up in Greene County “just creeps me out.” S. Catalano agreed that it represented change that was hard to wrap your arms around. The county attorney noted that similar aesthetic objections were once made about telephone poles and electrical wires. S. Catalano expressed concern that one of these turbines might go up in the low flight area preapproved for Pegasus and asked that staff see if anything could be done to alleviate any problems that might cause.

The Board also asked for clarification regarding colors, lighting and how many units could be installed per parcel. The Board deferred the application in order to allow staff to answer some of its concerns.

The Board also discussed some potential grant opportunities with staff. The schools sought permission to apply for a grant that would help address problems with the school’s roof and windows. The grant is aimed at increasing energy efficiency in schools. It would help cover costs of repairs that need to be made soon. No local match is required if the grant funds are received. The Board encouraged the schools to move forward with the grant application.

Staff also requested permission to pursue grants with from the Department of Forestry to make improvements to the County Park. The grant would require a 50/50 match but the match can be made in kind or with other grant money the county has available. The Board gave staff permission to move forward with these applications as well.

Albemarle Fee for All – 1,023% Fee Increase Proposed

 By. Neil Williamson, President

Albemarle County’s fee hungry Planning Commission is at it again.  Increased zoning fees will come up for public hearing at the Planning Commission on November 10th.  In one example, the fee proposal will change the cost of a  “Class B” Home Occupation Permit from $440.00 to $4,500.00 (1,023%).

What is a “Class B Home Occupancy”?  A home based business.  According to Albemarle County Code:

Home Occupation, Class B: An occupation conducted in a dwelling unit, with or without the use of one or more accessory structures, for profit, in connection with which there are employed not more than two (2) persons other than members of the family residing on the premises, which persons may be in addition to such family members.

So at a time when many formerly unemployed Albemarle citizens have created new start up businesses to replace their former employment, the county will mandate a $4,500.00 payment to review their application for a permit (there is not a guarantee of approval).  Do you think this will impact the number of start ups?  The Free Enterprise Forum believes this would have a significant negative impact AND is directly in conflict with Albemarle County’s intent to have citizens live, work and play in a smaller geographic footprint.

Activist Planning Commission

This proposal did not come out of nowhere.  Staff has been working on revising the fee structures for some time.  The staff provided an update to the Board of Supervisors on August 5th.  The Board of Supervisors provided direction to staff to move forward with the fees presented in their staff report.

The Albemarle County Planning Commission in its October 6th meeting decided (in a 4-3 vote Franco, Joseph, Morris opposed) to ignore both the Board direction and staff’s recommendation and to advertise fees far higher those endorsed by the Board of Supervisors.  This action preserved the Planning Commission’s legal ability to consider higher fees than the staff recommendation. [State law mandates fees enacted can not be higher than those advertised for Public Hearing.]

This is not the first time the Planning Commission has decided their advisory role to the Board does not mean they must follow Board direction.  As documented in our October 2008 post, the PC increased the subdivision fee proposal despite BOS concerns.  

Impact on Economic Development

Localities across the nation are dropping fees and streamlining the development approval process to incentivize development activity.  Never one to follow the crowd, Albemarle County is talking about economic development at one meeting and enacting six fold increases on an administrative review of a final site plan in another.

The Free Enterprise Forum believes these fee increases, and the other fee increases already approved will negatively impact the cost of housing stock (and commercial property) in Albemarle County.  A close friend often reminds me “No business ever pays taxes, the consumer does”.  In the world of economic development, such high fees will provide significant reasons for businesses not to locate or expand in Albemarle.

A close examination of the chart below indicates the significance of the proposed increases the Planning Commission has advertised this time around.

Selected Proposed Zoning Fee Increases
Albemarle
	Current	Proposed	%
	Fee	Fee	Increase
Zoning Text Amendment	$ 840	$ 10,500	1250%
Zoning Map Amendments
Planned Development < 50 acres	$ 1,200	$ 13,500	1125%
Planned Development > 50 acres	$ 1,570	$ 27,000	1720%
All other amendments < 50 acres	$ 1,020	$ 13,500	1324%
All other amendments > 50 acres	$ 1,570	$ 27,000	1720%
Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant request	$ 35	$ 180	514%
Special Use Permits
Rural Area Division	$ 1,240	$ 3,000	242%
Home Occupation- Class A	$ 13	$ 25	192%
Home Occupation- Class B	$ 440	$ 4,500	1023%
Each additional resubmittal after 1st resubmittal	n/a	$ 2,250	n/a
Site Plans
Final Site Plan – Administrative Review	$ 410	$ 2,625	640%
Final Site Plan Planning Commission Review	$ 1,130	$ 4,500	398%
Matters considered by Board of Zoning Appeals
Variances	$ 120	$ 1,275	1063%
Appeals	$ 120	$ 240	200%
Matters considered by Architectural Review Board
Site Plan	n/a	$ 2,600	n/a
Building Permit per ARB review	n/a	$ 590	n/a
Matters Considered by Zoning Administrator or others
Official determination regarding compliance	$ 75	$ 185	247%
Official determination regarding development rights	$ 40	$ 750	1875%
All other official determinations	$ 75	$ 1,400	1867%

The Free Enterprise Forum encourages you to make your voice heard regarding this proposal.  Albemarle County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on this issue on November 10th.  I anticipate a number of concerned citizens may speak at the hearing or share their thoughts via e-mail  PlanningCommission@albemarle.org.

VDOT Weighs in on Greene County’s Proposed Future Land Use Map

By. Kara Pennella, Greene County Field Officer

             The Greene County Planning Commission recently held a lengthy worksession on its revised Comprehensive Plan. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Engineer Chuck Proctor was there to provide input on transportation in the proposed growth area. The Planning Commission revisited three specific areas of the county that the Board of Supervisors highlighted during their joint meeting earlier this month.

             The Planning Commission first discussed the area southwest of Route 33 between Routes 633 and 743. This property was added by amendment to the 2003 Growth Area and has been removed from the proposed Growth Area for the new Comprehensive Plan. The land on the opposite side of Route 33 remains in the Growth Area. 

            C. Proctor expressed concern over the number of access points on Route 33. He noted that since there are already full access points at 633 and 743 it would be difficult to put in another full access entrance to the property under the new regulations. A parallel road would be required between Route 633 and 743. Because this area has not been studied previously VDOT was unsure exactly where the road would go and what impact it might have on traffic on Route 33. Commenting on the property itself, C. Proctor noted “It’s a nice piece of property. I hate to see it developed.” He pointed out that this was the only large scale pastoral view from Route 33 in between Stanardsville and Ruckersville. He also expressed concern that including the land in the growth area at this time would detract from density in the rest of the growth area. However, he did note that the potential for a parallel road could have some positive aspects.  [Editor's note - Is this comment  "I'd hate to see this developed" appropriate for the role of the VDOT Engineer? - nw]

             The second issue the Planning Commission asked for VDOT’s feedback on was expanding the growth area north up Route 29 to include the Highland’s Golf Park and some other lots already zoned B-3 and M-1.

             VDOT had concerns over including this area because the only access for these lots is Route 29. C. Proctor noted that there is no way to put a parallel road on the west side of 29. This would create a situation similar to Route 29 south of the Route 33 intersection.

             The third area the Planning Commission addressed is located east of Ruckersville from Route 616 stretching north to Route 33. Part of the land in this area has been zoned Senior Residential. There is also a section of land between the proposed growth area and the Senior Residential lots that was discussed. Concerns have been raised at both the Planning Commission level and the Board level that exclusion of the Senior Residential lots will make it more difficult to get access to water and sewer and move forward with the projects.

            Several new roads were recommended in this area as part of the Multimodal Corridor Study. If those roads were built there would be sufficient access for this area. Since this area was included in the Corridor Study, VDOT did not have much input on including this land in the Growth Area.

            The Planning Commission discussed all of these areas and comments at length. No consensus was reached. Since two Commissioners were not at the meeting, the Commission agreed to revisit this subject.

             The next portion of the meeting focused on the Chapters in the Comprehensive Plan. Each of the Commissioners present provided some brief comments and edits on the Chapters. The Chapters are available on the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Website. The public may also submit comments on the site.

             Finally, the Planning Commission began to tackle preferred density and zoning designations for area located within the growth area. A rough sketch of the area discussed will be presented for further revision at the next workshop.

             The Planning Commission will continue to discuss the Comprehensive Plan at their next regular meeting.

The Places29 Boondoggle – Lessons Learned

A FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL

By. Neil Williamson

On Tuesday, October 27th, at 6:00 pm in Lane Auditorium of the Albemarle County Office Building The Albemarle County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the Master Plan for the Northern portion of The US 29 corridor.  The plan, now known as Places29, has gone through an exhaustive consultant driven process that wore out all but the most strident of citizen participants.   

We have been involved in this process since the beginning, some of the changes we suggested eventually did make it into the final draft.  It is with some disappointment that we can not support the Places29 plan.  

Here are some of the lessons we have learned in the building of this boondoggle. 

Land Use should inform Transportation Planning Decisions

Places29 started with the concept that land use planning and transportation planning should be conducted by localities in concert.  The Free Enterprise Forum disagrees.  While land use policy should be locally driven, transportation policy impacts far beyond the borders of any locality.  Local land use policy should inform the  regionally agreed upon transportation planning to suit the needs of the entire corridor not just the three miles on either side of it to the county line.

Community Master Plan Steering Committees Should Include A Cross Section of The Community Impacted 

Once the Albemarle County Planning Commission decided that it as a body would be the

credit: Charlottesville Tomorrow

steering committee for Places29, it inadvertently left out the community participation and engagement.  While the PC has attempted to reach into the community, having a community “insider” on the steering committee has been critical to the success of the Pantops Master Plan and the Crozet Master Plan.

In addition, by mandating the PC be the steering committee resulted in less flexibility in meeting times and locations as well as less input from the very citizens this will impact the greatest.

Consultants Should Be Contracted to Appear for Public Hearings

If Albemarle County believes it needs to engage consultant design companies to complete the master planning work, they should develop contracts that mandate the consultant be available for public questions as the work finally gets to the citizens.  Too many questions have been answered that the consultant is no longer under contract so we may not be able to get the answer.  This is unacceptable.

Realistic Project Timelines should be included as part of the plan.

Places29 is the Kitchen Sink method of planning.  I will ask the Planning Commissioners on Tuesday night if any one of them honestly believes they will see even a majority of the projects in the plan accomplished (or started) within the mandated 20 year planning window.  If they can’t be built within the window – they should be dropped from the plan.

Project Dollars not Current Dollars should be used for Master Plans

The Free Enterprise Forum has agreed to disagree with the Planning Commission on this point.  We agree with VDOT’s methodology for calculating project costs, use National Highway Administration materials escalator and an inflation factor to determine the cost in the year it is projected to be completed.  If it is a series of years use the mid point.  The Albemarle County Planning Commission prefers to use current dollars indicating these are the most accurate numbers available.  I regret calling this the “Ostrich” method of calculating costs.

Have Study Partners Agree/Coordinate Your Conclusions

The Virginia Department of Transportation is a $400,000 partner in this $1.6 Million Dollar Study.  One would think when their consultant report came out regarding the Places 29 Corridor it would mirror the Places29 recommendations.  It does not in both additional information, the Kroger Flyover, Easter Bypass (since scuttled) and Leonard Sandridge Extended (since scuttled), and in errors of omission, Berkmar Drive Extended.  I must humbly note I predicted such Consultant Conflict in both my June 24th and September 10th Blog post.

Answer Specific Feasibility Questions Specifically

In March of last year the Free Enterprise Forum issued a report that questioned the viability of constructing the Rio Interchange.  Rather than answering the question directly, the commission heard that such roads are built every year and this would be no different.  

Expect Debate over New Tax Power

If as a part of the new transportation land use planning dynamic localities plan to discuss funding options for the half billion dollar price tag, they should expect debate of such a SuperTax.

In short, the Places29 Master Planning Process has gone off the tracks. 

• It does not enjoy widespread citizen support or understanding
• Large segments may never be built
• It can’t be completed in the twenty year planning window
• There are no funds available to implement the plan
• There is much community distrust of the plan

For these reasons, and others you can find on the blog, we belive the Planning Commission should reconsider Places29 along the lines of What David Benish called The Big Five.  We believe the community could wrap its collective head around five ideas that might actually get constructed in our lifetimes rather than an extensive utopian new urbanism vision that will likely not be built out in the next generation.

Approving Places29 in its current form is a false promise to residents of a future that can’t be funded or built.  Some might call this action “perpetuating public fraud”, I prefer “Boondoggle”.

 

Fluvanna Again Delays Water Authority Vote

By William J. Des Rochers, Fluvanna Field Officer

At its October 21^st meeting, Fluvanna’s Board of Supervisors again postponed a decision on accepting a draft agreement between Louisa and Fluvanna counties and the James River Water Authority.   Reportedly, a state agency has additional questions regarding the agreement and is seeking clarification on several points.  As a result, the process has been delayed for the second time this month.

As a result of the delays, the project might now require interim financing since the window for state issued financing has closed for 2009.  Additionally, it was announced that the Virginia Supreme Court has accepted an appeal filed by a Fluvanna citizen against establishing the joint water authority. 

The authority has been mired in controversy in Fluvanna since it was established over the objections of citizens who wanted a referendum on the subject. 

Although the meeting lasted less than one hour, the Board managed to make two other key decisions:  one regarding the Zoning Ordinance and one with respect to delinquent taxes. 

The Board amended the uses permitted and defined in the Zoning Ordinance to clarify ambiguities and establish greater uniformity.  According to the staff there were uses permitted in the ordinance that were not defined and definitions of uses that were not permitted.  The 96 pages of changes, after one deletion, passed unanimously.

The Board also retained Mr. Anthony Paone, of the Innsbruck Law Group, to “perform the services of a Delinquent [Collection] tax attorney.  The county currently has over $1.9 million in outstanding delinquent payments [including penalties and interest].  According to one source, the Treasurer was less than enthusiastic about the decision to procure outside counsel.

Separately, the Free Enterprise Forum joined with the Fluvanna Chamber of Commerce to hold a Candidate Forum on October 22^nd.  Supervisor Moss and challengers Shaun Kenney and Keith Smith responded to questions before about 20 citizens, many of whom are influential in the community.

While the candidates took many of the positions articulated previously in the campaign, one new development was their united opposition to a Business and Professional Occupation License, or BPOL tax.  The tax currently has little support on the present Board of Supervisors so it is unlikely to pass anytime in the near future.

US 29 as an Urban Boulevard or Expressway?

By Neil Williamson, President

The Albemarle County Planning Commission will be holding a public hearding on the Draft Places29 master plan on Tuesday (10/27) at 6:00 pm in the County Office Building.  In preparing for this hearing, I am concerned if the graphics presented match the plans being discussed or even agree internally. 

Take a look at these first two images:

What speed would be appropriate for this road?

Note the large pedestrian crosswalk wide sidewalks and sidewalk cafe’ aka “Urban Frontage”.

If the speed limit was 45 miles an hour, would the East side of this urban boulevard feel connected to the West side? Or, would the urban boulevard cut the community in half?

Places 29 is not occuring in a vacuum.  The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)  released their vision for US 29/Hydraulic/250.  While concepts for an eastern bypass and a connection road called Leonard Sandridge Extended have been scuttled from the plan due to strong opposition, the vision for the 29/H/250 interchange remains.  Compare their graphic to the ones above:

What speed could be achieved with the so called “Kroger Flyover”?

Does this help or harm the concept of an urban boulevard?

A footnote in the VDOT presentation regarding the US 29 corridor indicates VDOT will (in the long term) be seeking grade separated interchanges for all intersections from 250 north past Ruckersville.

The planning for the elimination of direct access to 29 is in the works.  VDOT has desired this for some time but local officials have held firm that such access decisions are their purview where VDOT should be safety focused.

In the Places29 plan new “Jug handles” are envisioned to permit access and speed travel times.  In the map below, you can see left turn movements will not be permitted from Rio Road. 

It seems as though Places29 is speaking from both sides of its mouth.  By reducing the traffic movements avaiable, the flow of traffic will increase; an urban frontage condition is enhanced by slower speed traffic.

So which is it? 

Are we trying to speed traffic through Albemarle using restrictive local transportation design?

Or are we attempting to slow it down with land use?

Or do we really think we can have it both ways?

Albemarle’s Stragedy Retreat

By. Neil Williamson, President

The first two hours of last week’s (10/16) Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Strategic Retreat featured multiple reports indicating a significant drop in local, state and federal revenue over the last several quarters.  The five year economic forecast was equally dismal.  It was under this backdrop the County Supervisors brainstormed strategic concepts to positively impact their budget.

After the discussion, each Supervisor was given a number of green dots to rank their priorities on the list of strategic issues the retreat had identified.

photo credit: Charlottesville Tomorrow

The strategy receiving the most votes on this page was “Promote Economy, work with the Business Community”.  If I was new to the community, I would have to ask how this qualified as a new strategic priority. 

Doesn’t Albemarle County always work with the business community? 

Perhaps an example will illuminate the issue. 

Earlier in the meeting Supervisor Ken Boyd raised an example from out at the airport.  According to Boyd, there is a very expensive aircraft that wishes to be housed at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport (CHO).  A private entity is prepared to use private money to build a hanger to house the aircraft (and others perhaps) in a location and manner that is consistent with the Airport Authority Master Plan.  Parties to this proposal met with Boyd some time ago to brief him on the issue.

It is important to note, aircraft pay taxes at the airport where they are permanently housed.  Any additional aircraft permanently housed at CHO it would represent an increase in personal property taxes paid.

So as a win-win-win issue where is this proposal today, Supervisor Ann Mallek reported to the Board that the application is now in process. 

Lifting a concept from Ronald Reagan:  “In Process” is not a solution – “The Process” is the problem.

Albemarle County has long considered itself to be so desirable, that anyone wanting to open an enterprise here must be willing to do it the Albemarle way.  If they don’t want to play ball, we don’t need them.  This attitude manifests itself in laborious architectural review boards, a multiplicity of workshops and public hearings at the planning commission as well as a staff that is guided by starting with “No” as an answer.

The Free Enterprise Forum has written extensively about The Cost of Complexity and the many altruistic goals that lead to an application now requiring over 100 eyes to review prior to approval.  Often the cost of an Albemarle application review is higher than the cost to draw up the plans.

With the dark economic clouds above (and on the horizon), Albemarle County is starting to feel the ramifications of what they have wrought.  Significant retail sales tax revenue is bleeding out of Albemarle and Charlottesville as more and more shoppers are finding what they need, often at lower prices, just over the county line.

Some have suggested this retail flight is a good thing as Albemarle wants to save their limited land resources for higher paying jobs.  The reality is in economic development, the localities surrounding Albemarle all have the same slogan “We’re not Albemarle”. 

Beyond the competitive nature of relocating businesses, Albemarle has significant issues with both business retention and encouraging start up companies.

Without a strong business tax base, a larger share of the tax burden will fall to property owners.  Perhaps this dot exercise indicates Albemarle’s willingness to “work w/ business”  because too many times to count it has seemed like Albemarle County Government has been working against business.      

Albemarle County has spent the last fifteen to twenty years building an anti-business reputation, it will take much more than four green dots on a poster to change it.  But you have to start somewhere.

Greene County BOS Holds Joint Session with PC to Discuss the Comprehensive Plan

By. Kara Pennella, Greene County Field Officer

             The Greene County Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission met in a joint session on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 to review the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Bill Wanner of Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission presented a summary of the plan to both the Board and the Commission. J. Frydl, Chairman of the Planning Commission also provided an overview of the process that the Commission used to come up with the proposed smaller growth area.

             J. Frydl outlined the factors that went into creating the new growth area. First, the Commission looked at the preferred scenario created in the Multimodal Corridor Study (101 page PDF) Workshops and the water/sewer service area boundaries. They then tried to establish hard boundaries that followed property lines or other natural boundaries. Some properties were removed from the growth area because the Commission felt that the appropriate density had already been reached.  

           J. Frydl noted that there has already been some feedback from the public.  There have been some concerns from the public over removing property zoned Senior Residential because it might cause some issues moving forward with those projects. There have also been lots of comments about property on the southwest side of Route 33 and the PC is working to determine what, if any, of the property should be included in the growth area.

             The Board of Supervisors also provided comments on the draft plan. C. Schmitt had some questions regarding areas where the water and sewer boundaries did not match the proposed growth area. He noted the water and sewer service area was in the process of being reduced. C. Schmitt also expressed concern over making Stanardsville an Urban Development Area. He felt UDA’s required such a high density that Stanardsville might loose the village feel that residents sought.  J. Allen was generally happy with the plan but felt that there were a few properties that were taken out of the growth area that should be put back in. B. Peyton noted he would like to see property on the southwest side of 33 put back in the growth area. S. Catalano listed several areas that he would like the PC to revisit for possible inclusion in the growth area including the southwest side of Route 33 and some lots which have already been rezoned B-3.

             The Board and Commission briefly discussed the timeline for completion of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff indicated that the Board would likely not hold public hearings and vote on the plan until after the beginning of the New Year due to the reduced number of meetings for the holidays.